EPTShould ex-cons be allowed to own and carry Guns? - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
| ||
|
PardonYou
United States1360 Posts
On February 20 2012 01:07 DOUDOU wrote: there's no reason for most people to own a gun My thoughts exactly. I remember just before Obama became president, our local news had a segment where they interviewed local gunowners and how they were afraid that when Obama became president that they wouldn't be able to buy ammo for their uzis. My first thought was, "If you live somewhere that you need an uzi, move out." My second thought was, "People that 'need' guns should be checked out mentally." The ease of aquiring a gun in this country is frightening. All I think of is the movie, "Bowling for Columbine," and the scene where he opens a bank account and they offer him a gun there. | ||
|
Hertzy
Finland355 Posts
Provided good conduct during imprisonment, non-violent ex-cons should in general be allowed to carry guns. As for the violent crimes, if the crime can be shown to be a one-time occurence, like if there was provocation involved, it might be considered. In general, the United States way of making convicts second-class citizens is questionable. As far as I'm concerned, the convict should be considered to have paid their debt to society upon release, and remain locked up until and unless that condition is met. EDIT: I'd also like to point out that I'm proceeding from the premise that people should own guns in the first place, and am unwilling to debate the point in this thread. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On February 20 2012 02:17 ampson wrote: Nope. Ex-Cons have proven that they are willing to disregard the rules of society and letting them arm themselves is undoubtedly far riskier than arming the average citizen. This is the key part that everyone dismisses. It is clear SCOTUS jurisprudence that no right is permanent, and the government may strip them for relevant reasons. Someone who disregards the rules of society has no "right" to own a gun, even for self-protection. They have proven they either a) make bad choices, or b) disregard the rules that keep said ownership safe for others. I agree with the right to keep and maintain guns in the house, but I support this because I assume those who own the guns will follow our rules on not shooting me and will exercise wise discretion when faced with a situation where they might use one. | ||
|
ampson
United States2355 Posts
| ||
|
Ravar
United States447 Posts
| ||
Candadar
2049 Posts
On February 20 2012 02:23 ampson wrote: Ugh. The question is "Should Ex-Cons be allowed to carry guns?" and 90% of posts are people saying nobody should be able to carry guns or saying that US gun laws are stupid. Do people on TL have ADD or are you all really that eager to insult the laws of another country. The question is flawed in it of itself because no one should be allowed to go around with an automatic rifle with armor piercing rounds and grenades and shit just because you haven't committed a crime. No one should have that kind of power as a plain old civilians, plain as. | ||
|
Yuljan
2196 Posts
On February 20 2012 02:18 MountainDewJunkie wrote: "Ex-con" implies someone who was imprisoned and eventually released. Surely you realize that there are countless things you can go to jail for. For example. The megaupload guy, if he actually lives through his sentence, should be allowed to own a gun. The 20-something year old punk who raped and killed a girl? I'd prefer if he didn't have a gun. Now, society pretty much devalues rehabilitation (unless you're famous or really good at a major sport, then you're worth money or worshiped), so most of the ex-cons probably won't find good jobs or a good place to live, so they'll need a gun in case they need to rob someone to get by, or if they get really, really, angry, they need an outlet for their rage. Not that it matters on way or another. It's incredibly easy to get your hands on a gun, legal or not. Do people really still think gun control actually works? Giving "really, really, angry" people a gun might be counterproductive to their rehabilitation. | ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1077 Posts
| ||
|
NNTP
Canada47 Posts
| ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On February 20 2012 02:24 Ravar wrote: To all the people saying that no one should be allowed to carry a gun: Outlawing guns just takes them away from law-abiding citizens, criminals still get them because they don't care about the law. Also, ex-con is a phrase that refers to someone who commited a FELONY, not a misdemeanor. Stop using examples of "Billy who spraypainted a bridge deserves to carry a gun". They are not correct representations. For those not familiary with federal sentencing, this is a rough guide: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classes_of_offenses_under_United_States_federal_law I won't go into actual federal sentencing procedures, as most barred lawyers still mess them up and they can be quite complex. | ||
|
Pulimuli
Sweden2766 Posts
On February 20 2012 01:46 cca1ss1e wrote: own a gun.. yes.. on a case by case basis.. no one should be allowed to carry a gun, except law enforcement and those brinks money transporters.. I know it's different in the states though. +1 Even though criminals will always find a way to get them | ||
|
Coutcha
Canada519 Posts
| ||
|
Khenra
Netherlands885 Posts
| ||
|
Candadar
2049 Posts
On February 20 2012 02:35 NNTP wrote: The argument that no one should carry guns as such as owning one increases the chances of going on a killing spree is just wrong. A knife, baseball bat, a woman's stiletto heels for crying out loud can be used for such a purpose. It is not the gun that kills people. It is the other way around, people kill people. A responsible society is one that knows restraint and how to defend itself from foreign, and domestic aggression. Law enforcers are there to protect the society but law makers are elected by the people and as such they are subject to safeguarding and writing policies that increase the well being of the society it serves. Civilians have the right to revolt against an oppressive government that does not obey its constitution and populace. There are checks and balances of power in every country or should be. The people should have the option of taking arms and form a militia when it is deemed necessary. In an ideal world, there should not be violence or weapons but peace and tools but until this is possible (unlikely) then people should not be sheep and hope the lions protect them from wolves. 300 years ago a bunch of people could grab some guns and revolt against their government. In a day of jets, aircraft carriers, tanks, light armor vehicles, rockets, and automatic weapons that's very different. The law was put in place so that people (a militia) could rise up against their government if they needed to. Not so that you could own an automatic weapon with military grade rounds and go faffing about for shits and giggles. I'm actually all for people having guns in an organized environment. However, Johnny shouldn't be able to go down to the gun store and pick up an automatic weapon or go to a Wal-Mart and buy a 12 gauge shotgun because of "OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SAID IT WAS OKAY" And yes, you can walk into Wal-Mart and buy a 12 gauge shotgun with basically nothing stopping you other than proving you are of legal age. It's kind of sad, really. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On February 20 2012 02:24 Candadar wrote: No one should have that kind of power as a plain old civilians, plain as. But the government should? | ||
|
Rabbet
Canada404 Posts
| ||
|
NNTP
Canada47 Posts
On February 20 2012 02:41 Khenra wrote: Civilians should not be allowed to carry guns at all. and that worked out great in Syria didn't it? unarmed demonstrations to be turned into scenes of massacre by an oppressive government | ||
|
Candadar
2049 Posts
see: On February 20 2012 02:42 Candadar wrote: 300 years ago a bunch of people could grab some guns and revolt against their government. In a day of jets, aircraft carriers, tanks, light armor vehicles, rockets, and automatic weapons that's very different. The law was put in place so that people (a militia) could rise up against their government if they needed to. Not so that you could own an automatic weapon with military grade rounds and go faffing about for shits and giggles. I'm actually all for people having guns in an organized environment. However, Johnny shouldn't be able to go down to the gun store and pick up an automatic weapon or go to a Wal-Mart and buy a 12 gauge shotgun because of "OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SAID IT WAS OKAY" And yes, you can walk into Wal-Mart and buy a 12 gauge shotgun with basically nothing stopping you other than proving you are of legal age. It's kind of sad, really. And just for you, I'll pick it out: I'm actually all for people having guns in an organized environment. However, Johnny shouldn't be able to go down to the gun store and pick up an automatic weapon or go to a Wal-Mart and buy a 12 gauge shotgun because of "OUR FOUNDING FATHERS SAID IT WAS OKAY" I said it once and I'll say it again. When someone is waving a gun around at you or your family, you're not wishing that you had a gun to shoot them so much as that they did not have a gun in the first place. Also, I'll make it known that violent offenders of any kind should not own guns, if we must have them in society. Misdemeanor or Felony. | ||
|
Auren
United States82 Posts
Also, first time I've ever heard "ex-con" used to refer to someone that got busted for stuff like jay walking. I suppose it's accurate by definition but every time I've ever heard it used in regular conversation it's always in regards to someone that served time in prison. | ||
| ||
