[SeaBeeDaddy]

Regardless of what you think about SJWs and rioters (I think we have covered that ad-naseam), what do you believe when it comes to their right to keep and bear arms?

 

[Big Horn]

The Constitution is either for everyone or no one. We've seen antigun forces work very hard, and unfortunately very successfully, to remove Second Amendment rights from various groups. However, the Second Amendment makes no exceptions whatsoever. The idea of identifying and disarming leftists or any other group is just as dangerous and unconstitutional as the Gun Control Act, National Firearms Act, and all of the other laws aimed at disarming the American people.

 

[AK103K]

Why would theirs be any different than ours?

Shoes just on the other foot right now.

 

[Harmless Drudge]

Regardless of what you think about SJWs and rioters (I think we have covered that ad-naseam), what do you believe when it comes to their right to keep and bear arms?

They already do. Felons aren't allowed guns under federal law.

 

[loki81]

depends on if you consider these people domestic terrorist or just ****ed off retarded hippies.

 

[jknova]

I think if you are free to walk the street, you should be free to buy a gun. I don't think background checks should exist.

So, if these people get locked up (and I think some should), they would lose the right to keep and bear arms while in custody. Once released, they would have those rights again.

 

[Jungle Work]

Lawful Protesters are one thing,

Felony Rioting is another.

Comit a felony and get convicted and see

what happens. Anarchist are the Scumbags

Of lawfull Protest.

Jungle Work

 

[SeaBeeDaddy]

depends on if you consider these people domestic terrorist or just ****ed off retarded hippies.

The Founding Fathers were considered domestic terrorists. That term can cut both ways which is why the 2A was written to be all encompassing instead of selective.

Domestic Terrorism has been used against gun owners quite effectively. Should gun owners further that agenda while they have a percieved advantage? Remember, the pendulum will eventual shift the other way.

 

[AK103K]

Ive always felt the "felony" thing should be modified and ranked according to the crime, not simply because it was a felony.

Not all felonies are the same, and some are stupid simple, like answering a question on a 4473 wrong, as an example.

Should you lose your "rights" for something as silly as that?

Except in maybe a few certain/specific instances, if you do your time, you should get your rights back once youre released.

 

[jknova]

The Founding Fathers were considered domestic terrorists. That term can cut both ways which is why the 2A was written to be all encompassing instead of selective.

Domestic Terrorism has been used against gun owners quite effectively. Should gun owners further that agenda while they have a percieved advantage? Remember, the pendulum will eventual shift the other way.

I'm with you as far as policy, but I don't think the founding fathers were considered "domestic terrorists."

For them to be "domestic terrorists," they would have needed to take actions like - for example - burning down a loyalist town and killing all residents in order to terrorize other loyalists into supporting the rebellion.

Both sides in the Revolutionary War had policies against mistreatment of civilians, though those policies were not always followed conscientiously.

 

[jknova]

Ive always felt the "felony" thing should be modified and ranked according to the crime, not simply because it was a felony.

Not all felonies are the same, and some are stupid simple, like answering a question on a 4473 wrong, as an example.

Should you lose your "rights" for something as silly as that?

Except in maybe a few certain/specific instances, if you do your time, you should get your rights back once youre released.

I could generally agree, but the problem is, if any group doesn't get those rights back after being released, that means everyone needs a background check. Even if it's 0.01% of the population.

There is a simpler solution, IMO. If someone is so dangerous that once he touches a gun, he'll start spraying bullets around, why is that person released from prison or a mental asylum or wherever? Isn't he also likely to drive a box truck into a crowd or make a pipe bomb?

 

[240Geezer]

I voted maybe. Absolutes are tough. If convicted of a felony then no. To have rights taken away is very serious. It would need due process and a court of law.

 

[13ella]

If they are safe enough to walk among us, they should not be denied the right to defend themselves. If they aren't, they should remain locked up.

 

[jknova]

i really agree with that but that will never happen, it would require a complete deconstruction of our current legal system, across the country and everything would have to be re-codified and handled completely differently....

reason i say this is for it work you would need to reduce the number of things people go to jail for while increasing how long they must stay there, otherwise we just wouldn't be able to do it, our jails are already over crowded and costing us a fortune, we just couldn't afford to have everyone in jail all of the time..

Yes - I'm not proposing a large increase in prison population. Some people might stay longer, if we still think they are dangerous. However, I also think there are a lot of non-violent crimes that currently involve prison sentences that could be handled without prison sentences. So, it might balance out.

I am more interested in the liberty half of the equation.

 

[13ella]

Yeah, people should not be locked up for putting lobster in plastic bags.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/walterpavlo/2011/12/13/im-going-to-jail-for-what/#7fbbca74e639

Abner Schoenwetter was importing seafood to sell to U.S. restaurants for over 12 years from Honduras. Those shipments were overseen by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) who inspected the shipments and found everything in order, including the plastic bags used to ship the frozen Caribbean lobsters (see the U.S. Department of Justice Charges here). That plastic, and not a box, is a “no-no” according to the Lacey Act which was enforced by another U.S. government entity, National Marine Fishery Service. Schoenwetter was prosecuted and was sentenced to 8 years in federal prison, which he completed in August of 2010 (he’s still on probation).

 

[SeaBeeDaddy]

Would supporting the idea that felons should not have guns also support the claim that gun control laws work?

 

[jknova]

seriously, what do we do with these people? after about a decade i could see the number being so large that we simply couldn't house them all by conventional means...one would hope that after a generation or two that society would readjust and crimes worthy of prison would reduce significantly, but how do you deal with the immediate problem?

I'd rather do what we can today and then do what we can tomorrow, than wait for a perfect plan that solves everything all at once but can never actually happen.

If we simply drop the background check system, there will be ex-cons who legally couldn't buy a gun yesterday, but can legally buy a gun today - however, that won't lead to skyrocketing violence, because if they were violent people, they'd have stolen a gun or done something else violent anyway. So if you did nothing but dump the background check system without adjusting prison population or sentencing, I don't think it would lead to a net increase in violent crime.

However, it would be a great conversation to begin (mainly at the state level) of whether non-violent criminals should actually be in prison - I'd say generally they shouldn't be - and whether violent criminals should be locked up longer unless they convince a parole board they aren't a threat.

And even if the only change was not releasing violent criminals as soon - yes, prison population would rise - yes, that's bad - but crime rates would also fall, so, glass half full maybe.

 

[jknova]

Would supporting the idea that felons should not have guns also support the claim that gun control laws work?

Yes, IMO that is an implied part of that argument. At this point, background checks have been part of the fabric of our society for so long that I'd say even most NRA members, probably even some NRA leaders, have been brainwashed into thinking it works ... or even if it doesn't work, it "makes sense".

 

[Harmless Drudge]

i really agree with that but that will never happen, it would require a complete deconstruction of our current legal system, across the country and everything would have to be re-codified and handled completely differently.

i mean it'd be great, we'd have to get rid of alot of laws or at least remove jail sentences for them and replace them with a larger fine...but there would also be alot more freedom across the board as a result.

reason i say this is for it work you would need to reduce the number of things people go to jail for while increasing how long they must stay there, otherwise we just wouldn't be able to do it, our jails are already over crowded and costing us a fortune, we just couldn't afford to have everyone in jail all of the time..

honestly i think the whole system there needs to be replaced anyways, inmates should have to do their time and pay for it as well, shouldn't have people throwing bricks through windows to get 3 hots and a cot, they should have to work while in there and actually repay their debt to society rather than society paying for a roof over their heads and food in their bellies while they watch day time TV and masturbate....whoever thought that was a good idea in the first place? serious question, who on earth actually thought it was a good idea to do away with hard labour in jails instead of simply regulating it heavily?

but, in short that's how i would see it working, you pay more fines but go to jail for less things, there should be less laws in general, when you go to jail you pay for it and you're there for a while, when you get out, you're a freeman, no strings attached.

that said, what do you do with the people who never want to get out of prison, the people who dive into the gang cultures in there and the rest, we all know that we'll get a large percentage of people who will never be let free, the only solution i can come up with dealing with those people is simply not right and not an option, so do they basically end up as slaves to the state because they are bloody retarded and can't keep from getting in trouble in prison long enough to get out?


really though, the whole justice and legal system from the ground up is a mess and we're so far off from what should be and what is that we're really only just jerk'n our own chains even talking about it....it's fun i guess, but any of this is never going to be reality.

side note, my cousin is my age, grew up in TX, the guys only been a free man maybe 5 years of his adult life, basically got sent to prison on his 18th and has only gotten out long enough to knock a girl up and get thrown back in and then gets out to visit every 5-6 years or so, then decides to go back...

he's a 37 year old man who still lives at home with his parents, he terrorizes and has them in fear when he's there and not in prison, real POS that i swear to god has spent more time in prison than he has on the streets....the guy had every opportunity and his parents are the most loving and god fearing people i know, true Texans through and through,let's be real here, there are people that are never going to walk free if this was the system.... how would we house them all?

or do we just declare LA a no mans land and build a wall around it and let them all do whatever to each other? lol, maybe even televise it PPV, lol, it's be sweet to see my cousin on TV, might actually be able to say he did something with his life.

this is probably pretty rant-y, sorry, hurt my back and am on alot of pain killers ATM. lol

You ask whose idea the current prison system was. Well, originally it was the Quakers who asked that our system of capital punishment, corporal punishment, and restitution be replaced with a prison system featuring solitary confinement, and that was adopted under the guise that it was more humane than execution. Then it was deemed too harsh, so the solitary confinement was dropped, and prisons became training grounds for thugs and gangstas.

 

[Colt]

Lawful Protesters are one thing,

Felony Rioting is another.

Comit a felony and get convicted and see

what happens. Anarchist are the Scumbags

Of lawfull Protest.

Jungle Work

Anarcho-Communists are scumbags. There's a lot of other groups within that Anarchy/Freedom side of the political spectrum that are nothing like AnComs. Anarcho-Capitalists are probably the majority, in fact. Ironically Anarchy = Minimal Government. Anarcho-Communists are special in that they don't believe in ownership rights, private or public and they're generally just a collection of criminals who are trying to make their fraud and theft more socially acceptable.

But back to the OP: They can be denied weapons when serving their term. The only problem I have with this is that people's terms should end when they stop being a threat to others. As it stands now we put them in for meaningless periods of time and put them back on the street KNOWING that they intend to commit more crimes. This is were good, strong parole should come into effect. Violent felonies shouldn't have you back on the street in a matter of days and 2 years later take you out of society for a year. You should get slapped with a life sentence with parole. You're closely monitored and restricted because you're still to some extent a prisoner. First sign that you'll commit another crime, you can go back to your safe space cell until you're ready to play nice again.