After a felon serves their sentence

[Bob Blaylock]

i still go with no....all rights should not be restored... are guns a right or a fucking privilege ...i think voting is a right and owning a gun is a privilege

The Constitution rather explicitly disagrees with you on that point.

The Second Amendment does not say anything about any privilege to keep and bear arms.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Fundamental rights are not exactly the same as constitutional ones.

Umm fundamental rights are rights found in the constitution. That's literally the legal definition.

I agree with you insofar as any right explicitly enumerated, or strongly implied in the Constitution is a fundamental right.

However, the Ninth Amendment makes it clear that the Constitution is not an all-inclusive list of all fundamental rights, that other rights exist which are not listed therein.

 

[NightFox]

Should they be able to own guns?
I ask because them being able to vote is all the rage now.
Shouldn't we be consistent in policy? Meaning all rights restored?

Personally I think we should give 'em guns WHILE they're serving their sentences.

Easy & cheap way to cut down on overcrowding in prisons.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And just when it seemed clear and easy, Forkup muddies the waters with an excellent and thoughtful case of why convicted felons should lose some rights FOREVER.

And again, for those that are that dangerous, let their sentence be served at the end of a rope.

 

[forkup]

I don't really know, seems something that you need to look at in a case by case bases.

I don't see how you can universally state that a felon should have his rights fully restored.

You give the example of guns, I'll give the examples of phedophiles. Should someone convicted of something like that be allowed to own a daycare center for instance. I would argue it's a safety issue to not allow it.

Same can be said for gun ownership. Someone with a history of violence no. A guy jailed for a non-violent crime... Probably. The thing is voting has no public safety questions. Gun ownership does.

Umm they are voting on public safety. And many other things that impact everyone.

That's a bit of a stretch don't you think? I can easily see how owning a gun can lead to a guy with a history of violence committing a violent act with that gun. I can easily see how opening an daycare can lead to a phedophile abusing children again. I don't really see how voting can lead to a criminal act. Can you?

Voting fraud

The whole point of voting fraud is voting when you are not allowed to. Don't see how that is influenced by being allowed to vote. Also a pretty big stretch in my opinion.

I think you agree with my phedophile example right? If you do you recognize that when you have committed certain crimes it is justified by society to lay certain restriction on you for public safety.

I think, altough with less certainty that you agree that the crime should fit the punishment and that after a certain time certain rights should be restored?

If you acknowledge both those things than you should acknowledge that it's all circumstancial. And that you can not universally restore all rights to citizens who committed a crime, or conversely universally deprive people of all rights.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

for a militia you got one of those going?

The militia is the people.

Specifically, it is every able-bodied man between the ages of 17 and 45.

 

[TNHarley]

I don't really know, seems something that you need to look at in a case by case bases.

I don't see how you can universally state that a felon should have his rights fully restored.

You give the example of guns, I'll give the examples of phedophiles. Should someone convicted of something like that be allowed to own a daycare center for instance. I would argue it's a safety issue to not allow it.

Same can be said for gun ownership. Someone with a history of violence no. A guy jailed for a non-violent crime... Probably. The thing is voting has no public safety questions. Gun ownership does.

Umm they are voting on public safety. And many other things that impact everyone.

That's a bit of a stretch don't you think? I can easily see how owning a gun can lead to a guy with a history of violence committing a violent act with that gun. I can easily see how opening an daycare can lead to a phedophile abusing children again. I don't really see how voting can lead to a criminal act. Can you?

Voting fraud

The whole point of voting fraud is voting when you are not allowed to. Don't see how that is influenced by being allowed to vote. Also a pretty big stretch in my opinion.

I think you agree with my phedophile example right? If you do you recognize that when you have committed certain crimes it is justified by society to lay certain restriction on you for public safety.

I think, altough with less certainty that you agree that the crime should fit the punishment and that after a certain time certain rights should be restored?

If you acknowledge both those things than you should acknowledge that it's all circumstancial. And that you can not universally restore all rights to citizens who committed a crime, or conversely universally deprive people of all rights.

Natural and constitutional rights cant be left up to a group of people.
My point was, what if the crime was voter fraud?
You implied loss of rights should relate to the crime.

 

[Gdjjr]

i still go with no....all rights should not be restored... are guns a right or a fucking privilege ...i think voting is a right and owning a gun is a privilege

Guns are a constitutional right.

Constitutionally protected- rights pre date the constitution.

 

[forkup]

I don't really know, seems something that you need to look at in a case by case bases.

I don't see how you can universally state that a felon should have his rights fully restored.

You give the example of guns, I'll give the examples of phedophiles. Should someone convicted of something like that be allowed to own a daycare center for instance. I would argue it's a safety issue to not allow it.

Same can be said for gun ownership. Someone with a history of violence no. A guy jailed for a non-violent crime... Probably. The thing is voting has no public safety questions. Gun ownership does.

Umm they are voting on public safety. And many other things that impact everyone.

That's a bit of a stretch don't you think? I can easily see how owning a gun can lead to a guy with a history of violence committing a violent act with that gun. I can easily see how opening an daycare can lead to a phedophile abusing children again. I don't really see how voting can lead to a criminal act. Can you?

Voting fraud

The whole point of voting fraud is voting when you are not allowed to. Don't see how that is influenced by being allowed to vote. Also a pretty big stretch in my opinion.

I think you agree with my phedophile example right? If you do you recognize that when you have committed certain crimes it is justified by society to lay certain restriction on you for public safety.

I think, altough with less certainty that you agree that the crime should fit the punishment and that after a certain time certain rights should be restored?

If you acknowledge both those things than you should acknowledge that it's all circumstancial. And that you can not universally restore all rights to citizens who committed a crime, or conversely universally deprive people of all rights.

In fact by agreeing that the lenght of prison sentences should vary according to the crime a person implicitly agrees with the assertion that the rights of a citizen can be taken away and restored on a case by case bases.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I will slightly disagree. There can be instances where life in prison is neither warranted, nor practical, but where some degree of depravation [sic] of freedom is still warranted. The problem is that it should be done judicially, on a case by case basis. If an individual has multiple felony convictions for gun violence, I'm fine with the sentence itself including a lifetime prohibition against possessing weapons. But what we currently see with gun and voting rights are statutory wet blankets that serve only to add secondary punishment.

There's your problem.

You think that someone who has “multiple felony convictions for gun violence” should ever be allowed to go free, to where it would be an issue what rights he may or may not exercise as a free man.

I say that such an individual is the strongest example of someone whose sentence should be served at the end of a rope.

 

[TRFjr]

the recidivism rate of felons is over 75% within 5 years from release
those statistics prove the vast majority of released felons arent reformed so why in the hell would we want to arm the unreformed

 

[forkup]

I don't really know, seems something that you need to look at in a case by case bases.

I don't see how you can universally state that a felon should have his rights fully restored.

You give the example of guns, I'll give the examples of phedophiles. Should someone convicted of something like that be allowed to own a daycare center for instance. I would argue it's a safety issue to not allow it.

Same can be said for gun ownership. Someone with a history of violence no. A guy jailed for a non-violent crime... Probably. The thing is voting has no public safety questions. Gun ownership does.

Umm they are voting on public safety. And many other things that impact everyone.

That's a bit of a stretch don't you think? I can easily see how owning a gun can lead to a guy with a history of violence committing a violent act with that gun. I can easily see how opening an daycare can lead to a phedophile abusing children again. I don't really see how voting can lead to a criminal act. Can you?

Voting fraud

The whole point of voting fraud is voting when you are not allowed to. Don't see how that is influenced by being allowed to vote. Also a pretty big stretch in my opinion.

I think you agree with my phedophile example right? If you do you recognize that when you have committed certain crimes it is justified by society to lay certain restriction on you for public safety.

I think, altough with less certainty that you agree that the crime should fit the punishment and that after a certain time certain rights should be restored?

If you acknowledge both those things than you should acknowledge that it's all circumstancial. And that you can not universally restore all rights to citizens who committed a crime, or conversely universally deprive people of all rights.

Natural and constitutional rights cant be left up to a group of people.
My point was, what if the crime was voter fraud?
You implied loss of rights should relate to the crime.

No I implied that gaining a certain right shouldn't make the chance of commiting a related crime more likely.

Someone who committed a violent crime is more likely to do so again with a gun or at thé very least it makes the potential severity of that violence higher.
Someone who has a history of being attracted to children ( a mental illness) is more likely to act on it of he owns a daycare.

Being allowed to vote does not increase the likelyhood of someone who was convicted of voter fraud I think.Or if it is by all means take the right away.

The point is it is allowed and prudent to give felons as many rights back after they have served their sentences as you can. While still being mindfull of the public safety aspect of restoring those rights and how it affects them committing similar crimes.

 

[rightwinger]

Should they be able to own guns?
I ask because them being able to vote is all the rage now.
Shouldn't we be consistent in policy? Meaning all rights restored?

If they were nonviolent felons, they should be allowed to own guns

 

[TNHarley]

Should they be able to own guns?
I ask because them being able to vote is all the rage now.
Shouldn't we be consistent in policy? Meaning all rights restored?

If they were nonviolent felons, they should be allowed to own guns

But voting is ok?

 

[rightwinger]

Should they be able to own guns?
I ask because them being able to vote is all the rage now.
Shouldn't we be consistent in policy? Meaning all rights restored?

If they were nonviolent felons, they should be allowed to own guns

But voting is ok?

I never saw anyone try to rob a liquor store by threatening to vote

 

[Mac-7]

Should they be able to own guns?
I ask because them being able to vote is all the rage now.
Shouldn't we be consistent in policy? Meaning all rights restored?

Yes.

Once they have served their debt to society they should be given full rights back.

If they cannot be trusted with those rights, then they should not be let out of prison.

Convicted violent felons should never have full rights restored

For them no voting and no guns

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Should they be able to own guns?
I ask because them being able to vote is all the rage now.
Shouldn't we be consistent in policy? Meaning all rights restored?

Yes.

Once they have served their debt to society they should be given full rights back.

If they cannot be trusted with those rights, then they should not be let out of prison.

Convicted violent felons should never have full rights restored

For them no voting and no guns

I disagree.

 

[Crixus]

Should they be able to own guns?
I ask because them being able to vote is all the rage now.
Shouldn't we be consistent in policy? Meaning all rights restored?

Yes. That's how it was before and how it should be now. The idea was, do the crime and you are in debt to society, you did time to settle that debt to society, once that time is served, the debt is settled. So with the debt settled, time served parole served then one is normal again.

 

[Crixus]

Should they be able to own guns?
I ask because them being able to vote is all the rage now.
Shouldn't we be consistent in policy? Meaning all rights restored?

Yes.

Once they have served their debt to society they should be given full rights back.

If they cannot be trusted with those rights, then they should not be let out of prison.

Convicted violent felons should never have full rights restored

For them no voting and no guns

That cuts both ways. It's real easy to get convicted for a "violent" misdemeanor, thus costing one their rights to possess and own guns. That could be you real easy.

 

[007]

Should they be able to own guns?
I ask because them being able to vote is all the rage now.
Shouldn't we be consistent in policy? Meaning all rights restored?

Yes, but only if they were convicted of a nonviolent crime.

Anyone ever convicted of a felony assault of any kind should lose their rights to own a firearm forever.