If they would be a danger to anyone why should they be released? If they are not a danger why not allow them full freedom? Why not give them lifetime parole after being released? After all isn't being released but being restricted in what you do any different than being out on parole?
Violent felons are released on a daily basis through time served, parole or simply prison overcrowding it is a common and frightening occurence. Who is to say if they are a danger to society? A person convicted of child porn is deemed a non violent felon under most sentencing guidelines. Would he pick up a gun and commit a violent act? Probably not. Do I think he should be able to legally own a gun? Absolutely not.
Lifetime parole could/would only be funded through massive tax hikes and paid for by the people. Who would monitor these guys? The manpower alone would not be cost efficient. Probation and Parole officers already have massive case loads and can't keep up with what they have now. What if they violated there lifetime parole then what? Send them back to an already overcrowded prison system? You would have to have 24/7 courts to handle just those cases and that is if they plead guilty to what they did.
I understand the question you are asking and yes I would support gun rights UNTIL it came to something that violated my own moral or ethical code, like the above, then I could and would not support it. Now with that being said I have a feeling something like this would be attached to a bigger agenda like, "You either pass the bill to allow all released felons to regain their right to own a firearm or give up your own right to own one". Obviously this is way overexaggerated but you see my point. Tit for Tat, you scratch my back I scratch yours.
This is beyond a CC/OC issue. As I have stated before both sides have their points and also their idiots and they don't change their views very often. Overall we need to stick together in this fight, but will we that is the question.
How would you like it if a co-worker kept bombarding you with info to vote for a certain candidate, or kept hounding you everyday about going to his church. You sound like ceertain gun organizations at an individual level. I am pro 2A and left gun organizations because they kept bombarding me with information I already knew.
Did it occur to you some folks know the facts and just do not want to carry. It is someones right to avail themselves of a right also.
In short, I would not support there petition for rights.
Our liberal friend from up north makes a valid point.
LOL well not really.
So using that logic a person convicted of stealing dozens of elderly peoples life savings, committing a series of major burglaries stealing tens of thousands of dollars, let say including your gun collection, or convicted of fondling of your child, has done his time and is released, should have the right to purchase and carry a firearm because they are labeled none violent offenders and the family (you) may come after them? Your kidding right?
I guess you will have to have your views and support the gun rights you want to support and I will have mine cause I don't think we will meet in the middle on this one.
A person convicted of a Ponzi scheme is a bit harder to find.
Point is by denying them the right to bear arms in their home you are possibly putting them at risk.
Only one view, but felons should lose rights including the right to bear arms. Perhaps our friendly child porn convict should have considered what he stood to lose when he didn't exercise self-control to the point of breaking the law. The law should induce consequences and fear of retribution as one of its provisions, for the consideration of those who contemplate breaking it.
He may well be at greater risk but he brought that increased risk down on his own head. Personally, I can't be concerned with the self-defense risks a person may bring upon himself because of lawless decisions that he has made. In a word, tough!
We have turned tolerance from a virtue into a vice. We tolerate absolutely everything the aberrance within our society throws at us. We won't tolerate intolerance though. Mustn't dare be intolerant!
We will have just as much crime as we are willing to tolerate.
I routinely write, email and call my US Representative and Senators on a varity of issues some of which members of the forum might not agree with. But I consider the issues I present to my representatives in Congress to be worth fighting for and that they are for the good of our nation.
I am also aware that those who are on opposite sides of issues that I am also believe that their side (even if it is misguided) is for the good of the country.
No, it is easy to say I don't and they deserve what they get. Unfortunately that mob mentality spills over and kills innocent folks. That is not the society I want to live in.
The justice system is screwed up. If convicted they need to do the 25 years for rape, not 2.
We talk about felons like they can never be productive in society. Bull. Many will always be repeat offenders, no doubt. But many do realize there mistakes and can contribute back to society.
Ah, neat. To me, the post-release restrictions of rights can have two motivations: further punishment or to protect society.
We don't want release violent felons to own firearms, because they've shown propensity already to using criminal violence. We don't trust them. Likewise with drunk drivers losing their licenses and sex offenders being barred from being near children. These, to me, have to 'intent' of 'protecting society' from people deemed too immature to handle themselves in specific ways.
On the other hand, there can be the idea of permanent punishment. This is when it can get strange, because it can be arbitrary. The sex offender can lose his right to bear arms. The violent felon can lose his right to vote. What else? The drunk driver can have soldiers quartered in his house? People convicted of Ponzi schemes lose their future right to retain counsel and face their accusers?
Now, there're a lot of restrictions that are internally consistent. The most common justification I see for 'the right to bear arms' is self-defense. But, if it's a privilege that can be taken away for thematically unrelated reasons, then the term 'privilege' seems to be more appropriate than 'right'. As a Northern liberal (though we might be using the word differently), the idea is to restrict freedoms as little as possible and to do so only with a goal. So, it's likely a cultural issue, but taking away a drunk driver's license to drive makes a lot more sense, policy-wise, than taking away his right to vote (or any other right people wish to take away as punishment).
In conclusion, if you're willing to take away the right to bear arms, why not lose the right to refuse to quarter soldiers? If neither are thematically related to the crime, it's just punishment, and post-release punishment could take an endless variety of forms. IF the right to bear arms is linked to the unwritten right to self-defense, why limit the loss of this right only to people who're more powerful than you (i.e., the people against whom a gun might be reasonable)? Why not lose the right to self-defense entirely? "Oh, you snatched the granny's cane when she was clubbing you. Normally, this would be self-defense, but with you it's robbery". IF the right to bear arms is NOT linked to the unwritten right to self-defense, then never mind.
▪ freedom of expression
▪ freedom of speech
▪ freedom of assembly
▪ freedom to petition the government
▪ freedom of worship
▪ the right to bear arms
A felon lives in the United States... Even if he has some or all of his citizenship rights revoked... he still lives in the United States. He can lose his right to vote, a citizenship right.. But not his right to petition the government (for his citizenship rights, if nothing else) and he need not petition for the right to bear arms.
I might git a little twitchy if you insist on having a ricin bomb... or a nuke (suitcase or otherwise)... After all, we've seen and heard of plenty of well trained , expert gun folk, inadvertently shooting themselves or another... And while that's a rare occurrence... it would only take one negligent discharge with a nuke or chemical bomb.... to affect scores of people (not just the idiot that just "Had to have one, 'cause it's sooo tacticool")
So where do we draw the line in support of one another? or do we? And if we don't draw a line in our "job to support" rights, how can we find the time for our "job to support" ourselves, and our families... we'd be out marching all the time...