Second Amendment & American Liberty

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Advocate, Aug 10, 2011.

  1. Advocate

    Advocate New Member

    3
    0
    0
    When an American is convicted of a crime and completes his/her sentence should the state or federal government be authorized to permanently or in anyway restrict their second amendment right to protect their property, family or community?

    EX: It is 11PM on a Friday night somewhere in America. There a father, wife and two children watching a movie (plant of the Apes) in the den. The daughter heads to the kitchen for popcorn when she hears a loud noise upstairs. As she runs towards the den to alert her father there is a stranger descending the stairs while another enters through the garage door.

    The state and federal government says "this" man cannot protect his person, family or property because he was previously convicted of a crime 15 years ago though he has long since completed his sentence.

    More than 13 million Americans are arrested each year with varying outcomes. Should the man in the scenario above not be allowed to protect his family because of a previously completed conviction?
     
  2. lonewolf101

    lonewolf101 New Member

    528
    0
    0
    Well that depends what crime he was guilty of - now if that was MURDER 13 YEARS ago my answer is NO! if it was shoplifting then I would say yes and just because the Govt say a felon cant own a gun my ex brother in law has one so whats the big deal here? you want me to feel sorry for you because you comitted a violent crime 13 years ago now you want a gun you should of thought of that 13 years ago!.
     

  3. Cory2

    Cory2 New Member

    575
    0
    0
    I do not believe in second rate citizenship. So no, once they have served their time, they have been punished. There are no second rate citizens in America, other than the ones in prison.
     
  4. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    Felonie was never a cause for restricting gun ownership until the 20th century when most of the anti gun crap started. During the 18th and 19 century's once you served your time you were free and it was not a life sentence as it is now days
     
  5. M14sRock

    M14sRock New Member

    5,549
    2
    0
    Once the time has been served the rights should be up for restoration.
     
  6. FatPat

    FatPat New Member

    130
    0
    0
    Once you have served your time, you should regain your rights.


    Having said that, my ideas on appropriate punishment for violent crime would result in that individual losing more than their freedom for a period of time, thus eliminating the need for an answer to this question in the first place.
     
  7. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Once you've served your sentence and/or paid your fine, you should be no different than anyone else. We do not live in a society where some citizens have rights and others don't.

    There are some felonies that deserve the death penalty and others that don't. For those that don't, an felon released from prison should regain his or her rights. (For those who commit violent felonies, they should hang so the issue of rights becomes moot.)

    Back to reality...I don't care what the law says in regard to my defending myself, my family and my property: I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
     
  8. M14sRock

    M14sRock New Member

    5,549
    2
    0
    My response dealt with the answer generically. Violent offenders should be dealt with violently.
     
  9. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    If the sentences for the extremely violent crimes were more permanent, i would agree completely, but since those sentences aren't always permanent, i only partially agree. Of course, in some places, duder could use a black powder pistol to defend himself, at least for six shots. I've got a .44 caliber BP Remington replica, and something about those dull lead balls is just scary as heck. I would NOT want to get hit by that. I had a pretty good buddy with a felony from long ago, so i have given this some thought.
     
  10. Advocate

    Advocate New Member

    3
    0
    0
    The post is not meant to garner sympathy but rather better understand the mental processes and social philosophies that are involved in support for or against this form of government action.

    State nor federal statutes have real effect on stopping someone with a felony from buying any form of firearm and using it for self protection or otherwise.

    This is about government action that penalizes an American's Constitutional Right, and American's willing to compromise their liberty for so-called government protection. When we give up one right or allow the government to restrict (Take) that right and then penalize the excerise of such, we are actually consenting to wholesale molestation of our form of government as well as the God granted and Constitutionally protected rights.....
     
  11. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    You are correct....
     
  12. Advocate

    Advocate New Member

    3
    0
    0
    When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing; when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors; when you see that men get rich more easily by graft than by work, and your laws no longer protect you against them but protect them against you...you may know that your society is doomed.

    So true..........
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2011
  13. Vincine

    Vincine New Member

    3,495
    0
    0
    I'd like to 'steal' this. Is it original? Where did you quote it from?
     
  14. clip11

    clip11 New Member

    178
    0
    0
    Agreed. You should at least be able to have it in your house.
     
  15. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    So, if a person went on a shooting spree at their junior high school, got convicted, served a ten year sentence inside and five years probation outside (assume "ideal" inmate behavior), and then went into a store to buy another firearm exactly like the one they used in their junior high shooting spree, you guys would be OK with it?

    Now if somebody earns their felony doing bank fraud or insurance fraud or something similarly non-violent, i see no reason for them to be denied a firearm for the rest of their stay in the U.S. IMO, if you are convicted of a felony involving violence against your fellow citizens, you have shown yourself to be incompetent to handle the ability to cause permanent damage to your fellow citizens. Fraud, theft, and other non-violent crimes allow the victims a chance at recovery, while a felony involving violence probably does permanent damage to another citizen.
     
  16. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    If a person went on a shooting spree anywhere then that person should be either serving life plus 1 day or hanging by the neck until dead
     
  17. therewolf

    therewolf New Member

    8,409
    1
    0
    OTOH, Opaww, if LE makes a law-abiding citizen a permanent

    criminal in status, can we not expect them to embrace their

    criminality at some point?

    As gun owners, WE ALL face the possibility of being brought up on,

    and convicted of criminal charges, in the event a variety of

    bad scenarios should turn against us.

    A bad vehicle search, a home defense gone bad, any number of other

    possible situations could get you branded as a criminal for life.

    Then, for no truly valid reason, you could be treated as

    a criminal, and disallowed firearms usage for life.

    Once you were in this situation, would you not think to

    yourself "Well if they're going to treat like a criminal for life, and allow

    me no chance at redemption to citizen status, why

    should I obey the law? "
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2011
  18. texaswoodworker

    texaswoodworker New Member

    10,198
    0
    0
    I believe that they should regain their rights unless they were convicted of a violent crime (felony only) If they only commited a non violent felony such as larceny or burglary, I believe they should be able to regain their 2nd amendment rights after serving their time and serving a probationary period.
     
  19. orangello

    orangello New Member

    19,156
    0
    0
    I don't disagree, but Manson still comes up for parole pretty regular, doesn't he.
     
  20. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    Yep and I thought they were going to let him go last time, but nope no way...Supprised the sh_t out of me.