This was the off-shoot of a different topic so instead of highjacking another thread I decided to make it it's own thread. My diatrab stems from the topic of the right of gun ownership being taken away from felons. This is the thread where the discussion started and here is the discussion so far:
US v Weaver et al (US Dist Ct West Virgina)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martya
Just curious, which part irritates you - the outside the home, the felons, or the bodyguards, if you don't mind the [slightly off-topic] question?
|
I don't mind but my opinion isn't a popular one.
I hear many firearms advocates talk about how defending ourselves is a right, to possess firearms is a right and how the 2nd amendment gives us that right. Then why is that "right" the only one that is taken away for life? No one ever loses their right of freedom of speech for life. No one loses their right to due process, or to a lawyer, or to assemble for life. Now I'm not talking about being incarcerated or on parole or probation. I'm talking about how they are done serving their time on an incident that happened 20 years ago and they are still deprived of their right for something that may or may not have anything to do with firearms.
An 18 year old takes old man Potters car for a joy ride. Old man potter doesn't find it that funny, presses charges and now the 18 year old can't own firearms for the rest of their life. They even give back voting rights after time served.
Now I just made that one up but here is a true story. My friend (when we were 16) had a butterfly knife. I have no idea where he got it from but that knife was dull as all. We used to practice flipping it around because we thought it looked cool. It was so dull that there really wasn't a sharp or a dull side. He gets pulled over with it in the glove box. They find nothing else after the search the car (with his permission because he doesn't think he has anything illegal, we're not drug users or thieves) and they find the old butterfly knife in the glove box. Now they charge him with concealing a deadly weapon, possession of an illegal weapon, etc... He gets the charges significantly reduced but if he was found guilty he wouldn't be able to hunt every year with me.
Most people agree that dangerous people shouldn't have guns. But to put a blanket over everyone convicted of a felony is excessive. On top of that all of the responsible gun owners who proclaims that carrying a firearm is a right guaranteed by the constitution looks the other way when some are deprived of their rights which I said before is the only one that is taken away for life.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all" -Thomas Jefferson
If gun ownership and protecting one's self is a right then it's in the same category as freedom of speech.
If gun ownership can be taken away for life, then owning a gun is put into the category of a privilege instead of a right, which is why the whole situation irritates me. Is it a privilege or a right? Even drunk drivers have a timetable on when they can get their driver's license back.
Take the argument a step further. Obviously the guy in this case feared for his life. So he didn't break the law and let other's carry guns and do the protecting. The Federal Government says even that's not o.k. Now that guy has no right to protect himself? What about his employee who worries that his boss will be a target and therefore the employee's life is in danger? Doesn't the employee have a right to protect himself?
Like I said in the beginning, there are plenty of people who disagree with me. But there are also plenty of felonies that have nothing to do with violence which means the argument that society is depriving someone of that right in the name of public safety has gone out the window. And all that leaves is society taking away "rights" as a punishment to the individual which we shouldn't do if we recognize it as a right and not a privilege.
Anyone want to jump in and tell me where I'm wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Model520Fan
No. Can't find it.
If someone is too dangerous to be permitted by the state to have firearms, why is he not in prison? Or at least under parental or other competent supervision.
So-called liberals' objections to guns have nothing to do with the law, the Constitution, or common sense. They don't like guns, and they want to outlaw them. They simply don't believe in a free society. Rather, they believe that they should be able to cram their ideas down everyone else's throats. They need a taste of their own medicine.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martya
Fat B - I sort of suspected that was what you meant, and just recently this was in a conversation I was having with someone. In theory, in a perfect world, a person who "done his time" would be out on the streets as a contributing member of society, a citizen, stuck with finding a job, paying taxes, choosing a candidate to vote for, and so on, just like me. Why not, they have 'paid their debt to society.'
Unfortunately, many see any felony as a felony, and many felons return to felony graduate school and learn how to be better felons, and that contaminates the rest of the truly rehabilitated ones. So, while I agree with you in principle, the reality is gun carrying is a privilege just about everywhere now, even for someone like me, felons are in prisons run by private companies and are released due to someone's cost / benefit calculation and not whether they truly 'paid their debt to society' and thus, in the pool of folks with 'felony' in their history, some of those released probably should never be allowed to own / handle a gun (not that that matters, I know).
Maybe some day, perhaps with some report or approval from wardens or probation officers, some former felons would be considered citizens again?
|