Second Rate Citizens

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

Ah, now your story makes sense.

[2dimes]

BBS would shoot your eye out.

[Funkyterrance]

Yeah, different world I know don't worry.

[Juan_Bottom]

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.

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

yup.
Yet it was upheld by the Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment.

[Woodruff]

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?

Not typically, no...though the more scared they are, the more likely it is, certainly.

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.

Which makes your question above very strange then.

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.

I would agree with everything you wrote EXCEPT your contention that they're not the type to ride your bumper and honk their horns. MANY people are aggressive and confrontational when they don't think there will be a reaction to it, thus they ride the bumper and honk their horns and then shit their pants when you react. It's that pants-shitting scenario that becomes honestly dangerous.

At that point, you may need to look for Phatscotty so he can ride in on his white steed with guns blazing to save you with his crack-shot expertise.

[Woodruff]

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.

I would suggest that it's quite beneficial to both parties, as they now stand (pocketing money from big business).

[Woodruff]

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.

Absolutely correct. The War on Drugs is the worst offender, but there are some pretty ridiculous things that are considered felonies these days carrying those heinous penalties.

[kentington]

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.

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

yup.
Yet it was upheld by the Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment.

Good point. This is one of the reasons our system is junk.

Felonies should be categorized and rights along with them. Violent felonies should restrict different things than a white collar felony.
They should also better evaluate what constitutes as a felony.

[Woodruff]

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.

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

yup.
Yet it was upheld by the Supreme Court under the 14th Amendment.

Good point. This is one of the reasons our system is junk.

Felonies should be categorized and rights along with them. Violent felonies should restrict different things than a white collar felony.
They should also better evaluate what constitutes as a felony.

It's like the senior in high school having sex with the high school sophomore and being listed as a sexual offender with a permanent watch-list record. Black-and-white laws like that are just stupid.

[Metsfanmax]

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.

I would suggest that it's quite beneficial to both parties, as they now stand (pocketing money from big business).

We had eight years of Bush because of felon disenfranchisement. It doesn't have to do with money from business so much as the actual voter rolls.

[thegreekdog]

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.

Which party?

EDIT - Oh, sorry, saw your "we had 8 years of Bush because of..." Are you saying it benefits Republicans? Is there some statistic showing that ex-felons (or people with previous felony convictions) vote for Democrats?

[Metsfanmax]

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

Which party?

EDIT - Oh, sorry, saw your "we had 8 years of Bush because of..." Are you saying it benefits Republicans? Is there some statistic showing that ex-felons (or people with previous felony convictions) vote for Democrats?

Yes, and intuitively one might have expected it because blacks and other minorities are statistically over-represented in the felon population and also statistically prefer to vote Democratic. See this paper for more details. The authors reach the conclusion that, for example, in Senate races, felons tend to average about 70% Democratic in their voting patterns. Besides the fact that Gore easily would have carried Florida without felon disenfranchisement, they also point out that if felon disenfranchisement rates of today had existed in 1960, Kennedy may have lost the election.

Without felon disenfranchisement, our cumulative counterfactual suggests that Democrats may well have controlled the Senate throughout the 1990s. Although it is possible that both parties may have shifted course or that other factors could have arisen to neutralize this impact, it seems likely that the Senate deadlock after the 2000 elections would have been broken in favor of the Democrats if the ballot had been returned to disenfranchised felons.

[BigBallinStalin]

These trends continued in the 1980s
and 1990s, with the Reagan, Bush, and
Clinton administrations aggressively focus-ing the nation’s attention on problems asso-ciated with drug use and the incarceration of
drug offenders (Beckett and Sasson 2000).
The success of the conservative crime

Oh, Mets, don't forget to add CLINTON in there. I know you're trying to pin this on one party, but let's be honest here.

Hey, I wonder how the Senate and House of Rep. votes looked like---SURELY, no Democrats ever voted on anything leading to "felony disenfranchisement," right? Because if so, then we couldn't say things like: "felon disenfranchisement is particularly beneficial to one of the two major parties." Rather, it would be beneficial to both. (OR, it's not really related to either political party. It may have something to do with being able to vote for one's own judges who promote 'tough on crime' policies. Or, it may be the case that even if the electorate wants more security, the politicians provide too much, and the feedback is simply not reflecting 'customer' preferences correctly (knowledge problem, no prices, etc.). Etc etc etc).

Oh wow, check out page 788. They're creating counter-factual Senate Compositions. lol.

Anyway, it's more in-depth than Republican v. Democratic, but these authors have their ideology to flaunt. It's not good science.

[Funkyterrance]

It's not good science.

For those of you who were wondering...

Good science:



not good science:


Just yanking your test tube, BBS.

[DoomYoshi]

It doesn't make sense that drug users become felons but those that actively try to kill me every day (by driving over the speed limit or not coming to a full stop at stop signs, for example) are not punished.

Attempted murder should be a crime.

[BigBallinStalin]

It doesn't make sense that drug users become felons but those that actively try to kill me every day (by driving over the speed limit or not coming to a full stop at stop signs, for example) are not punished.

Attempted murder should be a crime.

Since the government owns the roads, then this is a management issue. Loot's gonna tell you that the government isn't responsible though--even though they're the fundamental problem with this issue.

[Woodruff]

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.

I would suggest that it's quite beneficial to both parties, as they now stand (pocketing money from big business).

We had eight years of Bush because of felon disenfranchisement. It doesn't have to do with money from business so much as the actual voter rolls.

Ok, I can see that, but I'm looking at a larger picture. It is in most business' interests to have high number of people looking for work. Politicians seem to have become enamored with helping that situation (not helping the people, but the businesses) in exchange for lobbyist money (at the least).

[PLAYER57832]

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.

Absolutely correct. The War on Drugs is the worst offender, but there are some pretty ridiculous things that are considered felonies these days carrying those heinous penalties.

It goes much further and deeper than that, of course.

We have the bias that someone stealing millions from a retirement account is somehow "less harmful" than the idiot who brandishes a bun in a local convenience store. I would say both are harmful, but the local idiot can at least be more readily contained. YET... chances are the guy who stole millions will wind up back in a decent house, with no real worries over retirement, while the victimes go homeless or face working in McDonald's.

and oh, yeah... we still "don't need" Social Security or Medicare, becuase these incidents are just too far and few between to worry about.

[Funkyterrance]

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.

[thegreekdog]

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

Which party?

EDIT - Oh, sorry, saw your "we had 8 years of Bush because of..." Are you saying it benefits Republicans? Is there some statistic showing that ex-felons (or people with previous felony convictions) vote for Democrats?

Yes, and intuitively one might have expected it because blacks and other minorities are statistically over-represented in the felon population and also statistically prefer to vote Democratic. See this paper for more details. The authors reach the conclusion that, for example, in Senate races, felons tend to average about 70% Democratic in their voting patterns. Besides the fact that Gore easily would have carried Florida without felon disenfranchisement, they also point out that if felon disenfranchisement rates of today had existed in 1960, Kennedy may have lost the election.

Without felon disenfranchisement, our cumulative counterfactual suggests that Democrats may well have controlled the Senate throughout the 1990s. Although it is possible that both parties may have shifted course or that other factors could have arisen to neutralize this impact, it seems likely that the Senate deadlock after the 2000 elections would have been broken in favor of the Democrats if the ballot had been returned to disenfranchised felons.

Did the authors determine what percentage of felons are likely voters? That would seem to be a key cog in their strategy.

As an anecdotal example, if the thegreekdog, his two siblings, his wife, and his brother's wife were able to vote in the prior election, they would have voted for our current president. Since thegreekdog's wife, the greekdog's sister, and the greekdog's sister-in-law are not likely voters, the previous sentence carries no real weight, right?

In the interest of full disclosure, I remain in favor of allowing ex-felons to vote and find it despicable that they cannot vote. I'm not scientist, but I kind of thing "likely voters" is a better measure of the impact of voting issues than anything else.

I'm ignoring, of course, the proposition that most ex-felons would vote Democrat in any event. I think that's a weird assumption to make as well.

[Juan_Bottom]

It doesn't make sense that drug users become felons but those that actively try to kill me every day (by driving over the speed limit or not coming to a full stop at stop signs, for example) are not punished.

Attempted murder should be a crime.

In Illinois, you can have your felony record removed, shredded, and fully expunged if you have a felony for cannabis possession.

There are 4 categories to felonies in Illinois. Class 4 is the non-violent, non-threatening one, whereas a Class 1 felony is a crazy-violent crime where some motherf*cker ate a cop. You get a class 4 felony for possession of so much marijuana, traffic violations, writing bad checks, etc. But only marijuana users can get their record clean without the governor's intervention. It costs around $800 to do it, but only if you're lucky and your petition works the first time. My petition failed, and I was told to talk to Governor Blagojevich. I thought it was hopeless until I saw him on the news... now Governor Pat Quinn is being watched like American Idol so there's no way I can bribe him.
All felons have the same level of disenfranchisement. A class 4 felon has the same problems a class 1 felon has. It's stupid. How many of you even knew that felonies are so common they have a severity system in place?

[Woodruff]

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.

[Juan_Bottom]

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.

[2dimes]

So felony is at the state level? Can you gets passport and travel?

[Woodruff]

Can you gets passport and travel?

Passport, yes. Depends on where you want to travel.