OccultHawk

I think if you had experience with released felons in the United States, like working side by side with people on work release programs, or dealing with them as parents of the children you were teaching you really wouldn’t feel like a past conviction is true indicator of future behavior or maybe not even past behavior compared to the general public. The American penal system is wildly unfair and criminalizes both pigmentation and poverty. Leaving them in a permanent disenfranchised second class status is usually what causes people to lash out. I would support intentionally arming them over denying them the right to self defense. Hell, we need people who are willing to put a gun to the head of this capitalist power structure.

Woody Guthrie

__________________

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Member of the Year & Journal of the Year Champion

Behold the Writing of THE LEGEND:

https://www.musicbanter.com/members-...p-lighter.html

Lisnaholic

Yep, that's true, and yet we don't all commit one.

The bold is surely over-stating the "deprivation" of the restrictions I've mentioned: the gun thing, pedofiles kept away from kids, etc.

I didn't say that at all. I believe in the possibility of rehabilitation, all I'm suggesting is that balancing out the overall safety of society, against the loss of gun rights for felons, I think it's worth doing. With many safety measures imposed by society, some freedoms are lost and innocent people are inconvenienced. In principal I subscribe to the notion that someone who has paid his debt to society is an innocent person; all that happens is that he carries around one extra inconvenience. Just like me he can't drink and drive or ride a motorbike without a helmet, it's just that when I go into the gun shop, he has to wait in the car.


Was the Bill of Rights carved in stone and handed down by God? If the times, the technology and the society of the US have changed in the last 200 years, perhaps a footnote could be added to the Bill of Rights too.

I didn't say that a past conviction is a true indicator of future behaviour. I respect your experience as you know, and am sure you're right about many or most ex-felons keeping out of trouble.

My bold bit: maybe it's a cultural thing, but again I feel that the loss of gun ownership rights is being overstated, in this case especially with the word "disenfranchised" which is normally used in connection with voting rights. Do you really become a second-class citizen in the US if you lose your gun rights?!

Nice touch with the Woody Guthrie quote, OH! Perhaps you guessed correctly that I would be reluctant to contradict him. Absolutely agree with his first verse about white-collar crime, but sadly this couplet isn't entirely true:

(* hastily checks the internet for cases of mafia protection-racketeers and drug cartels closing businesses, etc.*)

__________________
"Am I enjoying this moment? I know of it and perhaps that is enough." - Sybille Bedford, 1953

Frownland

Until we need to or the law decides that we have.

You become a second class citizen in any country when one or more rights are limited in comparison to the general public, so yes. The value of gun rights is another question entirely, really.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

jwb

You didn't say it explicitly, but it was implicit in your logic.

They demonstrated themselves to be felons and thus incapable of ever fully retaining their rights and thus they are beyond rehabilitation in a certain regard. Correct me where I'm wrong.

A lot of the rest of what you said relies on the assumption that they pose a unique security risk if allowed to own weapons. I've already stated my case against this and am eagerly awaiting a rebuttal

that's an argument against the 2nd amendment which I agree with. But as long as the right exists it should be granted as widely as possible, and the fact that because it exists this is a country stock full of guns and armed criminals is all the more reason that denying a felon access to guns is an injustice that possibly prevents them from defending themselves.

jwb

no

Preventing someone from owning guns because they have a felony = 2nd amendment violated. Unless you can provide a coherent argument why they should be denied that right.

Lisnaholic

Perhaps this doesn't rise to an actual rebuttal, jwb, so much as an alternative way of looking at the issue. Without any stats to back myself up, yes, I am assuming that a convicted felon is more likely to use a gun to commit a crime than someone without a felony conviction. Perhaps I should've researched that, but if it's true, then my argument is just a simple application of statistical probabilities:-
Motor cyclists statistically run a heightened risk of brain injury, therefore all of them wear helmets. It's not really saying to each individual cyclist, "I don't think you're capable of riding safely." In a similar way, I'm guessing that felons fall into a group that are statistically more likely to be involved in violent crime, so denying them access to guns should statistically lessen that risk to society.

And yes, there are cases of people who have been falsely convicted, and the people like the guy OH mentions who grew up in very tough circumstances. Those cases clearly support your position. Also, (again with no research) there are prob cases of felons who leave jail and subsequently shoot some innocent victim. Those victims would support my case by asking, " Why didn't the authorities do more to protect me if they knew the guy had a record of violent crime?"

Underlying my argument is also the assumption that you can lead a full and active life without owning a gun, that the lack of one doesn't make you a second-class citizen.

__________________
"Am I enjoying this moment? I know of it and perhaps that is enough." - Sybille Bedford, 1953

Frownland

Helmet and traffic rules are applied universally, as opposed to rules applied exclusively to felons. If our laws were consistent with the idea that felony=violence, I'd be on board but that's not the case. I think it's more realistic to address gun laws and culture than to legislate restrictions against a specific class of citizens. The restrictive nature of the law and the social norms that it influences against ex convicts plays a big role in making them desperate enough to commit crimes again. It's a self fulfilling prophecy, especially if you're told that you can't be trusted to not be violent. When you're told that often enough, it makes violence seem like your true nature.

You can absolutely live a full life without owning a gun, but if you have a separate set of rights from the rest of the populace that inherently makes you an unequal citizen (aka a second class citizen). That applies to gun rights, however dysfunctional American gun culture is.

__________________

Studies show that when a given norm is changed in the face of the unchanging, the remaining contradictions will parallel the truth.

jwb

this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue at stake imo

You don't only have to demonstrate a statistical deviance... You have to demonstrate a direct casual link that justifies suspending rights for the sake of public health

E.G. black people are much more likely, statistically speaking, to commit a gun crime. Banning them owning guns would be an obvious infringement on their civil rights. Males ages 20-40 are also statically much more likely to commit a gun crime than other demographics. Same story.

Again that's an argument against the 2nd amendment not against removing the rights of felons.

But as long as you're here, you can also lead a good and active life without voting. A gun is actually more useful than voting is for vast swaths of Americans

SGR

Yes, this is the truth. Although I'd replace "vast swaths of" with "almost all".

Marie Monday

I'd like to add to frown's reply to this with the following consideration (edit: yikes to this sentence, you'll have to forgive me, it's still early):
Giving people different rights based on statistics is a very dangerous slippery slope that easily leads to discrimination. As far as I know, statistically back people in America are more likely to be felons than white people. Should black people not have access to guns? And men are definitely statistically more likely to be involved in violent crimes. Should men not be allowed to own guns? Where do you draw the line?

__________________