Are Murderers And Other Criminals Entitled To Own Firearms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timshufflin

So, the background check is a "reasonable" infringement on the 2nd Amendment?

The argument on the released criminal is not being couched to my argument. I'm arguing that the criminal, who is not safe for society, should not have been released in the first place. That person does not need a gun to make me not want them as my neighbor.

The argument here is really that people shouldn't be being released in the first place if they are not fit to be your neighbor.

---

You are twisting my statement Tim about the background check. I gree with you on background checks. I also agree with them not being released if they are not safe for releasing. That was my statement in the beginning. Read post #6. But, they are being released and that is why I believe that, if they are a felon, they should not have the right to firearm. The rehabilitation that everyone likes to talk about, does not exist. Do the research. The only things that are learned by convicted felons in prison is how to create more havoc when they are released. There is NO REHABILITATION. THERE IS ONLY TIME SERVED. Some states, I believe, reinstate individual rights after a given time depending on certain criteria. I believe now and will continue to believe that a felon is always a felon. Time served is NOT rehabilitation.

I was in error when I said that the two noble inner city descendants of royalty served 3 years for killing my brother-in-law. My wife just informed me it was 18 months. Sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Punch The Clown

I was in error when I said that the two noble inner city descendants of royalty served 3 years for killing my brother-in-law. My wife just informed me it was 18 months. Sorry.

---

I am so glad I live in a state that is unfraid to lock thugs the fuck up and execute those that murder. NY is screwed up beyond salvation!

Eli

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buckshot85

You are twisting my statement Tim about the background check. I gree with you on background checks. I also agree with them not being released if they are not safe for releasing. That was my statement in the beginning. Read post #6. But, they are being released and that is why I believe that, if they are a felon, they should not have the right to firearm. The rehabilitation that everyone likes to talk about, does not exist. Do the research. The only things that are learned by convicted felons in prison is how to create more havoc when they are released. There is NO REHABILITATION. THERE IS ONLY TIME SERVED. Some states, I believe, reinstate individual rights after a given time depending on certain criteria. I believe now and will continue to believe that a felon is always a felon. Time served is NOT rehabilitation.

---

We can legally do you what you'd like, and I'd agree with you, if we amend the 2nd amendment. Without amending the Constitution, there is no "reasonable" way to infringe upon it.

I believe and I think you do to that there should be no ammending of the constitution. It is not a living document. What the correct answer is to this topic at hand, I do not know and from what I have seen in my 45 years, our elected officials do not either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eli

I am so glad I live in a state that is unfraid to lock thugs the fuck up and execute those that murder. NY is screwed up beyond salvation!

Eli

---

New York is known as the "Empire State", and we now have an Emporer running it. Come to think of it, we've had several Emporers in the last few years, the only difference being that some of them were not so bold as the current one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buckshot85

I believe and I think you do to that there should be no ammending of the constitution. It is not a living document. What the correct answer is to this topic at hand, I do not know and from what I have seen in my 45 years, our elected officials do not either.

---

The Constitution was made with an Amendment process in place. I have no problem with amending the Constitution when the required votes are there. To get those votes is a burden and it was meant to be that way.

Listen, this isn't rocket science. If a criminal does his penance he is obviously no longer a threat to society-if he was he wouldn't have been released now would he have? You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either they stay in jail or we restore their rights. A really good safeguard would be that the judge that sentenced the parolee and the members of the parole board that paroled the parolee have the ex-convict stay at their houses for a specified period of time-just to prove they have the courage of their convictions. Interesting to see how many judges would allow a serial rapist to share a bedroom with their teenage daughter. But, being better than you and I, these people would rather have these ex-convicts re-integrate into society as MY next door neighbor and not theirs.

Why would I even have a cake if I were not going to eat it?????? Of course I can.

Up to 1968 a felon did not lose their 2A rights. That came in with the 68 GCA. How did America survive up to that point?

They started the entire gun control thing at that point. "Screw em, they're just felons." No one objected and people got used to having God given inalienable Rights being taken away from people. Now they deny people with domestic violence misdemeanors there inalienable Right. Returning vets with PTSD are being denied their inalienable Rights. Where is any of this addressed in the Constitution? The only way I read in the Constitution that happens is for treason.

BTW, a prison term does not end when the person is "rehabilitated." It ends when the time ordered by the judge is over. The person can be just as fucked up as they were when imprisoned when they are released.