Moderator: Community Team
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
kentington wrote:I see it brought up a lot that felons can't use guns as an argument that people want restrictions on guns when they claim they don't. (I hope that makes sense).
My question is this:
Are felons second rate citizens? If they no longer have the rights of normal citizens, then does that count as a restriction on the 2nd Amendment?
kentington wrote:What rights should felons have/not have?
kentington wrote:Is this constitutional and should it be?
Woodruff wrote:Felons are classed as second-rate citizens, I think. Unfortunately, probably rightly so. I would like to see some sort of a time-based "earn your rights back" capability, but I can at least understand why it's necessary for their rights to be restricted in the manner they are. Other than the right to vote...I never really understood why that was taken away from them, to be honest.
Woodruff wrote:Yes. It's perfectly acceptable to have reasonable limitations on our freedoms and rights. The key, and difficulty certainly, is that word "reasonable" because different people will view that word differently for each freedom and right, based on their personal priorities and worldviews.
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
2dimes wrote:Hardly, middle class debt slaves, semi wealthy business owners etc. are not even in the second class. Lowly celeberty/millionaires are close to second class.
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
kentington wrote:2dimes wrote:Hardly, middle class debt slaves, semi wealthy business owners etc. are not even in the second class. Lowly celeberty/millionaires are close to second class.
I was referring to their rights not the status materially or monetarily.
kentington wrote:Woodruff wrote:Felons are classed as second-rate citizens, I think. Unfortunately, probably rightly so. I would like to see some sort of a time-based "earn your rights back" capability, but I can at least understand why it's necessary for their rights to be restricted in the manner they are. Other than the right to vote...I never really understood why that was taken away from them, to be honest.
I think the reasoning behind voting may be that they could vote themselves back into citizenship.
Funkyterrance wrote:However, this may be in a way contradictory but I would like to know who is a felon so I can steer clear of them if I want. I want someone who has been punished to have a second chance but I also don't want any surprises.
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
kentington wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:However, this may be in a way contradictory but I would like to know who is a felon so I can steer clear of them if I want. I want someone who has been punished to have a second chance but I also don't want any surprises.
Yes, you don't want a "rehabilitated" violent felon allowed to be in possession of firearms do you?
Woodruff wrote:kentington wrote:Woodruff wrote:Felons are classed as second-rate citizens, I think. Unfortunately, probably rightly so. I would like to see some sort of a time-based "earn your rights back" capability, but I can at least understand why it's necessary for their rights to be restricted in the manner they are. Other than the right to vote...I never really understood why that was taken away from them, to be honest.
I think the reasoning behind voting may be that they could vote themselves back into citizenship.
That would only be true if we had an absolutely enormous number of felons. Which IS true, thanks to the failed War on Drugs, but which absolutely SHOULD NOT BE TRUE. So that's sort of a concern that shouldn't be relevant if our other rights weren't already being abrogated.
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
Funkyterrance wrote:Speaking emotionally, no I don't want it. My moral and unbiased opinion though is that they ought to be allowed or else we are admitting our system is junk and many serious contradictions arise.
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
kentington wrote:Our system is junk in a lot of ways. Regulating felons right is not junk though.
My uncle has some issues to say the least. He was driving and got angry with someone and pulled a gun on them. He wasn't going to use it, of course.![]()
Turns out the guy was an off duty cop with his family. My uncle's home was raided, illegal firearms taken and what not.
Long story short, he did not go to jail for long. Definitely not long enough to rehabilitate.
Would you want him to have full rights? Logically, he shouldn't.
Funkyterrance wrote:kentington wrote:Our system is junk in a lot of ways. Regulating felons right is not junk though.
My uncle has some issues to say the least. He was driving and got angry with someone and pulled a gun on them. He wasn't going to use it, of course.![]()
Turns out the guy was an off duty cop with his family. My uncle's home was raided, illegal firearms taken and what not.
Long story short, he did not go to jail for long. Definitely not long enough to rehabilitate.
Would you want him to have full rights? Logically, he shouldn't.
I should think that going to jail might be a pretty good deterrent to future acts but I don't know your uncle.
But if you are going to use the line of logic that once you abuse a right you lose it forever then anyone with a speeding ticket would no longer be able to drive right?
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
2dimes wrote:That's called "brandishing" I had heard the word but really learned the full definition here recently.He was driving and got angry with someone and pulled a gun on them. He wasn't going to use it, of course.
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
2dimes wrote:That's called "brandishing" I had heard the word but really learned the full definition here recently.He was driving and got angry with someone and pulled a gun on them. He wasn't going to use it, of course.
kentington wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:Speaking emotionally, no I don't want it. My moral and unbiased opinion though is that they ought to be allowed or else we are admitting our system is junk and many serious contradictions arise.
Our system is junk in a lot of ways. Regulating felons right is not junk though.
My uncle has some issues to say the least. He was driving and got angry with someone and pulled a gun on them. He wasn't going to use it, of course.![]()
Turns out the guy was an off duty cop with his family. My uncle's home was raided, illegal firearms taken and what not.
Long story short, he did not go to jail for long. Definitely not long enough to rehabilitate.
Would you want him to have full rights? Logically, he shouldn't.
Funkyterrance wrote:2dimes wrote:That's called "brandishing" I had heard the word but really learned the full definition here recently.He was driving and got angry with someone and pulled a gun on them. He wasn't going to use it, of course.
You know what's funny is in real life I've actually stopped my car, gotten out and confronted people when they are going ballistic in their car behind me over something like me waiting too long at a green. They basically shit themselves. I am very calm and ask them if they have a problem/etc. and they always end up being total cowards when met face to face. They won't even look me in the eye. Who knows, maybe they think I'm going to brandish something lol.
Granted I live in the country and feel this is relatively safe and I would never try this in the city where all the crazies live.
Woodruff wrote:
Yeah, that's kind of a good way to get shot. <smile>
Woodruff wrote:kentington wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:Speaking emotionally, no I don't want it. My moral and unbiased opinion though is that they ought to be allowed or else we are admitting our system is junk and many serious contradictions arise.
Our system is junk in a lot of ways. Regulating felons right is not junk though.
My uncle has some issues to say the least. He was driving and got angry with someone and pulled a gun on them. He wasn't going to use it, of course.![]()
Turns out the guy was an off duty cop with his family. My uncle's home was raided, illegal firearms taken and what not.
Long story short, he did not go to jail for long. Definitely not long enough to rehabilitate.
Would you want him to have full rights? Logically, he shouldn't.
Logically and rationally, a number of veterans returning from Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam probably shouldn't own a firearm. But we do live in a country where we like to believe that you are innocent until proven guilty.
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
Funkyterrance wrote:Woodruff wrote:
Yeah, that's kind of a good way to get shot. <smile>
I feel like a person who was going to shoot would get out first though.
Woodruff wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:Woodruff wrote:
Yeah, that's kind of a good way to get shot. <smile>
I feel like a person who was going to shoot would get out first though.
Which is why they may think YOU'RE that type of person and decide to go on the offensive. <smile>
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
Woodruff wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:Woodruff wrote:
Yeah, that's kind of a good way to get shot. <smile>
I feel like a person who was going to shoot would get out first though.
Which is why they may think YOU'RE that type of person and decide to go on the offensive. <smile>
Woodruff wrote:kentington wrote:I see it brought up a lot that felons can't use guns as an argument that people want restrictions on guns when they claim they don't. (I hope that makes sense).
My question is this:
Are felons second rate citizens? If they no longer have the rights of normal citizens, then does that count as a restriction on the 2nd Amendment?
Felons are classed as second-rate citizens, I think. Unfortunately, probably rightly so. I would like to see some sort of a time-based "earn your rights back" capability, but I can at least understand why it's necessary for their rights to be restricted in the manner they are. Other than the right to vote...I never really understood why that was taken away from them, to be honest.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users