Knowing that a felon has a gun

[WhyteCheddar]

The Constitution does not grant government the power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
While a natural right, that of self defense, is the basis for the affirmation of that Right by the Second Amendment, it should be noted that the Right is delegated to the People, specifically. Government has no authority to regulate that Right.
That means ANY branch of government: Legislative, Executive, or Judicial.

When a person commits a felony and is imprisoned, or if an individual is commited to the custody of the state due to mental insanity, they may then be temporarily deprived of their Right to self defense, or the means thereof, because the State has assumed that responsibility. Once released, the responsibility reverts to the individual. The State, or the government, has no obligation to protect the individual. This has been decided by the United States Supreme Court.
Therefore, the Right to self defense, and the tools thereof, need by default to be restored under the premises of the Constitution.

Therefore Bob, whether you feel safe from these dangerous types is really not the issue here. You worry about what they might do, but what they might do is really no different from what ANY person with a gun might do, or could do. Every felon was once NOT a felon. Should we then also deny those citizens the use of firearms too, based on that? Why, they might do something dangerous, and become felons! Scary, isn't it? This is EXACTLY the rationalization the gun control freaks use when deciding which scary guns we can or should be allowed to own. Their fear based approach is no different from yours, and like them you have no right to interfere or try to regulate a Right given to the People. Therefore, you ARE for laws that violate the Constitution, though you may be too slow to understand your own position. That, and your fascination with male genitalia, are why you are catching flack here.

I hope this helps.

This is an interesting post. Thanks for taking the time to put it here.
So this is saying that ANY felon having served their time should be allowed to posess a firearm? Is that your position? And does some type of early release mean they have served their time?
Not flaming, just honest questions.

 

[chariot13]

The Constitution does not grant government the power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
While a natural right, that of self defense, is the basis for the affirmation of that Right by the Second Amendment, it should be noted that the Right is delegated to the People, specifically. Government has no authority to regulate that Right.
That means ANY branch of government: Legislative, Executive, or Judicial.

When a person commits a felony and is imprisoned, or if an individual is commited to the custody of the state due to mental insanity, they may then be temporarily deprived of their Right to self defense, or the means thereof, because the State has assumed that responsibility. Once released, the responsibility reverts to the individual. The State, or the government, has no obligation to protect the individual. This has been decided by the United States Supreme Court.
Therefore, the Right to self defense, and the tools thereof, need by default to be restored under the premises of the Constitution.

Therefore Bob, whether you feel safe from these dangerous types is really not the issue here. You worry about what they might do, but what they might do is really no different from what ANY person with a gun might do, or could do. Every felon was once NOT a felon. Should we then also deny those citizens the use of firearms too, based on that? Why, they might do something dangerous, and become felons! Scary, isn't it? This is EXACTLY the rationalization the gun control freaks use when deciding which scary guns we can or should be allowed to own. Their fear based approach is no different from yours, and like them you have no right to interfere or try to regulate a Right given to the People. Therefore, you ARE for laws that violate the Constitution, though you may be too slow to understand your own position. That, and your fascination with male genitalia, are why you are catching flack here.

I hope this helps.

I agree with most of that but it'll take it a step further, regardless if any government deems you unworthy of providing self defense for yourself whether by their choice of imprisoning you or labeling you incompetent of providing self defense for yourself, the fact remains that your right to self defense stems from a natural right ordained by something greater than government, however ones ability to provide self defense for ones self can be made impossible by a government as easily as a criminal can make it for ones self. Its not about what's right, its about what you are capable of doing & whether another is capable of preventing your capability.

 

[Redcap]

The Constitution does not grant government the power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
While a natural right, that of self defense, is the basis for the affirmation of that Right by the Second Amendment, it should be noted that the Right is delegated to the People, specifically. Government has no authority to regulate that Right.
That means ANY branch of government: Legislative, Executive, or Judicial.

When a person commits a felony and is imprisoned, or if an individual is commited to the custody of the state due to mental insanity, they may then be temporarily deprived of their Right to self defense, or the means thereof, because the State has assumed that responsibility. Once released, the responsibility reverts to the individual. The State, or the government, has no obligation to protect the individual. This has been decided by the United States Supreme Court.
Therefore, the Right to self defense, and the tools thereof, need by default to be restored under the premises of the Constitution.

Therefore Bob, whether you feel safe from these dangerous types is really not the issue here. You worry about what they might do, but what they might do is really no different from what ANY person with a gun might do, or could do. Every felon was once NOT a felon. Should we then also deny those citizens the use of firearms too, based on that? Why, they might do something dangerous, and become felons! Scary, isn't it? This is EXACTLY the rationalization the gun control freaks use when deciding which scary guns we can or should be allowed to own. Their fear based approach is no different from yours, and like them you have no right to interfere or try to regulate a Right given to the People. Therefore, you ARE for laws that violate the Constitution, though you may be too slow to understand your own position. That, and your fascination with male genitalia, are why you are catching flack here.

I hope this helps.

Excellent post.

 

[Bob D]

The Constitution does not grant government the power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.
While a natural right, that of self defense, is the basis for the affirmation of that Right by the Second Amendment, it should be noted that the Right is delegated to the People, specifically. Government has no authority to regulate that Right.
That means ANY branch of government: Legislative, Executive, or Judicial.

When a person commits a felony and is imprisoned, or if an individual is commited to the custody of the state due to mental insanity, they may then be temporarily deprived of their Right to self defense, or the means thereof, because the State has assumed that responsibility. Once released, the responsibility reverts to the individual. The State, or the government, has no obligation to protect the individual. This has been decided by the United States Supreme Court.
Therefore, the Right to self defense, and the tools thereof, need by default to be restored under the premises of the Constitution.

Therefore Bob, whether you feel safe from these dangerous types is really not the issue here. You worry about what they might do, but what they might do is really no different from what ANY person with a gun might do, or could do. Every felon was once NOT a felon. Should we then also deny those citizens the use of firearms too, based on that? Why, they might do something dangerous, and become felons! Scary, isn't it? This is EXACTLY the rationalization the gun control freaks use when deciding which scary guns we can or should be allowed to own. Their fear based approach is no different from yours, and like them you have no right to interfere or try to regulate a Right given to the People. Therefore, you ARE for laws that violate the Constitution, though you may be too slow to understand your own position. That, and your fascination with male genitalia, are why you are catching flack here.

I hope this helps.

Indeed, it does help. It was already understood, however. As I said, I have only ever reported one felon who was in possession of illegal firearms, and honestly it was the drug manufacturing and selling in my neighborhood that I reported him for. The firearms offenses merely added some time to his sentence. I know several former felons or dishonorably discharged military members who safely and responsibly own firearms in their homes.

My calls to law enforcement are motivated by responsibility, not fear. Well, responsibility and my fascination with the male genitalia.

 

[Redcap]

Indeed, it does help. It was already understood, however. As I said, I have only ever reported one felon who was in possession of illegal firearms, and honestly it was the drug manufacturing and selling in my neighborhood that I reported him for. The firearms offenses merely added some time to his sentence. I know several former felons or dishonorably discharged military members who safely and responsibly own firearms in their homes.

My calls to law enforcement are motivated by responsibility, not fear. Well, responsibility and my fascination with the male genitalia.

 

[watchman]

WC,
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. If they are released into society, they still have the natural right to self defense.
What I believe should change drastically is how we handle incarceration and release.

First, it's time to stop the absurd notion of rehabilitation, and concentrate instead on punishment.
Truly dangerous felons should be kept incarcerated, or in some cases executed. The use of the death penalty should be brought back, and used promptly when indicated. If you use a gun in a violent crime, I would allow the death penalty.
I would think this would reduce gun crime more than all of the absurd gun control measures on the books or proposed combined.

For the remainder of the prison population, work crews and chain gangs should be brought back. A 20 year sentence should mean 20 years of hard labor. This would be where the prisoner "pays his debt to society".
If the prisoner were to recieve early release, it should not be due to overcrowding: with sufficient work scedules run 24 hours a day, prisoners could be "hot cotted", and allowed in their cells for only 8 hours a day. Prison space would effectively double, as two thirds of the prisoners would be out working at any given time, a third on road crews and a third eating or in transport. The funding for the extra security guards could be realized by eliminating duplicate government jobs, like ODOT workers or private road repair contractors. The end result would be true sentence completion in most cases. Only those judged truly worthy and rehabilitated would be released early.

Once released, the prisoner would once again be a free man, and a Citizen, with all the Rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Gun Rights included. In such a scenario, ex-cons would definetly think twice and thrice before re-offending.

 

[Bob D]

Very much agreed. This is one of the issues that I am completely on the conservative side of. Death penalty and prison reform. Stop convicting people for silly "crimes" and stop being so easy on those guilty of not-so-silly crimes.

 

[Scott]

Very much agreed. This is one of the issues that I am completely on the conservative side of. Death penalty and prison reform. Stop convicting people for silly "crimes" and stop being so easy on those guilty of not-so-silly crimes.

What is a silly crime that puts you in prison and you are charged with a felony?

 

[rur862]

Post Deleted.

 

[Bob D]

^^ That.

 

[Misterbill]

What is a silly crime that puts you in prison and you are charged with a felony?

Having your accountant screw up on your taxes.
Possessing marijuana.
Crossing state lines with your 17-year-old GF and sharing a hotel room when you're 18 even though the age of consent in both states is 17.
Possessing the wrong kind of fish
Being in the car with your BF who (unknown to you) is packing a drug the government has decided it doesn't like.
Being less than 100% correct on virtually ANY federal govt. form.
Making ANY false statement to ANY federal official for ANY reason. ("No officers, there are no Jews hiding in my neighbor's attic")

And that's just on the federal level.

How about this one: possessing the magazine your gun came with when you drive 15 miles to a shooting competition because even though your gun is exempted from the state's AWB, the magazine is not. (Happened to a guy from NH I know) Or, Crossing 50 feet into an unmarked section of Mass. while driving back to the mall and getting nailed for possession of an "assault weapon."

Felon in Possession laws should at the least be amended to only include violent crimes. In theory, I'm completely with on-board with Watchman. Since we know the entire justice system is going to be reformed about the time Hell freezes over, I'd settle for a refinement.

 

[Bob D]

Crossing state lines with your 17-year-old GF and sharing a hotel room when you're 18 even though the age of consent in both states is 17.

When I was 18, My girlfriend (then barely 17) lived in San Diego, so I moved there. One Saturday, her, her sister and I decided to go do some shopping in Tijauna, and when we came back I was informed that I was going to be charged with felony kidnapping. Her parents luckily thought that that was ridiculous, and picked us up from where we were being detained. No charges were ever filed of course, but they easily could have been. If her parents didn't like me, they probably would have been. The funny part to me is that she and her 15-year old sister could have gone into Tijauna alone, and that would have been considered perfectly safe and legal as far as the government cares. Bring an adult male with you though, and all of a sudden it's kidnapping and rape. Hell, the reason I went with them was so that they wouldn't get kidnapped and raped.

 

[1stklass]

Having your accountant screw up on your taxes.
Possessing marijuana.
Crossing state lines with your 17-year-old GF and sharing a hotel room when you're 18 even though the age of consent in both states is 17.
Possessing the wrong kind of fish
Being in the car with your BF who (unknown to you) is packing a drug the government has decided it doesn't like.
Being less than 100% correct on virtually ANY federal govt. form.
Making ANY false statement to ANY federal official for ANY reason. ("No officers, there are no Jews hiding in my neighbor's attic")

And that's just on the federal level.

How about this one: possessing the magazine your gun came with when you drive 15 miles to a shooting competition because even though your gun is exempted from the state's AWB, the magazine is not. (Happened to a guy from NH I know) Or, Crossing 50 feet into an unmarked section of Mass. while driving back to the mall and getting nailed for possession of an "assault weapon."

Felon in Possession laws should at the least be amended to only include violent crimes. In theory, I'm completely with on-board with Watchman. Since we know the entire justice system is going to be reformed about the time Hell freezes over, I'd settle for a refinement.

Every one of us is going to be a felon if the UN gun ban goes into effect so does it really matter? Obama wants to make sure of it, Or at least 53 percent of you will be felons, the other 47 percent will be deemed mentally unstable since that is the number that is being thrown around now about the percentage of americans that will experience a "traumatic event" that causes them to be mentally unstable

 

[Misterbill]

Every one of us is going to be a felon if the UN gun ban goes into effect so does it really matter? Obama wants to make sure of it, Or at least 53 percent of you will be felons, the other 47 percent will be deemed mentally unstable since that is the number that is being thrown around now about the percentage of americans that will experience a "traumatic event" that causes them to be mentally unstable

The UN small arms treaty has about as much chance of being ratified as a Snowflake's in Hell.

The Dems in the Senate can't even muster enough DEM votes to support a new AWB on a straight majority vote (which they won't get because of a fillibuster anyway). The UN small arms treaty is a lot LESS popular than the idea of a new AWB. Nice try on the tinfoil though.

 

[1stklass]

The UN small arms treaty has about as much chance of being ratified as a Snowflake's in Hell.

The Dems in the Senate can't even muster enough DEM votes to support a new AWB on a straight majority vote (which they won't get because of a fillibuster anyway). The UN small arms treaty is a lot LESS popular than the idea of a new AWB. Nice try on the tinfoil though.

Tinfoil??? :huh:

Apparently you have never heard any quotes from one of the most infamous and successful dictator's of all time:

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way round, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it"

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.

"It is not truth that matters, but victory"

Adolf Hitler

Hmmm, well that could make you look at things through...... Obama's eyes!

And now we know why they keep repeating lies....