JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Status
In theroy, felons should not be barred from owning guns. I feel very strongly in this direction. Once you've sered your entire sentence you should have a clean slate as far as anone but the courts and the cops know in case you re-offend.

BUT...

In reality, we give slaps on the wrist to all but the most serious of felonies. Hell, I had someone involved in the justice system tell me about a "victory" he had in getting a guy four years for an armed robbery and assault 3 after more than 8 felonies as a juvenile, a couple of which were violent. That's typical. The guy stuck a knife out at someone and took his stuff. To me, you shouldn't even be getting considered for a possible release for that crime in less than ten years. A SECOND violent felony? Throw away the key.

Now the problem is that we call felonies felonies, with no regard to anything else. Posession of one ounce and one gram of pot? FELON. Posession of one gram of cocaine in most places? felon. Embezzled $3000? felon.

How are any of the above people in any way dangerous? What difference would it make if they had LEGAL guns? (Seeing as we all know they can have illegal guns and probably never get caught).

I could support the no felons with guns if it were amended to violent felons. But I would much more support a reform of the justice system that treated predators like predators and fairly harmless pains in the asses like misdemeanants with only the punishment being different based on the crime.

Having a two-tiered set of citizenship in a country with more people behind bars than any other country in the world is a recipe for pointless injustice and cruelty.
I disagree Mr.B. I believe that once someone has demonstrated sufficient lack of judgement to land themselves in the convicted felon category is reason enough to presume that sound judgment is not a part of that individual's thought process.

Just as I am inclined to let any number of guilty people go free rather than convict one innocent person, I am inclined to error on the side of caution with regard to who can and cannot possess firearms once that threshold (felon) has been crossed.

That said, I am all for a realistic evaluation of our criminal statutes and redefining what constitutes a felony. The "law and order" types in our legislature have removed judicial and prosecutorial discretion in so many of the criminal statutes that persons who represent no threat to the safety of the community find themselves labeled.

But the saying "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" is applicable. If one enjoys shooting, one would be ill advised to become a felon.
 
There is no connection. Only in your feeble, stupid mind. You're not out in left field, you're not even in the parking lot of the ball park. Look no mind, the loans were insanely expensive because most all of them were in fact 5 year A.R.M. mortgages, not 30 year fixed rate loans. These loans were interest only loans for the first 5 years, which paid NOTHING toward the principal, only interest to the LENDER. You can't get any more expensive than 100% interest. Get the connection dummy? These idiots were not taking out 30 year fixed rate loans because they never could have afforded the payments. Are you getting it now?



Again, only in your feeble, stupid mind. All Freddie and Fannie did was guarantee the loans, much like they always have, including now. They did not control interest rates. If cheap money to the banks, the borrowers, or anyone else for that matter, spurred the housing boom like you so insinuate it did, we would be in the biggest real estate boom of the century right now. We're not, and interest rates have never been lower, nor home prices cheaper. The difference now is idiots can't borrow because banks have gone back to sensible lending practices, and won't loan to these penniless morons who walked into these banks with nothing but a smile and visions of grandeur. They now want 20% down with good credit.

This nonsense that they "put pressure" on banks to loan to idiots had no bearing because the banks were willing to loan to them anyway, simply because they were getting 100% interest for the first 5 years. They were sucked into the belief they couldn't lose as well. You're the one who is all over the map on this because your dumber than a stump, and are so busy trying to blame the government, you would know what was actually going on if it bit you in the a$$. This silly attempt of yours to pass off your own total ignorance on this matter is apparent. All one has to do is read your posts. You're so all over the map, you don't know if your coming or going.

Please try to re-read some of the posts preceding yours.

No one is trying to say Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac controlled interest rates, that is absolutely absurd. The Federal Reserve on the other hand, can indeed exert undue influence over interest rates. In the case of the housing bubble, they lowered rates below what they would have been in a pure market scenario (i.e. below what the true level of savings would have allowed).

Your bizarre line of reasoning faults individuals for the collapse but again I bring up the point that the government made it a good idea to buy a home buy causing prices to balloon. Individuals were only able to properly respond to market conditions WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CREATED.

Also, if we lived in a free country banks NEVER would have loaned to people who they knew could not have afforded to pay them back. Why on earth would they want to give money away to poor credit risks?

Because they knew they would get payed by someone regardless!

By guaranteeing the loans, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created an environment of moral hazard, which is a situation in which a person insulated from risk makes decisions differently from how they would if they were fully exposed to said risk.

If only for your own sake, try to rethink what caused the crises.

Even the most bigoted statists don't completely pardon the government for the role it played during the bubble.
 
It seems to me that the people that think felons should have thier rights back are the felons or related to a felon. There are benefits to keeping out of trouble. Dont commit a crime and this whole discussion becomes mute.

Respectfully

James Ruby
 
Alrighty...going to reply to this over simplified thread.

Most of our criminal population never fully serves their penance. We have murderers get out every day and while some think that they should have their rights restored, I would rather them see the needle to their arm. Most criminals committed more than one criminal act before they got caught or the DA needed to have a lot of evidence to convict someone (can you imagine your child telling you his/her teacher mollested them but the DA will refuse to prosecute unless another child steps forward because they won't accept a child's word over an adult's? This happens all the time. Enough to make you puke.). I listen to these guys brag about all the crimes they used to get away with, but then pull the sympathy card about their current sentance to any soul that will listen. If you truly believe everything you hear come out of the neck from convicts then you would think everyone was innocent and just happen to be a victim of circumstance.

Having said that, there are exceptions to the above...a lot of our prison population comprises of people that just made a one-time mistake with their life. They hit their wife back, got drunk and ran someone over or got caught doing/selling drugs. These people made a mistake with their life and probably shouldn't have to suffer endlessly for it. They should not be put in the same boat as the Rapists and Murderers...but they are and it sucks to be them.

So, how about a compromise? Anyone that gets out and is out of prison for a year or more with no violent convictions or repeated offenses should have their rights restored. However, once they reoffend, they should be nullified for life like the violent ones.
 
Alrighty...going to reply to this over simplified thread.

Most of our criminal population never fully serves their penance. We have murderers get out every day and while some think that they should have their rights restored, I would rather them see the needle to their arm. Most criminals committed more than one criminal act before they got caught or the DA needed to have a lot of evidence to convict someone (can you imagine your child telling you his/her teacher mollested them but the DA will refuse to prosecute unless another child steps forward because they won't accept a child's word over an adult's? This happens all the time. Enough to make you puke.). I listen to these guys brag about all the crimes they used to get away with, but then pull the sympathy card about their current sentance to any soul that will listen. If you truly believe everything you hear come out of the neck from convicts then you would think everyone was innocent and just happen to be a victim of circumstance.

Having said that, there are exceptions to the above...a lot of our prison population comprises of people that just made a one-time mistake with their life. They hit their wife back, got drunk and ran someone over or got caught doing/selling drugs. These people made a mistake with their life and probably shouldn't have to suffer endlessly for it. They should not be put in the same boat as the Rapists and Murderers...but they are and it sucks to be them.

So, how about a compromise? Anyone that gets out and is out of prison for a year or more with no violent convictions or repeated offenses should have their rights restored. However, once they reoffend, they should be nullified for life like the violent ones.

Owning firearms is a right to be respected, not a privilege to be extended.
 
Owning firearms is a right to be respected, not a privilege to be extended.

What about the rights of the victims? A blanket, ignorant, one-line statement about preaching "rights" and "privileges" to me is about as useful as throwing rocks at a frozen pond.

Sit back, think for a minute and come up with an articulate reason why convicted criminals should have their rights restored after breaking the moral codes of society and I will have a discussion with you.
 
What about the rights of the victims? A blanket, ignorant, one-line statement about preaching "rights" and "privileges" to me is about as useful as throwing rocks at a frozen pond.

Sit back, think for a minute and come up with an articulate reason why convicted criminals should have their rights restored after breaking the moral codes of society and I will have a discussion with you.

Because withholding gun rights of people after they're released from prison somehow keeps their past victims safer. :huh:

Also, at least half the people in prison today are there for drug "crimes" and should be released immediately.
 
Your bizarre line of reasoning faults individuals for the collapse but again I bring up the point that the government made it a good idea to buy a home buy causing prices to balloon. Individuals were only able to properly respond to market conditions WHICH THE GOVERNMENT CREATED.

"Properly respond"?? Are you kidding me?? It was their idiotic "response" that caused this whole mess in the first place. As I said before, and will say again, just because someone is willing to loan you money, doesn't mean you have to take it. The true fact of the matter is these idiots had zero business borrowing money they knew they would not be able to afford to pay back under the terms that existed when they signed on to those loans.

Again, most all of these loans were 5 year, interest only ARM mortgages that were all set to balloon after 5 years, NOT 30 year fixed rate loans. These people KNEW full and well they would not be able to live in these homes after 5 years without refinancing. That is absurd economics. You don't bank on profits on ANY investment to be able to keep it, let alone on a family home. Proof of what I'm saying is last year, (2011), was exactly 5 years after the peak of the housing bubble. This country suffered the most foreclosures because of all of the 5 year ARM mortgages which came into balloon status, that were written at the peak of the bubble, (2006).

None of those people could possibly stay in those homes simply because NONE OF THEM COULD AFFORD THE INCREASED PAYMENTS. 1.) They couldn't sell for what they owed. 2.) They couldn't afford the increased payments. 3.) No bank would refinance them, because no bank in it's right mind would write a note worth 3 times what the house is worth. The only option left on the table was to abondon the home, and walk away, which more did at any time since the Great Depression. These idiots did nothing but go against any and all financial common sense, by agreeing to terms to over borrow money because: 1.) Someone was dumb enough to loan it to them, and 2.) They were motivated by their own greed and wants that were way over their head, in order to purchase homes that were over inflated in value, with money they KNEW they could not possibly pay back without restructuring the terms.

None of them knew if financial conditions would even exist for that to be possible. They simply "hoped" it would. As it turned out they were dead wrong, and most found themselves out in the street based on nothing more than their own greed and financial foolishness. Now, you tell me what the government has to do with ANY of that? Proof of everything I'm saying is the simple fact no bank in this country will ever again loan money for the purchase of real property under those terms and market conditions.

As a direct result people are now trying to use the government for a scapegoat in order to justify their own financial stupidity, pure and simple. Most people today are totally cash poor. If they can't borrow it, they can't buy it. This is the exact reason the current real estate market is dead flat in spite of cheap money, and the lowest housing prices in decades. They don't save a dime, and as a result they have nothing to put down. That is not the governments fault. People in this country have no real sense of value because they don't own anything. They lease, (i.e. rent) their cars. They use credit cards to purchase everything else. And now they're out on their a$$ in the street, because the homes they tried to buy, without having a single cent of their own money invested in, plummeted in value because THEY, not the government, created a worthless real estate market full of paper which had no real value. This happens every time idiots come along and infest a market they have zero business being involved with in the first place.
 
There are lots of accidental felonies. If you commit vehicular manslaughter, thats an accident. People commit mistakes all the time. Mistakes that are alzo called accidents. I think that a blanket ban for firearms /felons is too much of a cookie cutter approach. Let the punishment fit the crime, i say. Im sure that people may see this differently, just my opinion
 
There are lots of accidental felonies. If you commit vehicular manslaughter, thats an accident. People commit mistakes all the time.

That is simply not true. If you kill someone with your vehicle, and are charged with vehicular manslaughter, it is because they believe you were guilty of some type of negligence. Driving too fast for conditions, reckless driving, or else drugs or alcohol involvement on your part. If it was in fact a true "accident" that you could not possibly avoid, you will not be charged with anything, let alone a felony.
 
That is simply not true. If you kill someone with your vehicle, and are charged with vehicular manslaughter, it is because they believe you were guilty of some type of negligence. Driving too fast for conditions, reckless driving, or else drugs or alcohol involvement on your part. If it was in fact a true "accident" you will not be charged with anything, let alone a felony.

Happened to my friend Carol.

She was headed to work, simply didnt see the gentlemen on the ladder fixing a street light. She struck the ladder, and it killed him. She didnt intend to do that, it was human error. She is now a felon. Thats an accident. No drugs or liquor involved. This was pre cell phones. Just an accident. So yes, it does happen. Look it up. Happened in fontana California 2002. San Bernardino county.
 
Happened to my friend Carol.

She was headed to work, simply didnt see the gentlemen on the ladder fixing a street light. She struck the ladder, and it killed him. She didnt intend to do that, it was human error.

While I'm sure she had no criminal intent, that in itself doesn't necessarily excuse fault. Why didn't she see him? Was he in plain view? Was she simply not paying attention? I don't know, and I'm in no position to judge because of that. But obviously someone was, and found a large enough degree of negligence on her part to convict her. An accident is not considered to be an accident if there was something you could have done to prevent it, but did not for whatever reason.
 
There are lots of accidental felonies. If you commit vehicular manslaughter, thats an accident. People commit mistakes all the time. Mistakes that are alzo called accidents. I think that a blanket ban for firearms /felons is too much of a cookie cutter approach. Let the punishment fit the crime, i say. Im sure that people may see this differently, just my opinion

Not really.. it's usually extreme negligence and how is it different from "accidentally" shooting someone? IMO true negligent murder with any tool should be punished far more harshly than it is, right up to the gallows in some cases. One more time IMO we have far too many stupid, intrusive nanny state laws and not enough real frontier type justice for serious crimes
 
Happened to my friend Carol.

She was headed to work, simply didnt see the gentlemen on the ladder fixing a street light. She struck the ladder, and it killed him. She didnt intend to do that, it was human error. She is now a felon. Thats an accident. No drugs or liquor involved. This was pre cell phones. Just an accident. So yes, it does happen. Look it up. Happened in fontana California 2002. San Bernardino county.

There is a lot more to this story than we are hearing.. she took a man's life and he is gone. At minimum she should never be allowed to legally drive again after she serves a sentence
 
I know several Parole/Probation Officers and none can recall an offender with only one conviction on their rap sheets. I would like to see offenders do every day of their sentences.
 
There is a lot more to this story than we are hearing.. she took a man's life and he is gone. At minimum she should never be allowed to legally drive again after she serves a sentence

I think we're losing sight of this. The fact remains that it was an accident. She didnt wake up, down a bottle of whisky, do a rail of coke, and then drive. She went to work on a rainy day, and just didnt see the guy. It is what it is. Again, im not saying she shouldnt have gotten punished, but, is this something to lose your gun righs over?
 
I think we're losing sight of this. The fact remains that it was an accident. She didnt wake up, down a bottle of whisky, do a rail of coke, and then drive. She went to work on a rainy day, and just didnt see the guy. It is what it is. Again, im not saying she shouldnt have gotten punished, but, is this something to lose your gun righs over?

She still killed a man when somehow I have been on the road since 1975 and haven't.. I say negligence and stupid or incompetent should hurt. Try to imagine how that man's wife and children feel or if it was your wife killed. Yes, I say probably she should lose her right to own deadly things like guns and autos. Take the bus so my wife isn't her next "accidental" victim
 
She still killed a man when somehow I have been on the road since 1975 and haven't.. I say negligence and stupid or incompetent should hurt. Try to imagine how that man's wife and children feel or if it was your wife killed. Yes, I say probably she should lose her right to own deadly things like guns and autos. Take the bus so my wife isn't her next "accidental" victim

What if it was your wife that HAD the accident? Would you support your hardline posititon then? I think not.
I think yiu would exp@ect leniency to a degree. Anyways, enough said. If you cant see the difference between this accident and true homicide im just spinning my wheels. Thanks.
 
Status

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top