Yes, zero access for life. Our corrections system is broken, to say it kindly. It produces more effective criminals and gives them closer gang affiliations. The recidivism (sp?) rate is ridiculous in my home state. I understand I am painting felons with a wide brush, but I had my time in court, charged with several felony counts (all non violent federal technicalities, but still), I fought them and was acquitted of all charges, and as such I still have the RIGHT to own a weapon, and I exercise that right daily. Do I want a gang banger that did a quarter of his sentence and was released due to over population to be able to own a weapon? He'll no! He still does though, the criminals always will, regardless of law.
Yes, zero access for life. Our corrections system is broken, to say it kindly. It produces more effective criminals and gives them closer gang affiliations. The recidivism (sp?) rate is ridiculous in my home state. I understand I am painting felons with a wide brush, but I had my time in court, charged with several felony counts (all non violent federal technicalities, but still), I fought them and was acquitted of all charges, and as such I still have the RIGHT to own a weapon, and I exercise that right daily. Do I want a gang banger that did a quarter of his sentence and was released due to over population to be able to own a weapon? He'll no! He still does though, the criminals always will, regardless of law.
Clarification: if the courts deem someone fit to have records expunged, obviously they are vetting the individual, different than just a devil may care attitude regarding felon possession of weapons.
Also, when I say possess, I mean Own, carry, modify, produce, create.
Also, when I say possess, I mean Own, carry, modify, produce, create.
Stackle2, if felon gun prohibition means the criminals will have them with little effort anyway, wouldn't that mean that the opposite would enable the good ex-cons among them to own weapons?
In some states, prior to the Castle Doctrine, there were people who properly defended their home/family with deadly force and were convicted of murder. How do they measure up in your gun rights assessment?
In some states, prior to the Castle Doctrine, there were people who properly defended their home/family with deadly force and were convicted of murder. How do they measure up in your gun rights assessment?
LightningCrash, has a murderous criminal ever took loved ones from you? Have you ever scraped your friends or families blood and meat off your hat at the end of the day?... I have too many times, but in this context, combat obviously doesn't count, so lets talk about last time I had to keep my Soldiers from bleeding out, actually pretty close to here, in Kileen TX.
A few years ago, I was with a Light Infantry brigade returning from the Korrengal, Afghanistan. My platoon was one of the last in the BDE to go through the Ft. Hood SRP facility. I had just finished the tedious process, and was out front checking the paperwork of my Soldiers (I was a Platoon Sergeant at the time). At that time, we had the misfortune of being present for Maj. Hassan's rampage. None of my Soldiers were killed, but several were seriously wounded, so bad in fact it ended their careers. We had just finished a year in what's widely regarded the most dangerous combat zone on earth, only to be caught off guard by one of our own.
Lets say there is no god, and Maj. Hassan is released in 45 years, should he be allowed a weapon? I say no. (I also am pretty sure he would be a smear on the sidewalk before he saw his first 60 minutes of freedom, but that's off topic). So to answer you original question, Hell No!!!
A few years ago, I was with a Light Infantry brigade returning from the Korrengal, Afghanistan. My platoon was one of the last in the BDE to go through the Ft. Hood SRP facility. I had just finished the tedious process, and was out front checking the paperwork of my Soldiers (I was a Platoon Sergeant at the time). At that time, we had the misfortune of being present for Maj. Hassan's rampage. None of my Soldiers were killed, but several were seriously wounded, so bad in fact it ended their careers. We had just finished a year in what's widely regarded the most dangerous combat zone on earth, only to be caught off guard by one of our own.
Lets say there is no god, and Maj. Hassan is released in 45 years, should he be allowed a weapon? I say no. (I also am pretty sure he would be a smear on the sidewalk before he saw his first 60 minutes of freedom, but that's off topic). So to answer you original question, Hell No!!!
I don't have a lot of time or energy to dwell on what if's and should have beens. My previous post sums up how I feel on the topic, period. Our justice system is just as broken as the corrections systems, so people do get screwed, I know better than most. If I hadn't been acquitted of the false charges against me, I don't know what my response would have been, I know I still would have done what had to be done to protect my family. I am probably a poor example though.
There are some in the thread who say "the law is the law" and therefore it must be right.
I probably sound like that, but I really don't believe that, just lot of messed up things happen everyday that create pertinent variables we could never possibly cover here, hence my slightly liberal sounding stance.
this thread is self-fulfilling...
if someone is predisposed to believing that a felon isn't necessarily a bad person, then they obviously will have no issue with giving a felon a firearm. respect for the law is the issue here... we are a country of laws whether you like them or not.
laws are a funny thing like that, they can't achieve perfection in justice which it seems that the OP wants or assumes should be possible.
you pays your money and you takes your chances... life isn't fair and if you're a felon who lost his ability to own a firearm, well that sucks for you, but that's the way it is. suck it up, get a hobby, and buy a sword.
if someone is predisposed to believing that a felon isn't necessarily a bad person, then they obviously will have no issue with giving a felon a firearm. respect for the law is the issue here... we are a country of laws whether you like them or not.
laws are a funny thing like that, they can't achieve perfection in justice which it seems that the OP wants or assumes should be possible.
you pays your money and you takes your chances... life isn't fair and if you're a felon who lost his ability to own a firearm, well that sucks for you, but that's the way it is. suck it up, get a hobby, and buy a sword.
Except in extreme cases, domestic abuse is a misdemeanor.
By the way, United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (en banc) recognized the Supreme Court's distinction of applicability of the Second Amendment and concluded that the Second Amendment does not apply to hunting.
Nah, I'm referring to some earlier "conservatives".
Similar threads
