Moderator: Community Team
Juan_Bottom wrote:In both instances, neither of us had intended to commit a crime, and we turned ourselves in.
In my associate's case, he wrote the bad check at a store I worked at. My store called him, and he agreed to come in to pay it with cash, meanwhile a police officer was called to the store to arrest him when he got there. Sure enough, the detective who came to the store let him pay it with cash before taking him to jail.
His story was that his gf spent the money in his checking account without telling him. Sounds pretty plausible.
And in my case I hit a bicyclist with the passenger-side mirror of this van the same day I bought it. I was driving it home with no plates or insurance, and I thought what I hit was a road-sign. But it turned out the bicyclist hit the road sign. Anyway, I parked my van on the street in plain sight, and when the cops showed up at my house, I gave a written confession and everything, all without a lawyer. I didn't even know I was in trouble. That was the week of my 19th birthday, and so I've got this felony for life, no rehabilitation, no redemption, no anything.
And while I agree that hitting a bicyclist and driving away (there were other cars that drove away too, confirming my belief that I hit a sign) is very shitty, it was also very obviously an accident, or why the hell else would I even do the confession? Now since I was 19 I've had the same resume as a rapist or murderer.
EDIT: Oh yeah, and crazy turn of events; my associate lost his job when the economy took a dive. He couldn't find a job anywhere, being a felon and all, and he ended up selling dope. That's why I just say he's an associate. I don't like the guy anymore. It's pretty sad that he went from just a normal honest kid to not caring anymore.
Woodruff wrote:Funkyterrance wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:Woodruff wrote:Juan_Bottom wrote:I have a felony for failure to render aid after a traffic accident.
I know a cat who got a felony for writing a bad check over $200.
There are over 1 million felony convictions nationwide each year.
Think about that.
The public doesn't know sh*t about how felonies work.
Wait, what are you saying? That those offenses are minor? Writing a bad check over $200 is serious theft under the right circumstances and failure to render aid can be equally shitty.
I'm not saying they are necessarily awful, depends on the scenario, but just to mention them as evidence that people don't understand felonies doesn't seem complete.
I don't think anyone disagrees with what you're saying as far as severity, necessarily. But none of those things are worthy of losing a Constitutional right, which is what happens with a felony conviction. It's like crimes that are felonies have become extremely commonplace items yet the resultant consequences haven't slid down the scale at all, and that doesn't make sense.
Funkyterrance wrote:Right, like when people envision a felon(as JB was alluding earlier) they don't picture someone like JB, they picture a serial murderer, rapist, etc.. That's partly the reason why I don't think people should lose the right to own a gun with a felony charge, especially if the charge has nothing to do with guns. The other reason is that, like I mentioned earlier, that if you've served your sentence shouldn't you be more or less back to square one as far as rights are concerned?
2dimes wrote:BBS would shoot your eye out.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
2dimes wrote:It was a movie reference. Puns are when you use a word that is the same or close to another word.
I'm kind of grumpy that bouncing a cheque can make a person into a felon.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
This student at Bartow High School in Florida allegedly thought she'd put a couple of household chemicals in an 8-ounce water bottle, just to see the reaction.
The reaction was that she was expelled and marched off in handcuffs, accused of felony possession/discharge of a dangerous weapon.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
(proud member of the Occasionally Wrongly Banned)Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
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.
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.
Juan_Bottom wrote:The Fire Arms Ban of '38 is responsible for all of this, but it just hasn't done that. We still have a legal free market for criminals to buy guns. You just don't want to be caught by the cops with one. And actually, it's gotten easier for criminals to get guns, while at the same time all sorts of crimes that weren't felonies before have become felonies. So it's easier to become a criminal, and it's easier to buy a gun as a criminal. With at least 1 million felony convictions a year, I am failing to see the logic in all of this.
Somehow, Reagan declared a war on Crime, then signed the law that allowed criminals to buy guns without background checks. And he's worshiped for it.
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?
What rights should felons have/not have?
Is this constitutional and should it be?
Phatscotty 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?
What rights should felons have/not have?
Is this constitutional and should it be?
They are by definition second class/rate whatever you want to call it.
Phatscotty wrote:The golden rule seems to be if you infringe on another person's rights, the state will infringe on yours on the citizen's behalf since we aim to reduce said crime in the future, and that is supposed to the be the deterrent against crime.
Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty 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?
What rights should felons have/not have?
Is this constitutional and should it be?
They are by definition second class/rate whatever you want to call it. Sometimes felons can get their rights back, depending on the circumstances.
Wait, what? You're saying that it is by definition that some Americans are considered "second rate citizens"?
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....
Phatscotty wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty 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?
What rights should felons have/not have?
Is this constitutional and should it be?
They are by definition second class/rate whatever you want to call it. Sometimes felons can get their rights back, depending on the circumstances.
Wait, what? You're saying that it is by definition that some Americans are considered "second rate citizens"?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=190066#p4154958Woodruff 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....
I said the exact same thing you said, and you trolled it!
Phatscotty wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty 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?
What rights should felons have/not have?
Is this constitutional and should it be?
They are by definition second class/rate whatever you want to call it. Sometimes felons can get their rights back, depending on the circumstances.
Wait, what? You're saying that it is by definition that some Americans are considered "second rate citizens"?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=190066#p4154958Woodruff 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....
I said the exact same thing you said, and you trolled it! HYPOCRITE OF ALL HYPOCRITES!
Symmetry wrote:Phatscotty wrote:Woodruff wrote:Phatscotty 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?
What rights should felons have/not have?
Is this constitutional and should it be?
They are by definition second class/rate whatever you want to call it. Sometimes felons can get their rights back, depending on the circumstances.
Wait, what? You're saying that it is by definition that some Americans are considered "second rate citizens"?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=190066#p4154958Woodruff 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....
I said the exact same thing you said, and you trolled it!
I'm not sure where the trolling is, at least on his part.
Phatscotty 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?
What rights should felons have/not have?
Is this constitutional and should it be?
They are definitely second class/rate whatever you want to call it. Sometimes felons can get their rights back, depending on the circumstances.
The golden rule seems to be if you infringe on another person's rights, the state will infringe on yours on the citizen's behalf since we aim to reduce said crime in the future, and that is supposed to the be the deterrent against crime.
Juan_Bottom wrote: Losing your Constitutional protections for life because you bounced a check is extreme, harsh, and irrational, I think.
Juan_Bottom wrote:I agree with you in principle, but not in practice. Victims get their rights back, whether that's property or money or whatever, but the criminal loses his Constitutional rights for life. Losing your Constitutional protections for life because you bounced a check is extreme, harsh, and irrational, I think.
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee