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

[jay.sharkbait]

My work here is done........

[bishop311]

My work here is done........

And now off to your regular, full-time job.

[KFhunter]

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.

That isn't an accurate statement, the vote is for automatic reinstatement of rights which I voted no for. The rights were already stripped by the court, per due process, as laid out in the bill of rights.

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 should have voted no also per your agreement with what I have said, just repackaged in different words with the same meaning.

[bishop311]

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.

That isn't an accurate statement, the vote is for automatic reinstatement of rights which I voted no for. The rights were already stripped by the court, per due process, as laid out in the bill of rights.

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 should have voted no also per your agreement with what I have said, just repackaged in different words with the same meaning.

I didn't agree with what you said, I merely pointed out that Felons (or ex-felons, technically) are already supposed to be able to follow a legal procedure to regain their 2A right through petitioning the ATF.  I further pointed out that Chuck Schumer, an anti-gun Democrat, has blocked the ATF via wording in the Omnibus.  None of that is agreeing with what you said, namely:

The current method is fine

The current method is NOT fine, because the ATF is not being allowed to process relief applications.  I solidly stand behind my YES vote as surely as you stand behind your NO vote.

[yorketransport]

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 using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.

[Knocker of rocks]

So using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.

Good question.

[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.

So using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.

1. This poll asked specifically about 2nd Amendment Rights, not the right to live in close proximity to an elementary school.
2. This poll specifically addressed non-violent felonies.
3. The term "child predator" is used to describe those who have raped and/or molested a child or children, which is a violent crime.
4. No, in my opinion, child predators should be kept away from children at all costs -- but then again, being around a child or children is not a right specifically enshrined in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights, so there is no concept of "repaying their debts to society" in order to regain a Constitutional Right -- one that doesn't even exist.
5. Further, I don't believe that people who committed violent felonies such as assault with intent, murder, kidnapping, rape, molestation, et cetera should be allowed to possess firearms, because they've proven that they have a propensity for committing violent acts against another person.

[Oh Mah]

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 using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.

this is how liberal law makers get what they want in a bill,ask for something that everyone is afraid to say no to.The answer would be yes if they did their time and waited there time after release with no new infractions for say 30 years  but never take rights away for ever for any reason.

[KFhunter]

So using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.

Good question.

It is a good question but he was able to squirm out with the violent crime thing.  Instead ask about someone convicted of various non-violent child porn crimes, selling distribution voyeurism etc. 

[bishop311]

So using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.

Good question.

It is a good question but he was able to squirm out with the violent crime thing.  Instead ask about someone convicted of various non-violent child porn crimes, selling distribution voyeurism etc.

The only one squirming here is you -- squirming to legitimize your opinion, which you shouldn't have to do if you feel secure in your opinion.  You've voted in the poll and have made very clear your thinking.  While you're more than welcome to your opinion, you're very much in the minority looking at the poll results.

[KFhunter]

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 using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.

this is how liberal law makers get what they want in a bill,ask for something that everyone is afraid to say no to.The answer would be yes if they did their time and waited there time after release with no new infractions for say 30 years  but never take rights away for ever for any reason.

Incarceration isn't a loss of a rights?   and "no new infractions for 30 years" is different than not allowing someone to purchase, own or possess firearms how?  Seems to be the same thing.

[KFhunter]

So using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.

Good question.

It is a good question but he was able to squirm out with the violent crime thing. Instead ask about someone convicted of various non-violent child porn crimes, selling distribution voyeurism etc.

The only one squirming here is you -- squirming to legitimize your opinion, which you shouldn't have to do if you feel secure in your opinion.  You've voted in the poll and have made very clear your thinking.  While you're more than welcome to your opinion, you're very much in the minority looking at the poll results.

Ook, nice attempt at a dodge,  and the answer to the second question? In maroon above

[bishop311]

So using this argument, should child predators be allowed to move across the street from an elementary school when they get out of prison? I mean, they did repay their debt to society based on your argument.

Good question.

It is a good question but he was able to squirm out with the violent crime thing. Instead ask about someone convicted of various non-violent child porn crimes, selling distribution voyeurism etc.

The only one squirming here is you -- squirming to legitimize your opinion, which you shouldn't have to do if you feel secure in your opinion.  You've voted in the poll and have made very clear your thinking.  While you're more than welcome to your opinion, you're very much in the minority looking at the poll results.

Ook, nice attempt at a dodge,  and the answer to the second question? In maroon above

How long are you going to keep squirming?  Do you feel THAT threatened that your own opinion was not accepted by the vast majority of people who answered the poll?  And do you honestly think I'm avoiding answering the question, as if I'm embarrassed by it?  Puh-lease, son.  You'll have to do much better than that.  If it isn't a violent felony as I've said before multiple times, then people should not continue to be deprived of their 2nd Amendment rights after they've fully discharged from their sentence.  Child molesting, rape, etc. ARE violent crimes -- it's assault, plain and simple, and even more disturbing because it was done to a child.  Watching child pornography, as disgusting and truly reprehensible as it is, is not a violent crime.  Nice try though!

[KFhunter]

Thanks for answering the question:  Would you be OK with child porn traffickers and voyeurs moving in next to a kiddie day care or school yard? - and your answer is yes, yes you would. I think it sheds light on your thinking and now I understand why you would allow any and all "non-violent" felons to own guns.

Now that convicted child porn trafficker can move in next to a school and be armed with guns and cameras.





 

[Fl0und3rz]

Since you're new here, bishop311, you might want to be apprised that this is thread is not in off-topics, and we tend to treat others with a little more decency and respect than is allowed to pass in off-topics.  Off-topics is essentially unmoderated with limited standards of conduct. 

Just a friendly word of advice.