Ban Guns

[pcosmar]

That's for sure. So should criminals with a violent history be denied purchasing further guns or should nobody be denied under any circumstances? (i'm just posing questions that have been posed to me before)

No one,,ever..
The government at all levels should be Barred in all manner from ever (even giving any appearance of) infringing on a human beings right to defend themselves.

[osan]

That's for sure. So should criminals with a violent history be denied purchasing further guns or should nobody be denied under any circumstances? (i'm just posing questions that have been posed to me before)

We need to set a few things straight here. I've done it before, but it bears repetition.

If you commit a crime - a real one and not some nonsense like smoking a joint, buying hooker services, and the like - and you are righteously tried and convicted, you are then a convicted felon. You go serve out your sentence and once the criminal debt is discharged, you are no longer a convicted felon - you are no longer a criminal. You are an ex-criminal. From that point all is supposed to be even and all rights should be restored.

If perchance you choose to involve yourself in yet another criminal endeavor and are again apprehended, tried, and convicted, you once again earn the status of convicted felon. When you are released, once again all rights should be restored. If they are not, this implies any of a number of things, none good. Either you have NOT discharged the criminal debt you incurred by committing the crime in question, in which case you should still be under sentence and should almost certainly be in prison or jail, or those in power are of the mind that rights are not rights at all, but rather privileges to be taken from ostensibly free men according to some arbitrary scheme.

To retain the status of "felon" after having been released from prison makes no sense. If you are still a menace, why have you been released? What was the judge thinking when he passed sentence? If you have been released, the only morally justifiable position to take is the assumption that, having paid your debt you are now once again a free man and NO free man may be disbarred from the exercise of ANY of his rights. Period.

The moment Joe Murder steps foot our of prison, his friends should be able to put a gun in his hand and he should be free to walk the streets unmolested. Some say this is insanity, but I assert it is the only right way to proceed. Such men meet bad ends in most cases. Even if we assume the worst in others we are unable to offer a credible moral justification for denying them the exercise of their natural rights because no such justification exists.

The one area where I am still uncertain and would here solicit discussion, is the issue of one's criminal history. Should a man who is on trial for his nth criminal offense have the history of his n-1 offenses taken into consideration when being sentenced? A small part of me says, "maybe" but the larger part says no. Does anyone have an informed opinion on this?

[osan]

No one,,ever..
The government at all levels should be Barred in all manner from ever (even giving any appearance of) infringing on a human beings right to defend themselves.

Should inmates, then, be allowed the possession of firearms? If the right can never be infringed, then neither can the right to the means of exercise. This does appear to present something of a conundrum, does it not?

[Danke]

We need to set a few things straight here. I've done it before, but it bears repetition.

If you commit a crime - a real one and not some nonsense like smoking a joint, buying hooker services, and the like - and you are righteously tried and convicted, you are them a convicted felon. You go serve out your sentence and once the criminal debt is discharged, you are no longer a convicted felon - you are no longer a criminal. You are an ex-criminal. From that point all all is supposed to be even and all rights should be restored.

If perchance you choose to involve yourself in yet another criminal endeavor and are again apprehended, tried, and convicted, you once again earn the status of convicted felon. When you are released, once again all rights should be restored. If they are not, this implies any of a number of things, none good. Either you have NOT discharged the criminal debt you incurred by committing the crime in question, in which case you should still be under sentence and should almost certainly be in prison or jail, or those in power are of the mind that rights are not rights at all, but rather privileges to be taken from ostensibly free men according to some arbitrary scheme.

To retain the status of "felon" after having been released from prison makes no sense. If you are still a menace, why have you been released? What was the judge thinking when he passed sentence? If you have been released, the only morally justifiable position to take is the assumption that, having paid your debt you are now once again a free man and NO free man may be disbarred from the exercise of ANY of his rights. Period.

The moment Joe Murder steps foot our of prison, his friends should be able to put a gun in his hand and he should be free to walk the streets unmolested. Some say this is insanity, but I assert it is the only right way to proceed. Such men meet bad ends in most cases. Even if we assume the worst in others we are unable to offer a credible moral justification for denying them the exercise of their natural rights because no such justification exists.

The one area where I am still uncertain and would here solicit discussion, is the issue of one's criminal history. Should a man who is on trial for his nth criminal offense have the history of his n-1 offenses taken into consideration when being sentenced? A small part of me says, "maybe" but the larger part says no. Does anyone have an informed opinion on this?

That means only incarceration is fit for punishment. I'd say deny the person with X amount of DWIs a license, but not necessarily lock him up.

[tonypeck]

We need to set a few things straight here. I've done it before, but it bears repetition.

If you commit a crime - a real one and not some nonsense like smoking a joint, buying hooker services, and the like - and you are righteously tried and convicted, you are them a convicted felon. You go serve out your sentence and once the criminal debt is discharged, you are no longer a convicted felon - you are no longer a criminal. You are an ex-criminal. From that point all all is supposed to be even and all rights should be restored.

If perchance you choose to involve yourself in yet another criminal endeavor and are again apprehended, tried, and convicted, you once again earn the status of convicted felon. When you are released, once again all rights should be restored. If they are not, this implies any of a number of things, none good. Either you have NOT discharged the criminal debt you incurred by committing the crime in question, in which case you should still be under sentence and should almost certainly be in prison or jail, or those in power are of the mind that rights are not rights at all, but rather privileges to be taken from ostensibly free men according to some arbitrary scheme.

To retain the status of "felon" after having been released from prison makes no sense. If you are still a menace, why have you been released? What was the judge thinking when he passed sentence? If you have been released, the only morally justifiable position to take is the assumption that, having paid your debt you are now once again a free man and NO free man may be disbarred from the exercise of ANY of his rights. Period.

The moment Joe Murder steps foot our of prison, his friends should be able to put a gun in his hand and he should be free to walk the streets unmolested. Some say this is insanity, but I assert it is the only right way to proceed. Such men meet bad ends in most cases. Even if we assume the worst in others we are unable to offer a credible moral justification for denying them the exercise of their natural rights because no such justification exists.

The one area where I am still uncertain and would here solicit discussion, is the issue of one's criminal history. Should a man who is on trial for his nth criminal offense have the history of his n-1 offenses taken into consideration when being sentenced? A small part of me says, "maybe" but the larger part says no. Does anyone have an informed opinion on this?

Excellent explanation, very just reasoning

[tonypeck]

Should inmates, then, be allowed the possession of firearms? If the right can never be infringed, then neither can the right to the means of exercise. This does appear to present something of a conundrum, does it not?

But when one commits a crime aren't they essentially giving up some of their rights after they are convicted and tried? Being in prison isn't really being free right?

[Danke]

Excellent explanation, very just reasoning

So do away with probation? Instead lock them up longer?

[Qdog]

If they ban guns... I am going to going to go ape$#@! with a sledgehammer.

[tonypeck]

So do away with probation? Instead lock them up longer?

Well can't they still have their rights while on probation?

[Cowlesy]

"Let any great nation of modern times be confronted by two conflicting propositions, the one grounded upon the utmost probability and reasonableness and the other upon the most glaring error, and it will almost invariably embrace the latter. It is so in politics, which consists wholly of a succession of unintelligent crazes, many of them so idiotic that they exist only as battle-cries and shibboleths and are not reducible to logical statement at all. It is so in nearly every field of thought. The ideas that conquer the race most rapidly and arouse the wildest enthusiasm and are held most tenaciously are precisely the ideas that are most insane. This has been true since the first ‘advanced’ gorilla put on underwear, cultivated a frown and began his first lecture tour in the first chautauqua, and it will be so until the high gods, tired of the farce at last, obliterate the race with one great, final blast of fire, mustard gas and streptcocci.” - Henry Louis Mencken

[osan]

That means only incarceration is fit for punishment.

For actual felonies, absolutely.

I'd say deny the person with X amount of DWIs a license, but not necessarily lock him up.

This implies that licensing drivers is a valid practice and I question that strongly.

Like "conspiracy", "endangerment" is not a crime. To endanger others is bad, of course, but it is NOT a crime. I fully support the notion that any citizen holds the moral authority to prevent another person from proceeding in a manner that is manifestly and immediately dangerous to the wellbeing of others. I also believe that when a person interferes with another under the pretense of preventing some disastrous event from occurring, that person may be held to account for his actions. If he arrests the neighborhood burnout for sniffing glue, I would deem that a tort at the least. Other forms of interference may be rationally deemed as felonious. But if the glue sniffer was trying to get your neighbor's ten year old to get high with him, I would consider his interference a just and perhaps even heroic deed.

I have no problem with people pulling drunk drivers over and preventing them from proceeding behind the wheels. I know things can get sticky in specific circumstances, but IMO those are comparatively rare occurrences and can perhaps be handled well in any event. There is a fine line to be tread, but I suspect that holding those who so interfere to a high standard of justification would cover the vast majority of cases, especially if the consequences, both criminal and civil, were substantially unattractive.

There are sane and rational ways of addressing non-criminal acts - misdemeanors I suppose - without resorting to the sorts of prison-filling approaches that we now employ.

[Danke]

This implies that licensing drivers is a valid practice and I question that strongly.

That was just an example.

[osan]

So do away with probation? Instead lock them up longer?

Absolutely.

If you are unfit to be trusted, you are unfit to be on the street. Period. Probation is a waste of time. Most of these guys behave until the day their probation is up and it is back to the same old thing. All probation accomplishes is to add to the roles of government employees siphoning YOUR money from your wallet. Criminals may be stupid, but they are also clever. They generally know how things work and know how to scam the system. Add more hurdles, they meet them until given the green and then will do what they are going to do. The whole notion of "rehabilitation" as it currently exists is a sham. Put REAL criminals in cages - murderers, robbers, rapists, and so forth. Lesser misdeeds like getting into a bar fight and knocking a guy's tooth out is probably better addressed with civil penalties in lieu of the criminal. Make the bastard work for the next X years to make full restitution with interest, as well as punitive damages. Fail to pay, go to jail. Fairly simple and straightforward. Your poor decision cause serious loss to another. You will make good or go to jail. See? Very neat and simple for the most part.

[osan]

But when one commits a crime aren't they essentially giving up some of their rights after they are convicted and tried? Being in prison isn't really being free right?

I was responding to Pcosmar's statement:

The government at all levels should be Barred in all manner from ever [] infringing on a human beings right to defend themselves.

That is a very sweeping statement and taken at face value leads to the implications that I addressed. Your distinction of "free man" v. "non-free" is well taken. But even so, does a non-free man waive his right to life by virtue of his non-free status? These may not be easily answered questions. If Joe Murder is in prison and is attacked by an inmate or even a guard, is he morally obliged to lie down and die on demand? All emotional issues aside, such as the heinousness of a man's criminal acts, I am hard pressed to accept that anyone is so obliged under any circumstance.

[osan]

"Let any great nation of modern times be confronted by two conflicting propositions, the one grounded upon the utmost probability and reasonableness and the other upon the most glaring error, and it will almost invariably embrace the latter. It is so in politics, which consists wholly of a succession of unintelligent crazes, many of them so idiotic that they exist only as battle-cries and shibboleths and are not reducible to logical statement at all. It is so in nearly every field of thought. The ideas that conquer the race most rapidly and arouse the wildest enthusiasm and are held most tenaciously are precisely the ideas that are most insane. This has been true since the first ‘advanced’ gorilla put on underwear, cultivated a frown and began his first lecture tour in the first chautauqua, and it will be so until the high gods, tired of the farce at last, obliterate the race with one great, final blast of fire, mustard gas and streptcocci.” - Henry Louis Mencken

Mencken was so cool.

[tonypeck]

I was responding to Pcosmar's statement:



That is a very sweeping statement and taken at face value leads to the implications that I addressed. Your distinction of "free man" v. "non-free" is well taken. But even so, does a non-free man waive his right to life by virtue of his non-free status? These may not be easily answered questions. If Joe Murder is in prison and is attacked by an inmate or even a guard, is he morally obliged to lie down and die on demand? All emotional issues aside, such as the heinousness of a man's criminal acts, I am hard pressed to accept that anyone is so obliged under any circumstance.

Well yeah self defense shouldn't be a crime in any scenario

[TheTexan]

Ban murder

[tod evans]

That's for sure. So should criminals with a violent history be denied purchasing further guns or should nobody be denied under any circumstances? (i'm just posing questions that have been posed to me before)

Even the simple term "violent" has been bastardized and perverted by the "Just-Us" system....Do some research, The mellow dude growing weed with his g-paw's shotgun in the closet is, according to "Our-Government" a violent criminal...

Short answer, No. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"......Period.

[Danke]

Absolutely.

If you are unfit to be trusted, you are unfit to be on the street. Period. Probation is a waste of time. Most of these guys behave until the day their probation is up and it is back to the same old thing. All probation accomplishes is to add to the roles of government employees siphoning YOUR money from your wallet. Criminals may be stupid, but they are also clever. They generally know how things work and know how to scam the system. Add more hurdles, they meet them until given the green and then will do what they are going to do. The whole notion of "rehabilitation" as it currently exists is a sham. Put REAL criminals in cages - murderers, robbers, rapists, and so forth. Lesser misdeeds like getting into a bar fight and knocking a guy's tooth out is probably better addressed with civil penalties in lieu of the criminal. Make the bastard work for the next X years to make full restitution with interest, as well as punitive damages. Fail to pay, go to jail. Fairly simple and straightforward. Your poor decision cause serious loss to another. You will make good or go to jail. See? Very neat and simple for the most part.

I disagree. Technology allows one to work and be productive outside of incarnation, but restricts one's freedom and ability to commit further crimes.

[osan]

I disagree. Technology allows one to work and be productive outside of incarnation, but restricts one's freedom and ability to commit further crimes.

Logic fail. Allow me to explain.

The man under restricted rights is out on the street. How is he to defend himself effectively? He cannot have a knife, a gun, a club... what shall he do - speak harshly at the man or men working at murdering him? Shall he beg not to be cut into lunch meat or beaten to a senseless pulp? If he is unable to mount an effective defense of his life, who shall be there to help him? Or is it your position that he is obliged to assume such risk and endure whatever savagery may befall him at the hands of others?

If one is to restrict another's ability to defend himself, it would seem to follow that unless his right to life is justifiably declared forfeit (good luck with that one, BTW), those so restricting one's rights then assume full responsibility for the life of that person. Anything less directly implies that the life in question is in fact forfeitable - that the right to that life is gone, which further implies therefore that the right never existed in the first place because fundamental rights by definition can be neither created nor destroyed, granted nor rescinded. This places "the state" squarely in the cross hairs where the preservation of the man's life and limb are concerned. What shall they do, assign him a full time body guard?

Give all this, how do you justify the effective denial of a man's right to see to his own safety and survival?