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

[bishop311]

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 felons to own guns.

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

If that isn't stretching logic well beyond the point of no return, then I don't know what is.  Try to put ALL the words into my mouth you want to -- it doesn't make what you are saying in your colossally idiotic post true in the least bit.  In my opinion, non-violent ex-criminals, after discharging from their sentence, should receive their 2nd Amendment right back (Enter KFhunter's twisted logic) ERGO child porn traffickers and voyeurs should be allowed to move in next to kiddie day care and schools, armed with cameras and guns.  But where your logic falls flat on its butt is that there are already numerous laws aimed at protecting children and child care facilities from ex-felons who committed crimes of child molestation and child pornography as well as distribution of child pornography.  They vary slightly from State to State, but *every* State has them and they are extremely harsh from what I have read -- offenders are not allowed to move without notifying authorities and are not allowed within X distance of a school, playground or daycare.  Again, nice try but no cigar.

[KFhunter]

Your post is very emotional, logic and emotion don't mix well.   

As for my logic being flawed it is not, numerous laws prevent non-violent felons from owning guns as you point out, the same logic applies to all non-violent felons such as child porn traffickers; after all a sexual registry isn't much different than a ban on owning guns.  If a pervert has paid his due to society, ERGO served his time and fully discharged from his crime - why then should he have to continue to be on a sexual registry?  Why shouldn't he be able to move anywhere he wants? (going by your logic)

If you were truly sound in your logic it would apply to this scenario and 1000's of others I could dream up that would elicit the same emotional response.

[bishop311]

Your post is very emotional, logic and emotion don't mix well.   

As for my logic being flawed it is not, numerous laws prevent non-violent felons from owning guns as you point out, the same logic applies to all non-violent felons such as child porn traffickers; after all a sexual registry isn't much different than a ban on owning guns.  If a pervert has paid his due to society, ERGO served his time and fully discharged from his crime - why then should he have to continue to be on a sexual registry?  Why shouldn't he be able to move anywhere he wants? (going by your logic)

If you were truly sound in your logic it would apply to this scenario and 1000's of others I could dream up that would elicit the same emotional diatribe as you're currently expulsing.

I'm sorry, but your logic is very much flawed.  People who have committed said horrible crimes against children and have been convicted have proven that they cannot be trusted around children, and it is for that reason the law prevents them from moving to a new address without registering and also prevents them from being within X distance of a school, playground or daycare.  LIKEWISE, I have said that violent felons including violent felons who committed crimes with a firearm should NOT be allowed to own, use or purchase a firearm because they have displayed a propensity for violence, and hence cannot be trusted with firearms.  The fallacy is yours.

[Fl0und3rz]

I know of several registered sex offenders - and they are largely of the "violent" type, not child-porn traffickers - within a block or two of a local elementary school.

You raise an excellent point, KFhunter, that not all non-violent felonies are or should be treated the same.  I would default to restoration unless there is a showing of need, protected by due process, to continue to disenfranchise the "rehabilitated" offender in those instances.

[KFhunter]

Child porn traffickers (possession and distribution) and voyeurs ETC are classified as non-violent crimes, they would be prohibited to own a gun -which you would like to change- but in your hypocrisy you would ask that they continue to be subject to punitive measures dictating where they live, how they travel and subject them to a registry even though they've paid their dues to society and fully discharged from their crimes.

 

[bishop311]

Child porn traffickers (possession and distribution) and voyeurs ETC are classified as non-violent crimes, they would be prohibited to own a gun -which you would like to change- but in your hypocrisy you would ask that they continue to be subject to punitive measures dictating where they live, how they travel and subject them to a registry even though they've paid their dues to society and fully discharged from their crimes.

"Child porn traffickers (possession and distribution) and voyeurs ETC" have been proven to be a potential threat to children -- obviously, there's some sick sexual attraction to kids.  They absolutely should be kept away from children.  If you would like to call that hypocritical of me, then I'm very much OK with that.  Likewise, violent criminals and especially violent criminals who used a firearm in the commission of their crime, should not be able to possess, use or own a firearm in my opinion.

[KFhunter]

.....buuut they can have guns 

[bishop311]

Did they commit a violent crime?  Did they commit a gun crime?  Heck, did they actually harm another human being?  ... Um, well no, they actually didn't.

TAKE AWAY THEIR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS ANYWAYS!!!  FOR LIFE!!!  YEEEAAAARGH!!!

[jay.sharkbait]

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.

Yeah!!!! He was being mean to me!

[bishop311]

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.

Yeah!!!! He was being mean to me!

Sorry bud. I apologize.

[KFhunter]

Heck, did they actually harm another human being?  ... Um, well no, they actually didn't.

Actually they did, trading child porn pictures creates a market = more kids get molested, raped and kidnapped.

Your whole premise is based on flawed logic that say's the 2nd amendment is somehow more important than the other amendments, in the case of sexual registries to continue this example, a multitude of other rights falling under multiple amendments is being withheld or denied that individual. 
Why do you place the 2nd amendment higher in value than other rights being denied a person whose served their time?

"obviously, there's some sick sexual attraction to kids.  They absolutely should be kept away from children"

 

This same statement would apply to many other types of criminals convicted of various non-violent crimes:
"obviously that person is addicted to heroin/meth/opioids, they absolutely should be kept away from guns"

Like I said, 1000's of example of non-violent crime examples can be listed.

[bishop311]

Beep beep beep! False equivalency alert! Autocorrect initiated!

"obviously that person is addicted to heroin/meth/opioids, they absolutely should be kept away from guns heroin/meth/opioids"

[bigtex]

Heck, did they actually harm another human being?  ... Um, well no, they actually didn't.

Actually they did, trading child porn pictures creates a market = more kids get molested, raped and kidnapped.

All I can say in regards to Bishop's statement is WOW. KF is correct. For some reason I have a feeling if you (Bishop) had a daughter who was then shown in some type of kiddy porn film you wouldn't say that your daughter wasn't harmed as a result of that video/photo.

Many people want child molesters dead, you (Bishop) want them to have guns 

[KFhunter]

You can lead a horse to water...


Obviously you won't be dissuaded from your 2A dogma, nor will I have my mind changed as the statistics are well in my favor.

If you really care about the 2nd amendment as I do, then you'd do everything you could to insure that we keep the 2nd amendment as it is and not loose ground by arming criminals. 

Do some research on recividism rates.  Pay special attention to non-violent offenders who go back to jail with a violent crime. 

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=44

[KFhunter]

Heck, did they actually harm another human being?  ... Um, well no, they actually didn't.

Actually they did, trading child porn pictures creates a market = more kids get molested, raped and kidnapped.

All I can say in regards to Bishop's statement is WOW. KF is correct. For some reason I have a feeling if you (Bishop) had a daughter who was then shown in some type of kiddy porn film you wouldn't say that your daughter wasn't harmed as a result of that video/photo.

Many people want child molesters dead, you (Bishop) want them to have guns 

It's just pride getting in the way of intelligence.  I don't believe bishop311 wants to arm perverts, but he was caught in a logic trap and was unwilling to admit defeat.