POLL: 2nd Amendment Gun Rights for Non-Violent Felons?

[jay.sharkbait]

Fortunately the numbers are very small.

Prove it.  How would you know the numbers are small when all you have to go off of are the wrongly convicted that we actually know about?

This argument has no merit or basis for consideration.

Something tells me that your opinion would change quite sharply if you found yourself to be 'collateral damage'.

Your reading comprehension is lacking. Or is English a second language for you?

I assure you, jay.sharkbait, I read your post perfectly well.  What about my statement confuses you?  You're the one who wants to pass Jim Crow laws, e.g. no second amendment rights, no voting rights, no right to own property and no access to government services.  Frankly In light of your statement regarding this, I think you're the one with serious intellectual issues.

Bringing new definitions to the term "full of" are we?

[bishop311]

Follow the bouncing dot, now.  You wrote, "Prison is full of innocent people, right?" to which I replied, "If you don't think that innocent people are convicted of felonies in every single state, then you're a special kind of stupid."  When did I say that prison "is full" of innocent people?  You actually wrote that, and are now asserting that I am trying to redefine "full of".  Nice try, though.

[Mudman]

About 25% of felons released from prison don't get sent back.  Most felony crimes are drugs.  Many people do get their life back on track.  Lots of people don't.  Half of the people sent back are due to parole violations and not new crimes.  Just some facts from reading I did on this.  interesting stuff. 

[jay.sharkbait]

Follow the bouncing dot, now.  You wrote, "Prison is full of innocent people, right?" to which I replied, "If you don't think that innocent people are convicted of felonies in every single state, then you're a special kind of stupid."  When did I say that prison "is full" of innocent people?  You actually wrote that, and are now asserting that I am trying to redefine "full of".  Nice try, though.

You still don't get it....

[bishop311]

Wow.  Just wow.  Let me help you out here:

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

You sound like you're an expert in Communications, kind of like this guy:

[bobcat]

People that can't be trusted with possession of firearms should remain in
prison forever. Taking away a person's right to possess firearms does not prevent them from continuing to commit crimes with the use of a firearm. All it does is prevent them from participating in legal activities such as hunting. In my opinion once a felon has served his time and is deemed not a danger, and is released from prison they should have all the same rights as every other US citizen.

They don't, they get let out very early or do no time at all.  This quandary is impossible to answer because there's so many things broken before we ever ask if felons should have a gun or not. 

*if* felons did their full allotment of time

and

*if* they weren't paroled

and

*if* other mitigating factors aren't involved

and

*if* the felony committed is non-violent

and

*if* all reparations are paid criminally and civilly


well that will never happen

vote no

Yes, I realize people who are dangerous ARE let out of prison, when they probably should not be. But still, my other point is valid. That these people will get guns regardless of whether a piece of paper says they cannot possess firearms or not. If they get out of prison and decide to continue a life of crime, they WILL have guns. So again, IMO, prohibiting a person from possessing firearms will only prevent them from participating in legal activities like hunting. To me that's not right. Maybe this person NEEDS hunting as a way to turn his life around a become and productive member of society. Why take that away from them?

[bishop311]

Yes, I realize people who are dangerous ARE let out of prison, when they probably should not be. But still, my other point is valid. That these people will get guns regardless of whether a piece of paper says they cannot possess firearms or not. If they get out of prison and decide to continue a life of crime, they WILL have guns. So again, IMO, prohibiting a person from possessing firearms will only prevent them from participating in legal activities like hunting. To me that's not right. Maybe this person NEEDS hunting as a way to turn his life around a become a productive member of society. Why take that away from them?

EXACTLY and very well said.

[KFhunter]

Fortunately the numbers are very small.

Prove it.  How would you know the numbers are small when all you have to go off of are the wrongly convicted that we actually know about?

This argument has no merit or basis for consideration.

Something tells me that your opinion would change quite sharply if you found yourself to be 'collateral damage'.

This argument has no merit because once a person has found to be wrongly convicted all their rights are restored then begins the civil liability case for wrongful imprisonment.  I'm all for finding people wrongly convicted and I support advances in technology (DNA for example being used to clear some rape and murder cases) being used to find these people wrongly convicted. 

On the flip side how many people commit felonies and are dismissed?  If anything we need to focus on people getting away with felonies, their future victims are collateral damage too.

[KFhunter]

Yes, I realize people who are dangerous ARE let out of prison, when they probably should not be. But still, my other point is valid. That these people will get guns regardless of whether a piece of paper says they cannot possess firearms or not. If they get out of prison and decide to continue a life of crime, they WILL have guns. So again, IMO, prohibiting a person from possessing firearms will only prevent them from participating in legal activities like hunting. To me that's not right. Maybe this person NEEDS hunting as a way to turn his life around a become a productive member of society. Why take that away from them?

EXACTLY and very well said.

You're argument is "they're going to get them anyways, so why make it illegal?" isn't very convincing.  I appreciate the positivity of hunting, but I'm dubious that the vast majority of ex-cons will find themselves back in jail if they cannot go hunting...


If a convict is let out of jail early on parole due to over crowding, gets himself a gun, gets pulled over for speeding on his way to rob a convenience store, goes back to jail for possessing a gun then I'm happy. 

[bishop311]

Fortunately the numbers are very small.

Prove it.  How would you know the numbers are small when all you have to go off of are the wrongly convicted that we actually know about?

This argument has no merit or basis for consideration.

Something tells me that your opinion would change quite sharply if you found yourself to be 'collateral damage'.

This argument has no merit because once a person has found to be wrongly convicted all their rights are restored then begins the civil liability case for wrongful imprisonment.  I'm all for finding people wrongly convicted and I support advances in technology (DNA for example being used to clear some rape and murder cases) being used to find these people wrongly convicted. 

On the flip side how many people commit felonies and are dismissed?  If anything we need to focus on people getting away with felonies, their future victims are collateral damage too.

My argument absolutely DOES have merit because (A) those who are found to be wrongly convicted and consequently released are usually those who had a DNA evidence introduced in their trials and (B) it is systemic problem and has been for a long time: "In 2015, the Justice Department and the FBI formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an FBI forensic squad overstated forensic hair matches for two decades before the year 2000."

Reference 1: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-forensic-hair-matches-in-nearly-all-criminal-trials-for-decades/2015/04/18/39c8d8c6-e515-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html?utm_term=.e52f61ecb02d

Reference 2: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4d1ac1226ca240319c3ac656ae1b246f/report-doj-fbi-acknowledge-flawed-testimony-unit

And (C) what about people convicted without any DNA evidence to later prove their wrongful conviction?

[KFhunter]

You've already defined a strawman argument so I assume you know what it means....

Must I repeat myself?  Wrongfully convicted people already have their rights reinstated.  They are allowed to have a gun/s. 

Your argument that we should give all felons back gun rights because some of them *might* have been wrongfully convicted is a strawman and not relevant to this debate.

[KFhunter]

Let's give poachers a free deer tag because they're going to shoot one anyways

[bishop311]

Wrong-o. I said in this very thread that NON-VIOLENT felons should have their 2nd Amendment rights restored, not ALL felons.

[KFhunter]

I suppose there might be some instances of DNA or hair samples submitted to the court for some small numbers of non-violent felons but typically this screams violent felons. 

If you still wish to go off in the weeds with your strawman you've limited the scope of that argument even further by latching on to old methods of forensic hair analysis methods as being faulty - and applying that to only non-violent felons.


It's still irrelevant, and you've shown it to have an even narrower scope by limiting it to only non-violent felons, which typically don't involve a rape kit. 

and besides all that wrongfully convicted felons (violent or non-violent) still get their rights fully restored.....

[bishop311]

It's still irrelevant in your opinion, you mean. While I disagree with every fiber your argument, your welcome to it. I remain steady in my opinion that our Government is too fast and lose with stripping citizens of their Constitutional rights for flimsy reasons that are dubious in cases. Once you introduce the concept of stripping people of their Constitutional rights, it's a slippery slope into the netherworld.