Separate names with a comma.
Welcome to Oklahoma Shooters Association! Join today, registration is easy!
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Jeff405, Apr 15, 2015.
Thank You CHenry & SoonerP226.
Might result in a little extra time in prison perhaps? I doubt the dumb ass would worry about it though. I think he's too stupid to have to have much brain function anyway.
I'm in agreement with most. If it wasn't a violent crime, and they have kept a clean record, there is no reason to not restore their rights. Not only guns but voting.
There isn't any. To wit:
More laws won't change a thing, druryj just wants to exercise control over people because he thinks he's better than them, same as all statists.
I would compromise though, I'd go for making them complete their parole if applicable. I'm a hard ass, if WE allow them to walk among us, WE might want to consider the ramifications of that and think about our sentencing practices. But I consider prison as punishment and if they've done their time they've paid their debt to society. I also believe what goes around comes around, if they pick up a gun and start using it in crime again, they'll reap what they sow somewhere along the line.
Repeat offenders doing crimes right after release is why we need to have a waiting period IMHO.
Its tough for them to find work. I'll acknowledge that, and makes getting back into crime easy. Waiting periods won't prevent them from obtaining a firearm, but it will make it a "tiny" more difficult.
That's what most people believe I think and I understand the logic. The only problem with it is that a convicted felon has served his sentence, is still a US citizen and therefore has the same rights under the Constitution as anyone else. Any law, state or federal, that says otherwise is null on it's face IMO. The deterrent should be stiff sentencing but the public doesn't have the stomach for that. I personally think that any violent felony should be a mandatory 15 years minimum and I wouldn't balk at 20 for a 1st offence. No parole ever, that just makes no sense to me but it is what it is. A second felony? 30 years. Also years are 365 days long. I also agree with you on the voting. Hey! I said I was a hard ass....
It doesn't. I believe that the most basic of human rights is the right to self defense. The ability to provide one's own defense could and will often times require deadly force. If a person is free from prison then they should be able to defend themself if necessary, or be given a cop on a keychain.
It has been said in this thread that it is likely that a person newly released from prison could go back to his old ways and thus should be forced to wait to regain their rights. What if the person has made a decision to do the right thing, but people from his previous life find him and want to do him harm. Do we just tell him "sorry 'bout your luck bro"...?
I'm a hard ass too, and have read the stats of incarcerated felons getting right back into the game because they never left the game while in prison.
That is my issue. The detention center in a Baltimore thread that was ran by the prisoners for years is a prime example.
If they serve good time on the outside, let them have the right to defend themselves.
Violent criminals should be denied those rights forever. They have proven they don't deserve that right.
Many are making the assumption that prison is the whole sentence. Losing rights after conviction is part of the sentence. It is not like the felons didnt know they were commiting a felonious action that would have lifelong consequences. People have to be held accountable for their actions.