Conquer Club

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?

What rights should felons have/not have?

Is this constitutional and should it be?

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.

As for that counting as a restriction on the 2nd Amendment, of course it does. It is one. It sort of has to.

kentington wrote:What rights should felons have/not have?

Well, I certainly understand a restriction on their ability to own a firearm. I would like to see this be something they could earn back over a long period of time, personally.
As I mentioned above, I have never understood why they cannot vote.
There are some other restrictions, like a restriction on travel abroad, but that is mostly levied by the foreign governments, so that is unavoidable and understandable.
There are some (varies by state) restrictions on the ability to hold public office. This is probably unnecessary, as anyone who is going to be elected would have to go through "why were you a convicted felon" in the campaign, so it would come out in the wash anyway.

kentington wrote:Is this constitutional and should it be?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I agree with that. Reasonable is very vague.

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.

The way I figure it, if a felon is no longer in prison or whatever then they have served their time according to the law and ought to have their same rights back. I mean, isn't that the whole point?
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.

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.

Well, hypothetically of course. Do you think you have the same "rights" as Orenthal to avoid becoming a felon?

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

Very true. It shouldn't be a concern. That was just the only reason I could think of.

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.

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?

He was driving and got angry with someone and pulled a gun on them. He wasn't going to use it, of course.

That's called "brandishing" I had heard the word but really learned the full definition here recently.

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?

Driving is a privilege, not a right.
I would say that the abuse can vary. If someone drinks and drives, then they lose their privilege to drive. It should be that way.

2dimes wrote:

He was driving and got angry with someone and pulled a gun on them. He wasn't going to use it, of course.

That's called "brandishing" I had heard the word but really learned the full definition here recently.

Dang I knew that, but I couldn't remember the term.

2dimes wrote:

He was driving and got angry with someone and pulled a gun on them. He wasn't going to use it, of course.

That's called "brandishing" I had heard the word but really learned the full definition here recently.

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.

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.

Funkyterrance wrote:

2dimes wrote:

He was driving and got angry with someone and pulled a gun on them. He wasn't going to use it, of course.

That's called "brandishing" I had heard the word but really learned the full definition here recently.

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.

Yeah, that's kind of a good way to get shot. <smile>

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:

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.

If you are a convicted felon, then you should have already been proven guilty, right?

Yes, how do you tell someone who fought for you that they don't get the same rights? I agree though. Especially after seeing a special on the bomb hunters. I don't remember their actual titles but they drove around in an armored vehicle. Well, one guy had been in every explosion and had so many concussions his brain looked like a football players retiring brain or something like that.

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:

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>

Lol, that is what I was thinking. If someone started walking toward my car, then I would have to start making quick decisions. i.e. Fight or Flight.
Luckily you have found deers.
Watch out for the guy with a crescent wrench or some other tool in the passenger seat who doesn't let you approach the vehicle.

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>

So you're thinking like little old lady scared for her life starts blasting? I don't do this sort of thing to little old ladies because little old ladies are generally more polite than your average person around these parts. The type of person who usually does this is a middle aged "professional" type who smells like coffee and cigarettes. The type of person who will shoot first and ask questions later would be someone who is fearful and fearful people don't ride up on your bumper and honk their horns incessantly. The people who do this are usually cowards but that's not the same as fearful.

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.

Probably because felon disenfranchisement is particularly beneficial to one of the two major parties.