Gun Control is Coming - But Listen to This!

Being an American Citizen before any crime a person may commit, and breaking a law isn't the same as renouncing one's citizenship. Particularly in this day and age when criminal justice has become an industry and Law Enforcement nothing more than another way to levy taxes taking away any American's Liberty should be resisted by everyone because anyone could be next. As I stated above, the punishments should be harsh, but once a felon is released from custody ongoing punishment is, in my eyes, unconstitutional. Please explain why punishment should be for life. Free Men don't ask for permission to bear arms, and also as I said above, there are no caveats, qualifiers, or restrictions in the 2nd Amendment.

I said in essence...

The very reason that persons are presumed innocent is that all people are presumed to be law abiding citizens until they commit an act and are found guilty of that act that indicates otherwise. You are completely overlooking one very important statistic, the rate that violent felons re-offend.

That is why I am for reinstatement of non violent felons but not for violent felons.
Constitutional rights extend to the welfare of society as a whole, if someone has a contagious viral infection they also lose their right to walk the streets freely as they pose a danger to their community. You could say but what if they are cured? Well, what if the rate of recontacting the disease was high what should we do?

A violent felon also could be entitled to Social Security benefits, military or private sector pensions but there are certain aspects of full citizenship that should never be denied to them whether they are an offender or not. So when I say they have renounced their citizenship I am speaking in terms of their ability to be trusted to fit in with society. Not literally. The re-offense rate justifies that position.

I understand your position that when a man is free, he is free. But unless their criminal past has been expunged from the records they really are not as free as someone that had never committed an offense,

I take issue with your categorization that the criminal justice system is a way to just levy more taxes. That is a beef you need to take up with legislators, those of us in the legal profession examine the statutes of our particular state or relevant federal law, and proceed accordingly to the best of our ability and what is in the best interest of our client for optimal positive outcomes.

We are merely a part of the system and we must also follow guidelines, judges have sentencing guidelines.

Some states do allow violent felons to own firearms again but in most cases it happens if they are granted a full pardon.

My position is that if someone has committed a violent crime they have separated themselves from normal law abiding citizens. Decisions have consequences and when your actions result in inflecting bodily harm or mental anguish in another human being through a violent act you can never enjoy the same constitutional rights that someone who has never committed an offense enjoys. And I feel it is completely constitutional to deny them those rights for the sake of a safer society.
 
Can someone point me to the part of the constitution that says criminals forfeit their constitutional rights? I'm saying that no one should have to register or get permits for anything, but prison sentences should be long for those that commit gun crimes. If they can punish felons for the rest of their lives, and they do, what's to keep them from punishing misdemeanor and traffic crimes the same way at some point in the future?

The constitution was created under the assumption that everyone was granted their individual constitutional rights which also implied that you were not to violate another person's constitutional rights exerting yours. More importantly, the constitution is a guideline as to what government CAN'T do, and not what it should do.

I am still waiting for someone to point me to the part where it says the government should mandate that citizens have to buy something.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
No one should continue to be punished after being released from custody, it's an 8th Amendment violation of personal liberty. I don't give a fuck how bad of a crime a person has committed, once released punishment should end, I'm sure that many re-offenders are dropped into circumstances where the deck is stacked against them and crime is their only alternative, regardless, if they offend again, send them back to prison for a lengthy punishment/rehabilitation, otherwise, branding people felons for life is cruel and unusual punishment and not only unconstitutional, but morally wrong as well.
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
So you are suggesting that the police allow black gangsters to go free when they are caught with guns? Really? Do YOU have some proof of that outrageously ridiculous statement?

Their will always be street crime. But how many gun deaths are there in other gun countries like Switzerland where many own guns but getting one is not easy. Again, I'M NOT ASKING TO MAKE THEM ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!! I'm saying we need to make it harder to get them for the knuckleheads. Why are YOU or ANYONE not a knucklehead against that?

The greatest parable in history is the one that suggests you walk a mile in someone's shoes before making a decision. I think you might consider doing that yourself. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who just lost a child or wife or mother to a lunatic who bought $15,000 worth of ammo and body armor online with no questions asked when a simple instant background check would have flagged them and stopped that sale. You would think differently.

The right wants to stop all screening, and cut funding for mental health care. When you have untreated psychopaths who can go online and buy whatever they want to carry out some crazy fantasy in a public place you have a very bad recipe.

Try hitting "Reply With Quote", so that people know who it is that you are addressing. Thanks.

But I assume this one was directed at me. One clarification though: no where did I specifically single out Black gangsters (unless there are Blacks in the Mexican Mafia and the Aryan Brotherhood). When I listed examples, I believe I pretty well covered most all racial and ethnic/religious groups. I guess I left out the Tongs and the Yakuza. Sorry, I'll get them next time. But anyway, let's not get anything twisted here, OK? ;)
POINT: A piss poor job is being done on the enforcement front across the board.


Sure, I'm happy to provide data and stats. But it's not as if this is a recent phenomenon. The police, the prosecutor's office, judges and the mayor's office in Chicago have been receiving heavy criticism for several years over lax enforcement, prosecution and sentencing of firearms violations. The Dept. of Justice (Obama/Holder, very similar to Clinton/Reno in this regard) has also received criticism for an almost complete lack of will to support Federal prosecution of known and repeat firearms violations in Chicago and other major cities.

In no particular order, but feel free to read at your leisure:

1)
The Syracuse study (Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse) also showed that nationally federal gun crime prosecutions hit a decade low in 2011 under President Obama, down 40% from their peak under President George W. Bush in 2004.

The number of federal weapons prosecutions fell from about 11,000 in 2004 to about 6,000 under the Obama administration in 2011, before ticking up to 7,770 in 2012.



2)
City's gun law has little firepower

Since the registration began, it has changed absolutely nothing in the way we police," says one veteran officer who doesn't want to be named for fear of a run-in with higher-ups. He says cops don't usually access the registration data—he has never seen it himself—but doubted it would make a huge difference if they did.



3)
Thousands of felony gun cases are being dismissed in Cook County criminal courts


4)
There were 2,000 offenders in 2012 convicted of "aggravated unlawful use of a weapon," for holding an illegal, unregistered gun without a FOID card. That charge carries a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 3 years.

The Circuit Court of Cook County wouldn't tell ABC7 how many offenders received the minimum, but did provide us with raw data. Out of 36,000 individual charges in 2012, ABC7 found that only 12 percent resulted in a sentence- the majority of those sentences were a year or less.



5)
“In a city like Chicago, which saw 506 murders last year, it is appalling that the U.S. attorney’s office in that jurisdiction only prosecuted 25 federal firearms cases during 2011,” the group wrote.

The letter also points out that of the 76,142 gun permit requests that were denied following background checks by federally-licensed firearms dealers, only 4,732 were referred for prosecution. Of that total, only 62 prosecutions resulted.


While I should have included all of the players, and not just the police in my post, my point remains: words on paper mean nothing if there is not a willingness and a means to apply action to those words. And I would suggest that before you or anyone else encourages me to walk a mile in anybody's shoes, why don't you back away from just looking at the "shark attack" gun stories that the media highlights, and look at the big picture? What I'm talking about is going after the bigger problem, not just focusing on the tragic story du jour. And I couldn't care less what "the right" is for or against. I am for expansion of mental health databases, so that legally incapacitated individuals would not be able to legally and so easily procure firearms. I am for making databases more accurate and meaningful. I am for enforcement of laws which deal with international smuggling of illegal firearms into the United States. I am for using the RICO statutes to prosecute and cripple organized street and motorcycle gangs. I am for crime syndicates, like Los Zetas, the Sicilian Mafia, the Russian/Israeli Mafia, FARC and other drug and crime cartels, being categorized as narco-terrorists... and dealt with in the VERY same way that we have dealt with Al Qaeda and other international terrorist groups. Maybe the President can put Joe Biden in charge of another strategy group and see if that would be an acceptable thing to do.

As for body armor, ballistic helmets and other statistically minor accessories to violent crime, I wouldn't expend a great deal of effort in dealing with them. But if it floats your boat, go for it. It's about like Feinstein worrying about whether a rifle had a bayonet lug on it. Meaningless. Personally, I would spend my time focusing on the major issues that actually contribute to violent or firearms related crimes. And the solutions that I would support would be real, broad, far reaching and meaningful... not just politically correct, feel-good fixes that drift away like a fart in the wind once the news crews leave the room.

Last, but not least, data from Obama/Holder's own DoJ:

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
 
No one should continue to be punished after being released from custody, it's an 8th Amendment violation of personal liberty. I don't give a fuck how bad of a crime a person has committed, once released punishment should end, I'm sure that many re-offenders are dropped into circumstances where the deck is stacked against them and crime is their only alternative, regardless, if they offend again, send them back to prison for a lengthy punishment/rehabilitation, otherwise, branding people felons for life is cruel and unusual punishment and not only unconstitutional, but morally wrong as well.

This seems to be a personal issue with you.

Is gun ownership the only area that you feel that an ex con's constitutional rights are being trampled upon?
 
If you're a felon with a violent past then you have no business possessing a gun. Sorry but if you're proven to be violent towards other people then you gotta live with the consequences. I think they should be able to vote, but not have guns.

A big part of our problem is that people get out of prison worse than when they got there. Prison is no longer intended to rehabilitate, that costs money and prisons are now a for-profit big business.

So if someone does home invasions with a gun, probably the most horrible crime you can have happen to you short of your kids being harmed due to the violation of your life, you think that person should be free to get a gun when they get out of prison? Get a concealed permit too? Sorry but that's fucking crazy. When you commit crimes with a gun and/or are violent towards other people during the commission of a crime you just forfeited your right to have a gun IMO.
 
If you're a felon with a violent past then you have no business possessing a gun. Sorry but if you're proven to be violent towards other people then you gotta live with the consequences. I think they should be able to vote, but not have guns.

A big part of our problem is that people get out of prison worse than when they got there. Prison is no longer intended to rehabilitate, that costs money and prisons are now a for-profit big business.

So if someone does home invasions with a gun, probably the most horrible crime you can have happen to you short of your kids being harmed due to the violation of your life, you think that person should be free to get a gun when they get out of prison? Get a concealed permit too? Sorry but that's fucking crazy. When you commit crimes with a gun and/or are violent towards other people during the commission of a crime you just forfeited your right to have a gun IMO.

Holy fucking shitballs!

That is right.

But the argument is the constitutionality of restricting gun ownership of felons. I think X's point that the 2nd amendment does not allow for restricting anyone's right has him creating the argument that denying them that right is unconstitutional..

That is why I asked him if restricting gun ownership for all felons is his only beef
 

Supafly

Retired Mod
Bronze Member
You are touching important details. Yet the solution must be a far broader approach. America is at war with itself, judging by the sheer numbers. As this article says - you seem to have become both numb and fatalistic about it. Oh, another death, oh, another killing spree. Well, that can't be helped, because nobody wants to start with him or herself. And looking at the sheer mass of guns many people have, it is irrational.

Too bad that it is another factor that being black is just unfortunate.

...

Our attitude seems to be one of fatalism. Another day, another mass shooting. Which is almost literally true. The Web site shootingtracker.com documents that in the first 207 days of 2015, the nation had 207 mass shootings. After one of these takes place now, everyone goes through a ritual of shock and horror, and then moves on, aware that nothing will change, accepting that this is just one of those quirks of American life. But it is 150,000 deaths. Almost three Vietnams.

...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...7b375e-36e8-11e5-9739-170df8af8eb9_story.html

Of course, you gun junkies won't change. It's like talking to a crack addict.
 

Supafly

Retired Mod
Bronze Member
All country's have crazy and angry people. But most countries don't allow them to have guns, let alone fully automatic weapons with massive magazines.

But it's not only about officially mental people. Everybody gets angry sometimes, and if there is a gun at hand, things get easier in the direction of another killing. Yes, knives are potential weapons, cars, too. But they are not intended for producing dead bodies.

And your Police has to handle all the peopke who carry weapons. So they expect the worst case. So they shoot really fast. Better safe than sorry.

And the circle turns and turns...
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
This seems to be a personal issue with you.

Is gun ownership the only area that you feel that an ex con's constitutional rights are being trampled upon?

It is a personal issue because it's affected my life indirectly, let me be clear; I can walk into any gun shop, plop down my i.d., pass a background check, and walk out with anything I care to purchase. It's not just 2nd Amendment rights that are being trampled. Disenfranchisement after release from custody is a form of ongoing punishment, my contention is that once a person is released from custody, no longer incarcerated, that person should have all rights restored, their criminal records sealed and only available to law enforcement. It's not just violent offenders that lose their rights, anyone convicted of a felony is subject to the same disenfranchisement as violent offenders and that's not only unconstitutional but morally wrong. You want to make sure these folks are good and punished then make sentences longer, but once a person is free they should be free and not treated as a child in the custody of the state. I am pro-2nd Amendment without restriction because that's how it's written.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
And, I would add that one of the biggest arguments that those of us on the right side of this issue make is that "criminals will have guns anyway", so there's that to take into consideration as well. No, I'm not crazy for staking out the position that I hold, it's the constitutional view, the morally correct view, and the logical view.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Until someone who committed a crime against you or your family, that terrorized them or worse, gets out of jail and you have to think of them enjoying every freedom you have, including getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Then I'm sure you view would be different.

So you think that once a sentence has been carried out that the person should continue to be punished? Loss of freedom for any number of years isn't enough? I suppose I should go back to my friend that borrowed five dollars from me back in 1996 and demand that he pay me again, plus interest because paying off a debt should never end, right?
 
if they used a gun on someone in a violent way you bet I do. I have friends who went through a home invasion in LA and I can tell you that it ruined their lives. they'll never feel safe in their own home again. their kids are fucked up and won't sleep without all the lights on. they have to have security systems and got a police dog and will never be the same again. one of the guys only got 18 months and he put a shotgun in my friends' husbands mouth in front of his 3 and 5 year old kids. They threatened to rape my friend in front of her family. One guy got 5 - 25 years and has 2 priors but plead down to avoid a 3rd strike. So he could be out in 3 or 4 years.

So you think those pieces of shit should be able to legally buy a gun??????????? How about move to Arizona and get a concealed permit?
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
I think those pieces of shit shouldn't see the outside of a prisons walls for at least thirty years. You're not reading my argument so let me state it one more time, sentences should be harsh for violent crimes, but once an appropriate sentence is completed, then those people should be given all their rights back. It's a perfectly reasonable argument. As for concealed carry I don't think anyone should have to be licensed to carry open or concealed. I'm pro-2nd Amendment without restriction, but if a violent crime is committed with or without a gun then prison sentences should be severe.
 

xfire

New Twitter/X @cxffreeman
Meaning no background checks. My stake is that it's constitutionally correct, the 2nd Amendment is unambiguous. Do you think people convicted of "non-violent" drug offenses should be subject to the same disenfranchisement as violent offenders, because currently they are. My hope is that all the stupid shit people get sent to prison for will be decriminalized and let the criminal justice system focus on the people that truly deserve to be locked up and locked up for a long time. If those criminal shitbags you mentioned in post #77 spent the prime years of their lives behind bars they wouldn't be so quick to get out just to get sent back for the rest of their miserable lives.
 
Top