Felon friend shooting

mikegideon · September 21, 2010

...

Yep.

RobertNashville · September 21, 2010

exactly.
but if you ask felon about his rights, he will tell you that he has all of them.

same if you would ask illegal ones ,he would tell you that he has rights to be here

or unemployed one , he will tell you that foodstams are his money and his rights

But a truth is that their rights are just tolerated for time being.

So your point is that people lie??? Is that really something we didn't know?

The point I tried to make (and which was made much more humorously and well by monkeylizard) is that a convicted felon does not lose all his/her rights which brings us back to why is one particular right singled out.

I think discussing the reasons for that singling out is a worthwhile discussion to have (albeit a bit far afield of the OP's original question).

Punisher84 · September 21, 2010

I love that the whole post went over Strel's head. Lmao

September 21, 2010

I haven't said much here.. That shall change:

Well, the fact that the person is a felon, means that, maybe, for a period of time, they served a bit of time in a prison. During that time in a prison that person's rights were very well taken away.

Yes, he had free speech, but what is free speech without anyone hearing it?

Yes, religion, but if we're practicing our own religion, regardless of what it is, in our own home, and can't go around to other cells preaching, that right, too, has been stripped.

I think all of the person's rights have been taken for an amount of time, but how do you restrict someone's right to free speech outside of a jail cell? If the world could tone out their voice with some type of system, that would be the only way, and it has never been done.

Freedom of Religion is why we have all kinds of churches, and they aren't going to turn anyone away, so that right, too, is IMPOSSIBLE to restrict outside of the walls of a prison. So, a felon being out of prison, on parole or whether he/she has already served their debt to society, has already had their rights stripped, and one right that can be controlled, outside of prison, (i.e. firearm owning and using) is the one that is controlled.

You cannot arrest a felon for speaking or attending church outside of prison, because speaking is something that has to be done on a daily basis to survive. Don't say that only letting them write would control that, because Freedom of the Press is along the same lines as Freedom of Speech and, outside of a cell, that, too, cannot be controlled. I'm all for letting them speak and attend the church they would like to go to, but purchasing firearms, I'm not so sure of.

Honestly, if you've committed a Felony, been through court and not had it reduced or expunged or whatever, you were by far, extremely, and undoubtedly guilty with no recourse. Sorry, sometimes when you do the crime, you do the time, and that "time" can be known as having to live without something for the rest of your life.

No voters in their right minds would vote, regardless of position, to let Felons purchase guns, ever. I don't care if there is a "good one" and a "bad one". How do you distinguish that? How do you designate the good felon gun owner, from the bad felon no guns allowed? You cannot. No test on Earth could, and to prevent innocent lives from being harmed or taken, POSSIBLY AGAIN, thus there are restrictions.

(Maybe 3)

RobertNashville · September 21, 2010

Well, the fact that the person is a felon, means that, maybe, for a period of time, they served a bit of time in a prison. During that time in a prison that person's rights were very well taken away.
Yes, he had free speech, but what is free speech without anyone hearing it?

Yes, religion, but if we're practicing our own religion, regardless of what it is, in our own home, and can't go around to other cells preaching, that right, too, has been stripped.

It simply isn’t accurate to say that a person’s rights are taken away in jail/prison; some are and some aren’t and others may be controlled to a degree.

Obviously, their personal freedom has been taken away for a period of time and other rights are controlled/restricted but even a prisoner still retains most of his rights afforded by the Constitution. You are correct that they aren’t allowed to simply walk around the entire jail unrestricted but they absolutely have the right to practice their religion and to evangelize if they wish to do so.

Further, the right to freedom of expression (thought, speech, etc) has never been about whether other people listen or not…the right to freedom of expression does NOT guarantee a platform from which to wax eloquently about something nor an audience to hear it (as many liberal radio talk-show hosts have found out the hard way).

I think all of the person's rights have been taken for an amount of time, but how do you restrict someone's right to free speech outside of a jail cell? If the world could tone out their voice with some type of system, that would be the only way, and it has never been done.

There are already restrictions on “freedom of speech” on everyone right now. No one has the right to incite others to riot nor to yell “fire” when there is no fire…no one has a right to speak/spread lies about another person and if people do these things they are charged with a crime and/or face civil lawsuits…that’s how you “restrict” someone’s right to free speech.

Actually, that's the same method used to restrict a felon from possessing a firearm...there is no electronic device a felon wears that alerts authorities anytime they have a firearm in their possession...they are charged if they are caught with a firearm. Beyond being caught with a gun, there is no special enforcement involved to keep a felon from having one.

Freedom of Religion is why we have all kinds of churches, and they aren't going to turn anyone away, so that right, too, is IMPOSSIBLE to restrict outside of the walls of a prison. So, a felon being out of prison, on parole or whether he/she has already served their debt to society, has already had their rights stripped, and one right that can be controlled, outside of prison, (i.e. firearm owning and using) is the one that is controlled.
You cannot arrest a felon for speaking or attending church outside of prison, because speaking is something that has to be done on a daily basis to survive. Don't say that only letting them write would control that, because Freedom of the Press is along the same lines as Freedom of Speech and, outside of a cell, that, too, cannot be controlled. I'm all for letting them speak and attend the church they would like to go to, but purchasing firearms, I'm not so sure of.

Honestly, if you've committed a Felony, been through court and not had it reduced or expunged or whatever, you were by far, extremely, and undoubtedly guilty with no recourse. Sorry, sometimes when you do the crime, you do the time, and that "time" can be known as having to live without something for the rest of your life.

No voters in their right minds would vote, regardless of position, to let Felons purchase guns, ever. I don't care if there is a "good one" and a "bad one". How do you distinguish that? How do you designate the good felon gun owner, from the bad felon no guns allowed? You cannot. No test on Earth could, and to prevent innocent lives from being harmed or taken, POSSIBLY AGAIN, thus there are restrictions.

So are you saying that the only reason we restrict a felon from possessing a firearm is because that one is easier to implement than taking away other rights?

The Second Amendment doesn’t say we have the right to keep and bear arms, except for X, Y, and Z. We’ve allowed the Federal government to step in and seize control of something the Constitution expressly forbids them from taking control of. If there are going to be restrictions on who can possess a firearm, it should be up to each individual state, not a bureaucrat or lifelong politician in D.C.

I’ve no problem with restricting firearm possession from someone who has committed a violent crime, especially with a weapon or for someone who has a long criminal history but if you believe that a person’s rights should be forever taken away and that the only reason we only take away the right to possess a firearm is because it’s easier to do so; then would not the logical thing for society to do be to to lock every criminal away FOREVER then we can have absolute control over everything they do, 24/7?

I believe our way of life...the basic principles we say we believe in, compel us to not treat human beings as homogeneous units; rather, we should treat each other as unique individuals. To say that all felons/any felon should lose their right to bear arms forever; regardless of the circumstances of their crime, is an affront to basic human decency and fairness...it's a lazy, bureaucratic way of dealing with an issue.

I'm in favor of reasonable restrictions (determined by the individual states) but I also believe that people who perhaps just made a mistake or who have truly, based on their actions since, changed their lives; ought to have the opportunity to be fully restored to society; including the restoration of all of their allegedly Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Edited September 21, 2010 by RobertNashville
corecting a spelling error! :)

DaveTN · September 21, 2010

Are you sure about that? Expunged means just that. a conviction that has been expunged will not show up on a tics bg check for a handgun purchase. There's not a choice in the matter. If his BG is clear, and it should be after the judge signs off on the expungement order they have no means to refuse him as their report should come back clean. expungments are completed at the local and fed level.

Yes, I am sure. I referred him to the lawyer that is supposed to be the top â€œGun Rights Attorneyâ€ in the state. He told him that he could probably get his conviction expunged, but that the state of Tennessee would not restore his guns rights. The way he explained it was that this is not a federal problem; they will recognize the expungement. It is the state.

In short, it is my understanding that if you were convicted on drug charges (He was convicted of possession in the 80â€™s) or a violent crime Tennessee will not restore your gun rights. The fact that you may pass a background check does not mean that you might not be arrested for â€œFelon in possessionâ€. And if Iâ€™m not mistaken Felon in Possession in Tennessee is mandatory prison time.

As a former cop I can tell you that expungements might be good for keeping a conviction from a potential employer on a background check, but no conviction is ever â€œgoneâ€. If you apply for a job as a cop or need a security clearance for the military; it will probably show up. But those places donâ€™t ask if you were ever convicted, they ask if you have ever been arrested.

MikePapa1 · September 21, 2010

My experience parallels what Dave just said.

Oh Shoot · September 21, 2010

...
So are you saying that the only reason we restrict a felon from possessing a firearm is because that one is easier to implement than taking away other rights?...

The Second Amendment doesnâ€™t say we have the right to keep and bear arms, except for X, Y, and Z. Weâ€™ve allowed the Federal government to step in and seize control of something the Constitution expressly forbids them from taking control of. ...

I believe our way of life...the basic principles we say we believe in, compel us to not treat human beings as homogeneous units; rather, we should treat each other as unique individuals. To say that all felons/any felon should lose their right to bear arms forever; regardless of the circumstances of their crime, is an [af]front to basic human decency and fairness...it's a lazy, bureaucratic way of dealing with an issue. ...

.... but I also believe that people who perhaps just made a mistake or who have truly, based on their actions since, changed their lives; ought to have the opportunity to be fully restored to society; including the restoration of all of their allegedly Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Hear hear.

But we seem to be in the vast minority on the issue.

- OS

G27 · September 21, 2010

Right on, strel. Since the government knows where the ex-con felons live in many cases and they don't have ANY consitutional rights, we'll bypass the 3rd ammendment on them and quarter troops in their homes. That should save us some money by shrinking military base housing. And while they're there, we may as well deputize the troops so they can search through the felon's place for whatever. No warrant needed since the 4th ammendment no longer applies. And if they kick up a fuss, we'll convict them on the same charge they got convicted on the first time, seeing as how the 5th ammendment doesn't protect them from double jeopardy. The second trial will be faster than the first since they no longer have a guarantee of a jury trial as stated in the 6th and 7th. Suspending the 8th will let the judge set bail at twenty trillion dollars, while the felon basically becomes the government's property when the 9th and 10th no longer apply. The felon can't peacably assemble to protest any of this, or go to church to talk to the pastor, or even pray to a higher power for help because the 1st is gone too.

Hahaha, genius! Well done.

monkeylizard · September 21, 2010

Thanks, I'll be here all week. Tell your friends and be sure to tip your waitress.

G27 · September 22, 2010

I'll try the veal.

September 22, 2010

Wow, this took forever... My longest post on record.

<style>@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style> It simply isn’t accurate to say that a person’s rights are taken away in jail/prison; some are and some aren’t and others may be controlled to a degree.
Obviously, their personal freedom has been taken away for a period of time and other rights are controlled/restricted but even a prisoner still retains most of his rights afforded by the Constitution. You are correct that they aren’t allowed to simply walk around the entire jail unrestricted but they absolutely have the right to practice their religion and to evangelize if they wish to do so.

Further, the right to freedom of expression (thought, speech, etc) has never been about whether other people listen or not…the right to freedom of expression does NOT guarantee a platform from which to wax eloquently about something nor an audience to hear it (as many liberal radio talk-show hosts have found out the hard way).

<style>@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style> Actually, that's the same method used to restrict a felon from possessing a firearm...
there is no electronic device a felon wears that alerts authorities anytime they have a firearm in their possession...they are charged if they are caught with a firearm. Beyond being caught with a gun, there is no special enforcement involved to keep a felon from having one.

I believe that I submit for a background check before I’m able to purchase a firearm from a bona fide Store and FFL. A Person to person transaction, not so much, but there ARE measures in place, whether they are sufficient for criminals and ex-criminals to possess firearms. Criminals are going to do whatever they want to, to get what they want, regardless of the measures already set into place.

<style>@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style> o are you saying that the only reason we restrict a felon from possessing a firearm is because that one is easier to implement than taking away other rights?

No. Will discuss later.

<style>@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style> The Second Amendment doesn’t say we have the right to keep and bear arms, except for X, Y, and Z. We’ve allowed the Federal government to step in and seize control of something the Constitution expressly forbids them from taking control of. If there are going to be restrictions on who can possess a firearm, it should be up to each individual state, not a bureaucrat or lifelong politician in D.C.

<style>@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style> I’ve no problem with restricting firearm possession from someone who has committed a violent crime, especially with a weapon or for someone who has a long criminal history but if you believe that a person’s rights should be forever taken away and that the only reason we only take away the right to possess a firearm is because it’s easier to do so; then would not the logical thing for society to do be to to lock every criminal away FOREVER then we can have absolute control over everything they do, 24/7?

<style>@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }</style> I believe our way of life...the basic principles we say we believe in, compel us to not treat human beings as homogeneous units; rather, we should treat each other as unique individuals. To say that all felons/any felon should lose their right to bear arms forever; regardless of the circumstances of their crime, is an affront to basic human decency and fairness...it's a lazy, bureaucratic way of dealing with an issue.
I'm in favor of reasonable restrictions (determined by the individual states) but I also believe that people who perhaps just made a mistake or who have truly, based on their actions since, changed their lives; ought to have the opportunity to be fully restored to society; including the restoration of all of their allegedly Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

I respect everything you said, but I respectfully do not agree with some of it, too. “To each his own.” However, I don’t mean to demean or enrage you in this response, it is just me, working my brain and you working yours.

And I’m just a stupid, young kid.

Drew.

RobertNashville · September 22, 2010

I have a feeling weâ€™re comparing apples and oranges here. There is a difference between Rights and Free Will. If I, right now, wanted to start a church of my choosing, all I would do is: Find a building, get all the needed licensure, and get goinâ€™. If someone in prison wanted to start a church within the prison. Itâ€™s more than likely not going to happen. Yes they can choose to practice and evangelize all they want to, but that is more along the lines of free will to practice the religion.
Apples and Oranges again. If there is a Radio Show hosted by a prisoner from his cell, Iâ€™ll give you this argument as well. The â€œLiberalâ€ radio shows you speak of pay all the necessary bills and have the licensure to practice their radio show. If a prisoner had Ten Million dollars and all the licensure they needed, could they start a prisoner radio show? Youâ€™re right, they have the free will to speak all they want to, even to who they want to, and how they want to speak. But as far as the right to publish it from a prison cell, that Right, is controlled by the prison, warden, etc.

Prisoners simply do not lose their Constitutional rights while they are in prison. They have certainly lost their freedom and they certainly have many restrictions to deal with but Iâ€™ve worked in jails as a volunteer (from country jails to full-fledged prisons) and what you imply is simply not true.

There is a difference between â€œfree willâ€ and a constitutionally protected right although Iâ€™m not sure you truly understand what the difference is.

There is no Constitutional right to start a radio show, whether one is in or out of prison. Nor is there a Constitutional right to build a church building, again, whether the religious leader/followers are in or out of prison. I would also suggest that if you believe that â€œreligionâ€ and/or practicing a religion is synonymous with building a â€œchurch buildingâ€ or if that freedom of expression is synonymous with being on the radio (or any other platform, electronic or otherwise); you need to rethink thatâ€¦really, you do.

With regards to the rest of your post, I think it boils down to thisâ€¦either you truly believe human beings have God given rights; recognized and protected by the Constitution or you donâ€™t. if you believe that they don't then what we call "rights" are really nothing more than privileges dispensed through the good graces of politicians. However, if you believe that our rights are truly inalienable then those rights should and can only be restricted under very specific circumstances and only to the extent absolutely necessary.

That thinking is what allows us to have some, but not many, restrictions on freedom of expression such as not inciting people to riot and not being able to yell â€œfireâ€ in a crowded theater when there is no fire and not being able to publish pornographic pictures of children. That line of reasoning is what supports the idea that some people should lose their right to keep and bear arms under certain circumstances.

However, if you believe that our rights are truly rights, then there no logic in saying that anyone convicted of a felony, regardless of the circumstances and regardless of any other consideration should lose a God given right forever. Nor is there any logic in singling out just one, specific right like the right to bear arms. If there is any logic for such a position; it would be equally logical to say that a convicted felon, regardless of the specifics and regardless of the circumstances or any other consideration should lose ALL his rights forever.

Carried to the extreme, you could make the argument that a felon should lose even the most basic right of all, the right to life - at the very least, you could make good argument for making the penalty for any any felony crimes a life sentence in prison...I mean, why should society bother to draw any distinction between severity/type of felony at all; why not just lock them away forever!

Obviously, you and I disagree here but I would encourage you to reexamine your opinion because some of what you are suggesting sounds a lot like punishing a person for what he might do - thankfully, our system of justice doesn't work that way and I hope it never does.

And yes, I do think the states should decide almost everything for themselves. That is, in fact, why we have states in the first place! And just to make note of something; unless you are in the military no one is forced to move anywhere in this country.

Edited September 22, 2010 by RobertNashville
corecting some spelling errores and clarifying my original post

monkeylizard · September 22, 2010

And just to make note of something; unless you are in the military or prison no one is forced to move anywhere in this country.

FTFY

Daniel · September 22, 2010

Prisoners simply do not lose their Constitutional rights while they are in prison. They have certainly lost their freedom and they certainly have many restrictions to deal with but I've worked in jails as a volunteer (from country jails to full-fledged prisons) and what you imply is simply not true.
There is a difference between free will and a constitutionally protected right although I' m not sure you truly understand what the difference is.

This.

RobertNashville types his posts out in like a MS Word or

something.. I never get people who do that. Kind of like

one of the guys who hits return after every few words so

that his posts dont "word wrap" like everyone else's acc-

ording to size of monitor. Like I did here.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Daniel

mikegideon · September 22, 2010

This.
RobertNashville types his posts out in like a MS Word or

something.. I never get people who do that. Kind of like

one of the guys who hits return after every few words so

that his posts dont "word wrap" like everyone else's acc-

ording to size of monitor. Like I did here.

Avoiding word wrap is actually old style message board etiquette. Certainly not necessary here. But, old habits die hard sometimes.

September 22, 2010

Well, I think

I am going

to start us-

ing the word-

wrap idea, be-

cause it is ob-

viously much

easier to read.

Dr-

ew.

mikegideon · September 22, 2010

Well, I think
I am going

to start us-

ing the word-

wrap idea, be-

cause it is ob-

viously much

easier to read.

Dr-

ew.

September 22, 2010

RobertNashville · September 22, 2010

FTFY

If you were going to spending the time fixing it for me why didn't you go ahead and correct my spelling mistakes and words I unintentionally left out?

RobertNashville · September 22, 2010

mikegideon/Daniel;

If you are referring to the separation of sentences (and if you are not then I don't know what you are referring to), it has nothing to do with word wrap or using Word. I separated the two sentences you quoted purposely because the second sentence is not a continuation or an elaboration of the thought in the first. That is the reason I separate most sentences. It also, I believe, makes a post much easier to read than having what winds up as one, huge paragraph.

MikePapa1 · September 22, 2010

The law is neither fair nor just, it is, simply, the law. I tell young lawyers and law students who complain about unjust results based upon following the law, the same thing an old law professor told me when I, in law school, made a similar complaint: "If you want justice go to divinity school for that is the only place you can find true justice; this is law school and we follow the law."

Over my 27 years of practice, no truer statement has ever been made to me.

mikegideon · September 22, 2010

mikegideon/Daniel;
If you are referring to the separation of sentences (and if you are not then I don't know what you are referring to), it has nothing to do with word wrap or using Word. I separated the two sentences you quoted purposely because the second sentence is not a continuation or an elaboration of the thought in the first. That is the reason I separate most sentences. It also, I believe, makes a post much easier to read than having what winds up as one, huge paragraph.

I wasn't referring to your post.

September 22, 2010

I wasn't referring to your post.

Neither was I.

Promise, I wasn't... Honestly.

RobertNashville · September 22, 2010

I wasn't referring to your post.

Okay but then, who/what were you referring to???

Felon friend shooting

Recommended Posts

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest Glock23ForMe

Guest Glock23ForMe

Guest Glock23ForMe

Guest Glock23ForMe

Guest Glock23ForMe

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recent Topics

TGO HELPFUL LINKS

TRADING POST NOTICE

THE FINE PRINT

Important Information