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

[fish vacuum]

The stats I posted show incarcerated people and people under community supervision. It says at the bottom that 55.8% of those on supervision didn't do prison time.

[Mudman]

Wasn't the tread about felons and not ex-cons?

[Oh Mah]

I DON'T THINK THEIR WORRIED ABOUT INMATES GETTING FIREARM RIGHTS BACK. So we are talking about felons who are ex-cons

[fish vacuum]

Wasn't it one of you claiming most felons are guilty of drug crimes?

[fish vacuum]

Wasn't the tread about felons and not ex-cons?

Ummm...ok.

[Oh Mah]

Wasn't the tread about felons and not ex-cons?

I'm sorry but   

Next thing you know,They will push to have people that are just dumb to loose their gun rights.

[Mudman]

Wasn't it one of you claiming most felons are guilty of drug crimes?

That is my point...  The most felony crimes were drugs.  And many felony crimes do not result in prison thus not ex-cons.  That was the point I was making in comparing the stats presented.  With so many crimes being upgraded to felony status all of a sudden they determine that the perps are not dangerous to put in prison.  Another point on gun control/confiscation.  Imagine if DUI went felony status(which it will someday) and we sent em all to prison?  Wow we better start building 4x's more prisons.  Heck I find it statistically probable many on huntwa would not be on here or hunting.  You see it can happen to all of us at some point, most everyone has driven when they shouldn't of.  So go lay your guns down and don't be a hypocrite.  One poster thinks home ownership shouldn't be allowed too!  We must keep open minds and perspectives and not get emotional and group murder with check fraud, or drug addiction, or messing with Squatch!   I really see it as a liberal gun grab and voting base building exercise which people are ignorant enough to blindly support in their righteous hypocricy.

[Oh Mah]

 

[bishop311]

That is my point...  The most felony crimes were drugs.  And many felony crimes do not result in prison thus not ex-cons.  That was the point I was making in comparing the stats presented.  With so many crimes being upgraded to felony status all of a sudden they determine that the perps are not dangerous to put in prison.  Another point on gun control/confiscation.  Imagine if DUI went felony status(which it will someday) and we sent em all to prison?  Wow we better start building 4x's more prisons.  Heck I find it statistically probable many on huntwa would not be on here or hunting.  You see it can happen to all of us at some point, most everyone has driven when they shouldn't of.  So go lay your guns down and don't be a hypocrite.  One poster thinks home ownership shouldn't be allowed too!  We must keep open minds and perspectives and not get emotional and group murder with check fraud, or drug addiction, or messing with Squatch!   I really see it as a liberal gun grab and voting base building exercise which people are ignorant enough to blindly support in their righteous hypocricy.

 

[bishop311]

And for what it is worth, voting closed yesterday with the final results:

Yes, 2nd amendment rights should be restored immediately after the sentence has been discharged, or at least a certain number of years after the sentence has been discharged. -- 70 (72.9%)

No, any felon, violent or non-violent, should forever be forbidden from using, owning or possessing any firearm. -- 26 (27.1%)

The No Voters lost resoundingly, but I'm still surprised -- not by the fact that the Yes Voters won, but by the fact that 26 people on this hunting forum actually voted No on allowing Non-Violent felons who have completed their sentences and have thus repaid their debt to society restoration of their 2nd Amendment Rights.  It's a damned embarrassment is what it is.

[KFhunter]

One of those 26 was my vote.  Your poll is too black and white pie in the sky cut and dry which doesn't reflect the real world.

The current method is fine but plenty of room for improvement, let them petition the court to reinstate their 2A rights, at least they'll somewhat of a review to see if they deserve to have them back, to see if they've paid their debt to society.

[jay.sharkbait]

And for what it is worth, voting closed yesterday with the final results:

Yes, 2nd amendment rights should be restored immediately after the sentence has been discharged, or at least a certain number of years after the sentence has been discharged. -- 70 (72.9%)

No, any felon, violent or non-violent, should forever be forbidden from using, owning or possessing any firearm. -- 26 (27.1%)

The No Voters lost resoundingly, but I'm still surprised -- not by the fact that the Yes Voters won, but by the fact that 26 people on this hunting forum actually voted No on allowing Non-Violent felons who have completed their sentences and have thus repaid their debt to society restoration of their 2nd Amendment Rights.  It's a damned embarrassment is what it is.

So you ask for people's thoughts and opinions and then get all upset when they don't agree with yours?

Lol

[bishop311]

So you ask for people's thoughts and opinions and then get all upset when they don't agree with yours?

What is with you and straw man arguments?  It's like your addicted to them or are incapable of knowing that you're doing it consistently.  I didn't say I was upset that someone didn't agree with my opinions.  I said very clearly that it was embarrassing that 26 people on a hunting forum would vote for stripping non-violent felons who have repaid their debt to society of their 2nd Amendment rights.

The current method is fine but plenty of room for improvement, let them petition the court to reinstate their 2A rights, at least they'll somewhat of a review to see if they deserve to have them back, to see if they've paid their debt to society.

That is precisely what Federal Law allows for through petitioning the ATF for relief from Firearm Disability, however Chuck Schumer back in the early 1990's wrote into the Omnibus Spending wording which expressly forbids the ATF from using any of their budget to process said petitions for Relief from Firearm Disability.  So what we have here is a politician who is forbidding a Federal Agency from carrying out what Federal Law prescribes for.  In my opinion, that would be fine -- allowing individuals to petition for their 2A right to be returned, but oh no -- Schumer threw a hissy fit and stopped the ATF from doing their job.

[jay.sharkbait]

So you ask for people's thoughts and opinions and then get all upset when they don't agree with yours?

What is with you and straw man arguments?  It's like your addicted to them or are incapable of knowing that you're doing it consistently.  I didn't say I was upset that someone didn't agree with my opinions.  I said very clearly that it was embarrassing that 26 people on a hunting forum would vote for stripping non-violent felons who have repaid their debt to society of their 2nd Amendment rights.

The current method is fine but plenty of room for improvement, let them petition the court to reinstate their 2A rights, at least they'll somewhat of a review to see if they deserve to have them back, to see if they've paid their debt to society.

That is precisely what Federal Law allows for through petitioning the ATF for relief from Firearm Disability, however Chuck Schumer back in the early 1990's wrote into the Omnibus Spending wording which expressly forbids the ATF from using any of their budget to process said petitions for Relief from Firearm Disability.  So what we have here is a politician who is forbidding a Federal Agency from carrying out what Federal Law prescribes for.  In my opinion, that would be fine -- allowing individuals to petition for their 2A right to be returned, but oh no -- Schumer threw a hissy fit and stopped the ATF from doing their job.

You are part of the problem...... you are incapable of having a dialogue with people who disagree with your agenda and your only response is to attack.

The left and anti gun lobby love people like you.

[bishop311]

You are part of the problem...... you are incapable of having a dialogue with people who disagree with your agenda and your only response is to attack.

Oh how very predictable.  The guy who consistently uses straw man arguments to counter in debates accuses others of being incapable of having a dialogue.  Do I need to remind you again what a straw man argument is?

The left and anti gun lobby love people like you.

The hypocrisy here is Level: PRO

You are basically advocating for gun control over a certain group of people, yet apparently the anti gun lobby likes people like me?