quote Originally posted by User00013170: Rights and freedoms apply only to honest law abiding citizens. i see no conflict.

How many citizens have not broken the law? Speeding tickets? Ever made money you didn't report on your taxes?

Jonathan

quote Originally posted by Boostdreamer: How many citizens have not broken the law? Speeding tickets? Ever made money you didn't report on your taxes? Jonathan

I did state earlier that i was talking about crimes against fellow humans as cause for losing rights. Other crimes should be dealt with via fines and restitution. ( however, if you KEEP committing even those then rights need to start vanishing too.. )

quote Originally posted by User00013170: I will argue that the system is not flawed, its how its being abused that is the problem.

But there is not a way to stop the abuse. That is the flaw.

Brad

quote Originally posted by Fats: But there is not a way to stop the abuse. That is the flaw. Brad

Vote the right people in.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Vote the right people in.

You can't vote in the "right' people from the wrong society.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Vote the right people in.

It's a lot easier said than done. The "right people" don't usually make enough money to run for office. I view it like a see saw. As long as everyone's playing "fair" the opposite sides can each do things, (go up and down), but once one side gains too much weight it upsets the balance, and there is no more "teamwork". The smaller weight cannot get the larger weight to move without something changing. Either the balance point needs to be moved, the small person needs to put on weight, or the heavier party needs to be removed (and something else put in it's place.)

So at some point in the past the "rules" were changed so that it takes a rich person to obtain office, not a smart person, or a fair person.

Brad

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Rights and freedoms apply only to honest law abiding citizens. i see no conflict.

funny, criminals still have their civil rights and can sue when violated in prison.....simply put, this statement is untrue.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: I will argue that the system is not flawed, its how its being abused that is the problem.

The system is about as flawed as it can be and tilts the scales to the rich and powerful of this country. You got enough money you can get away with just about anything here in America. Plea bargaining is the norm for our court system because they are so overcrowded with non violent criminals who got caught smoking or dealing pot that many get off with a slap on the wrist and a walk for violent crimes. plea bargain down to a misdemeanor and let go with probation.

Nurb I think your idea of justice has no heart, no sole, no room for many of the things a judge has to take into consideration when sentencing. but hey that's you and I am me, I am more forgiving than you, maybe because I have been there in many cases.

Steve

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: funny, criminals still have their civil rights and can sue when violated in prison.....simply put, this statement is untrue.

That was my personal opinion.

I think if a felon had to go thru a class, pay a fee, buy an approved model, and be on a list, they would be less likely to use that weapon in a crime. There is much less to lose by ditching a stolen gun.

Jonathan

quote Originally posted by Boostdreamer: I think if a felon had to go thru a class, pay a fee, buy an approved model, and be on a list, they would be less likely to use that weapon in a crime. There is much less to lose by ditching a stolen gun. Jonathan

If i was a repeat felon, no class or list would make a bit of difference on my profession. I might purchase a 'felon approved' gun for my home defense as i would be calling the cops afterward, but if i'm going out to commit more crimes, then ill get my weapon on the street corner ( be it a gun or a baseball bat ), or make them myself. Still doesn't solve the root problem, the criminal.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 12-08-2013).]

You just helped make my point. 911 will know they are dispatching to a residence with a felon on the gun list. They will alert the cops and tell the felon to display the gun in a window or something.

Also that they would be using stolen guns for crimes.

Jonathan

quote Originally posted by Boostdreamer: You just helped make my point. 911 will know they are dispatching to a residence with a felon on the gun list. They will alert the cops and tell the felon to display the gun in a window or something. Also that they would be using stolen guns for crimes. Jonathan

This doesn't deter crime at all, which is my point. Any new "rule" must have a positive effect on crime or it should not exist. And as i have said earlier, i still feel once you are a felon ( to the level of losing your rights, since we have some disagreement of what that level is ) they are gone. You don't get them back.

The next step would be for this registry to include all gun owners. Treat everyone as a felon.

( Oh and 99.9% of criminals already use stolen weapons for crimes.. so no change there in your plan either )

I can see the gun list growing at some point to include all registered guns. I don't like that but since such a list will always be wanted by anti-gun nuts, at least make them implement it in stages!

I don't know how accurate your 99.9 statistic is but again, it proves my point. A gun obtained thru the program would be less likely to be used in a crime.

Jonathan

quote Originally posted by Boostdreamer: I can see the gun list growing at some point to include all registered guns. I don't like that but since such a list will always be wanted by anti-gun nuts, at least make them implement it in stages! I don't know how accurate your 99.9 statistic is but again, it proves my point. A gun obtained thru the program would be less likely to be used in a crime. Jonathan

I agree with registration being on the path.. and what it means as part of the 'plan'.

However, personally I *don't* want ex-felons having weapons of any kind. They have already clearly demonstrated they can't follow the rules of a civilized society. Not being an ass, but why do you want to legally arm criminals? I really don't understand that.

Not wanting felons to have weapons has never stopped them from having them. As we all know, things we are not supposed to have often pull the hardest on our imagination. I don't want to arm them but if they can complete the steps to obtain a legal gun, they should be allowed to do so if for no other purpose than home defense.

Jonathan

quote Originally posted by Boostdreamer: Not wanting felons to have weapons has never stopped them from having them. Jonathan

Yes i ( and many others ) have said that more than once, but you want to actually give them legal permission to do so. Do you also propose to let known child molesters work at day care centers, because" you know they can get them if they want"..

Or for the 'common man' about we just remove speed limits, because "you know people exceed them all the time".. Or give congress a free-pass on kick backs and favors, because "you know they are going to get them regardless of the rules anyway "

On a more practical level would you personally employ an ex-embezzler in your accounting department? I wouldn't.


Your logic is flawed, its too bad you don't see it.

If that was my logic, it would be flawed and hopefully you would have just opened my eyes. However, that is not the case. The Bill of Rights does not address any of the examples you cited. It states "shall not be infringed". If we are a nation of laws, we have to come to grips with this.

Jonathan

quote Originally posted by Boostdreamer: If that was my logic, it would be flawed and hopefully you would have just opened my eyes. However, that is not the case. The Bill of Rights does not address any of the examples you cited. It states "shall not be infringed". If we are a nation of laws, we have to come to grips with this. Jonathan

Have a nice day.

Everyone should be allowed 1 mistake. Except for mass shootings or similar actions. After that you should start losing privileges.

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: I carry my recorder to protect myself from lying cops...not to keep them honest. So your ok with a released felon, who was in prison 3 times (1 for murder, 1 for rape, 1 for armed robbery), applying and getting a concealed gun permit ?

A lying cop is not dishonest ?
First of all, I do not believe gun permits pass the smell test. Concealed, open carry, or right to possess.
We are not gonna stop a thug from being a thug. Even if we say he is not allowed to own a weapon. A concealed gun permit requirement never stopped no one from concealing.
Back at you. How do you feel about the New York City "Stop and Frisk" law ?

quote Originally posted by Lilchief: Everyone should be allowed 1 mistake. Except for mass shootings or similar actions. After that you should start losing privileges.

Personally I think the bar should be lower. Quietly steal a pack of gum, sure you get a 2nd chance, beat up your neighbor over his dog barking, no.

( and we are not talking privileges here, we are discussing RIGHTS.. there is a difference )

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 12-08-2013).]

For the record, I am strictly only referring to home defense. I am not talking about carry permits, open or concealed for felons. In Tennessee, you cannot get a carry permit if you have been dishonorably discharged from military service. Who should qualify for carry permits deserves its own thread. Tennessee's law requires the same permit for open and concealed carry.

Jonathan

i wonder how many felons are participating in this thread. some of us seem to be taking it personally.

quote Originally posted by lurker: i wonder how many felons are participating in this thread. some of us seem to be taking it personally.

Not me, the only thing I take personally is the constant excuses people come up with to infringe. To me it is weak scared people that think that laws limiting guns are going to help keep and feel safe, and at the cost of the US constitution no less.

quote Originally posted by lurker: i wonder how many felons are participating in this thread. some of us seem to be taking it personally.

Felons is a very vague term, convicted or charged? Or plea bargained down? We are a country of laws, many very stupid laws, some that are so vague that they are beyond belief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony

http://www.superpages.com/s.../felony-classes.html

Some of the dumb laws we still have on the books here in the US

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states

http://www.huffingtonpost.c...-still_n_481379.html

number on 11 on the last list is pertinent to this thread, somewhat anyway.

Steve

I'm not a felon. Never been accused or convicted of anything other than traffic violations that I can think of. Last ticket was over 10 years ago.

This is actually a new stance for me. It is something that came to mind while developing my 2nd Amendment T-shirt business. Putting thoughts into printed words really makes you examine how you feel about things. Before "searching my feelings", I could have easily come down on the other side of this fence.

Jonathan

A felon is someone who has or is serving prison time for a felonony crime. Anyone before a trial is just a suspect....unless theyre caught red handed in the act of a crime. Even then the law gives them the benefit of doubt and a fair trial...(IMO)

quote Originally posted by lurker: i wonder how many felons are participating in this thread. some of us seem to be taking it personally.

I doubt that there are any.

Brad

quote Originally posted by cliffw: A lying cop is not dishonest ? First of all, I do not believe gun permits pass the smell test. Concealed, open carry, or right to possess. We are not gonna stop a thug from being a thug. Even if we say he is not allowed to own a weapon. A concealed gun permit requirement never stopped no one from concealing. Back at you. How do you feel about the New York City "Stop and Frisk" law ?

Like I said, Im not the cop police. I do whatever I do to protect myself. The rest are on their own. Im in complete agreement that a thug who wants a gun will have one anyway. If its illegal for him to have one and hes caught with one, thats a real felony on its own, so he can be arrested for nothing else. I dont have a problem with that.

I dont have a problem with NYC stop and frisk suspicious people. Im sure it can cut down on crime. I have people on mine and next doors property arrested for trespassing almost weekly. I didnt have a problem with cops stopping me and asking me questions while looking for a criminal. They crossed the line in my case by deciding they didnt like me having a gun and making up a reason to arrest me. Soon as they found I had nothing to do with who they were looking for, they should have said OK, thank you, you can go now. In my instance they were looking for a burglary suspect for a local business. It had been raining and someone reported a person climbing under a chain link fence to get in. I was wearing a white shirt, white sneakers and kahki pants with no sign of dirt or mud. They took me by the business where the owner showed up to find no indication under a fence of anyone getting in and all the property was securely locked. So they had no crime and no reason to detain me at all...till they made up their bs about my permit.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: That was my personal opinion.

ah..ok..nvm

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Our country was based on philosophy penned by Locke. For a better understanding of it read The Second Treatise of Civil Government
.

Inalienable rights means rights you are inherantly born with that can not be sold or transferred nor can they be surrendered except by the individual having those rights. Committing a crime that carries a penalty that deprives you of one of those rights is you surrendering that right. How can that be? Well if we are born with the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness then how could any of those ever be deprived? What is a prison sentence if not a deprival of liberty and the pursuit of happiness? What is a death penalty if not the deprival of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Are you all suggesting that a person who commits a crime should not be penalized because it's a violation of their inalienable rights? How can we take away the right to own a firearm for a lifetime. I would point out that in the past, and sometimes still, such crimes as those that result in such a loss of rights would have instead resulted in a lifetime loss of a hand, dissfigurement or loss of life. How are any of those not a lifetime penalty? Can you grow your hand back? Can you rise from the dead? Can you grow a new set of the boys? No, we as a nation have progressed beyond such barbaric practices and instead when you commit such crimes you surrender rights, and yes for a lifetime.

As I said, if you read the material I linked above you will find that Locke talks about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness being rights everyone is born with, EVERYONE. However, that is in the state of nature which is to say ungoverned. When people ban together and form a government they place the responsibilty for the protection of those rights for the whole in the hands of the governing body. Another point Locke makes is that such protection for the whole can not be achieved without limiting the rights. This is true in that, in the state of nature if a crime is committed against you, you are judge, jury and enforcer. In a governed populace the government is judge, jury and enforcer (although we have a jury by peers system but there you are still putting your rights in the hands of others). So you have given over the right to decide guilt and issue punishment for intrusions by another upon your rights. Locke points out that you can't be governed without this happening and that as a citizen of a governed land you are bound to follow the laws of that governed land. He suggests that if you don't like the laws, then you can find ungoverned lands and start your own government or if the government you are currently under is to tyrannical the populace can rise up to abolish it and start anew. The government is responsible for protecting the rights of the whole, the individual is responsible for living within the law to be a part of that whole whos rights are protected. When one breaks the law they set themselves outside the whole, losing that protection of rights.

Now, some have suggested that everyone is a criminal. I can't beleive that is so. What about a new born baby, what laws have they broken? I assume the follow up would be, well they will become a criminal as they will fall afoul of the law at some point in their life. What about my son, who did not make it past 24 hours of life. What crime did he commit from within that incubator in the hospital? Not everyone is a criminal. I will admit that all people of driving age who are licensed have sped and are thus guilty of a crime. However, I don't know of anyone who has lost their right to bear arms over a speeding ticket. Such a punishment is for crimes much more egregious. I don't know how someone could say that a person convicted for a speeding ticket is the same as a person convicted for home invasion robery. One is a violent crime the other is not. However, I digress.

The reality is you can't get into a discussion like this without getting in to the philosophies that created them. Where did the idea of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" come from? Is the right to bear arms an inalienable right or is it a product of your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Philisophically speaking, it was the latter which is why the founding fathers included it in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was their way of trying to protect our inalienable rights from to much intrusion. That's why such things as quartering military were included in the bill of rights. Or would you suggest that in a state of nature where their is no nations or military, that I would be forced to quarter military troops? Military troops would not exist in a state of nature. They can not exist without some type of governing body, be it tribal or national. The second a group bands together under a common law they are no longer in the state of nature.

Anyways, I held off on responding to this thread because it's really difficult to explain the philosophy behind it all, which is really the meat of what's being discussed, without actually posting the philosophy, which as many times as I've posted links to it people don't want to really read. NoMoreRicers has skimmed over the philosophy, so he understands some of it. Sadly that's another reason I've held off on posting, because I know where this leads when he and I start posting about it, LOL. I'm not saying the philosophy is correct, heck Hobbs posted philosphy that contradicts what Locke wrote, I'm just trying to shed some light on why it is the way it is, or what the thought process is that lead to the way it is. But, it's bed time and I really don't want to get into a discussion I can't devote the time to that I would need. So I'll leave it at this and just say, Nurb mostly has the right of it philisophically speaking according to the works that influenced our founding fathers.

[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 12-09-2013).]

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. All good things. These are all supposed to be inalienable rights. These are the rights God intended for us to have. For the most part, we have them and are in control of them. There is a percentage of it that we cannot control. That would be the actions of others.

We have the right to life. We got life. Where does it state we have the right to live any number of years? I'm very sorry about your son. That is a terrible thing for a parent to go through. I can't imagine what that was like. When I talk about actions of others, I include God in that. God can call any of us home at any time. Some stay longer than others but we will all die. Just because we have been given the right to life, that right has a limit in the sense of a bodily existance on Earth.

Liberty. The extent of liberty that any person enjoys is very dependant upon where they live. So, to what degree of liberty are we entitled? The same as that of our country and countrymen? What about people in other countries? Here again, our inalienable right to liberty has been affected by others, namely our parents. Does the right to liberty excuse us from punishment for crimes committed? If these rights came from God, does God punish? The Bible tells us He does.

The pursuit of happiness. THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS Even in jail, we can pursue happiness. We can pursue friendships. We can exchange letters. We can have visitors. We can be on a work release. We can exercise. We can watch TV. Prison is not constant hardship and misery. Even so, our right to pursue happiness is no guarantee that we will find it. There are plenty of depressed and suicidal people walking free on the streets of the world.

These things were not defined with minimum times and values. The Second Amendment, however, is very clear. "Shall not be infringed" is what it says. It is a document of the United States and only applies to its citizens. When in prison, we are not free citizens so many of our rights are lost including the right to bear arms. We are all reasonably intellegent so let's please drop the "why not get rid of all laws" arguments.

Jonathan

I'm fairly much in the camp of 'Do the crime, do the time', but when time is served, if you are deemed 'safe' enough to be out in public, then you should have all your rights. Especially since the 'System' gives out felonies like candy.

BUT

Our prison system currently seems to have a revolving door on it, and as a result, there's a better than fair chance that little to no rehabilitation is being done. Thus, I have to carefully consider 'all rights restored'.

HOWEVER

That flies in the face of reality, which is that an person, when predisposed to commit a crime, will procure whatever tool they need, whether by legal means or not.

THEREFORE

None of it matters. Laws only affect the law-abiding. Criminals don't fit that profile (duh).

Best we can do is to try to avoid giving pointy sticks to nut-cases.

<sigh> No easy answer. Utopia doesn't exist. But I think I'd rather err on the side of Liberty and Freedom, as the Founders intended. Oh, and some crimes really do need the death penalty imposed...and not after 20+ years of appeals.

Cut and paste...
In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States ...

In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States who later died from the wound.

In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.

In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.

In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States .

In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.

In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.

In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.

In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.

In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.

In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.

In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US .

In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.

In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.

In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.

In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.

In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis .

In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school.

As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.
One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.

No NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives were involved.

SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.

It seems to me that we should ban Democrats instead of banning guns. We need Democrat control, not gun control.

They used to give you a gun when you left prison. A mule and a Winchester? something like that. Tony, heh. Aren't stats wonderful.......

quote Originally posted by User00013170: No, they (rights) do not come FROM the constitution. They are protected BY the Constitution. The difference is important. Rights you are born with, you are not granted them by the government.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Umm regulation is infringement. ( and the amendment didn't say 'reasonable infringement', it said no infringement. ) The 'dictionary' that should be used is one that existed at the time of the founders ( from their area.. ), and from reading their intents.

How do you square this with your thoughts in this thread, that people should lose (gun ownership) rights if they commit a felony ?

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 12-10-2013).]

well, I suppose this all depends on if you think the constitution is the "buck stops here" document.

if so - then one would even have to say that when in prison - you should be able to keep and bear your arms.
and, it would seem, that would be the place you would want/need it most.

but, most of us have gotten past the strict word by word, and open the constitution for ><GASP>< interpretation.

most felons I know - I wouldnt really want them to have access to guns. but, of course, I did say most - which leaves the idea - do I trample the few peoples rights because of the actions of the majority of "them"? I do not like the idea of selecting who is "good enough" for "rights" and who is not. I do not like laws which punish the "normal" folk because of the actions of the a$$holes. I'd rather find ways of preventing A$$holes. again...sounds great - but WTF impossible.

So, in the end - I come out of it with a - no - they should NOT lose their rights. which includes their right to "bear arms"...

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: well, I suppose this all depends on if you think the constitution is the "buck stops here" document. if so - then one would even have to say that when in prison - you should be able to keep and bear your arms. and, it would seem, that would be the place you would want/need it most.

quote Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What is "due process of law?"
http://legal-dictionary.the...m/Due+Process+of+Law

quote A fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property.

That's why a convicted felon can lose rights, but government cannot (or rather, should not) arbitrarily restrict or remove rights to the public as a whole with legislation.