Right or wrong convo with my Anti best friend..

[MGD 45]

Sorry, I feel myself sliding down that slippery slope.........

[jcabin]

:/

[robinsre]

Originally Posted by MGD 45

My only critique would be the rules regarding who can have a gun. Only people who have never been a "law-breaker"? If we as gun owners truly believe that owning a gun is a "Right", then how can you lose that "Right" by simply being arrested for a crime?

Does a criminal lose their other "Rights" once they've been arrested & convicted, like the Right to Free Speech.....Free from illegal searches.....Freedom of religion....? If not, then how can we say that they lose the Right in the 2nd Amendment....?

Now as an LEO, I'm not real happy to see a convicted felon carrying a gun, but as a citizen who believes in my "Rights", how can I deny him his...? Maybe I've fallen off the wagon here, because most if not all of my co-workers think I'm nuts in my way of thinking!!

I just believe that a "Right" is a "Right", & nothing can change that.......otherwise we risk the chance that someone else in government will change the rules down the road & make other exemptions.

Just my crazy 2 cents.......

You're looking at this the wrong way.

We are not "revoking" the rights of someone who has committed a felony.

Upon commission of a felony an individual forfeits those rights.

Living within a community binds one to a social contract. The terms of the contract are exceptionally well established by Federal, State, and Local law. Individuals know (or if they don't they have no excuse NOT to know) that commission of certain crimes entail a forfeit (temporary, or permanent) of some or all one's rights to the state. This is the reason we can impose fines (violating the right of earned property) imprison people for crimes (violation of the right to liberty), prevent felons from owning firearms (violation of the second amendment), and execute those who commit the most heinous atrocities (after all they would otherwise have a right to life, correct?)

Liberty without assignment to social contract is anarchy.
Liberty without a well defined social contract is not liberty at all, it's totalitarianism.

[TTT]

Originally Posted by MGD 45

My only critique would be the rules regarding who can have a gun. Only people who have never been a "law-breaker"? If we as gun owners truly believe that owning a gun is a "Right", then how can you lose that "Right" by simply being arrested for a crime?

Does a criminal lose their other "Rights" once they've been arrested & convicted, like the Right to Free Speech.....Free from illegal searches.....Freedom of religion....? If not, then how can we say that they lose the Right in the 2nd Amendment....?

Now as an LEO, I'm not real happy to see a convicted felon carrying a gun, but as a citizen who believes in my "Rights", how can I deny him his...? Maybe I've fallen off the wagon here, because most if not all of my co-workers think I'm nuts in my way of thinking!!

I just believe that a "Right" is a "Right", & nothing can change that.......otherwise we risk the chance that someone else in government will change the rules down the road & make other exemptions.

Just my crazy 2 cents.......

I'm gonna have to agree with you here. I worked with a guy that was a triple felon before he moved out of CA (before the 3 strikes law). This guy was in the LA gangs til his mid 30s. While he was in for his last time, he found God. In the time I knew him, I got to trust him. I still don't know exactly what his crimes were, but that doesn't matter. It's about who he is now that does. He has stopped drinking, smoking, and has become a model citizen. Except he owns a gun. He has it to protect his daughters and grandkids. Should he not have the right to protect his family due to his past? If he comes home and his 16 year old daughter is being attacked, shouldn't he be able to have the means to help her?

I read about another felon with a gun on Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters. This guy was a victim of a burglary or home invasion or something like that. He shot and killed the intruder, and went back to jail. Not for shooting the guy, but for having a gun. The judge and jury ruled that he had the right to shoot him, but didn't have the right to have the means to shoot him.

I'm not saying all felons should be able to go buy a gun the day they get out. But they should be able to have their rights restored if they have proven that they've changed their ways. Maybe if they've gone 5 years since they got out and have stayed out of trouble and kept clean. Make it a voluntary probation/parole. You check in with your PO and do weekly/monthly drug tests. When your hearing comes up, if your PO testifies that he's satisfied, you get all your rights back. If not, you decide if you want to keep trying, and schedule another hearing for next year.

What I'm saying is that, like said above, felons have proven we can't trust them. I'm saying give them a means to prove that we can. If they break that trust again, by all means, forbid them owning guns again.

[MGD 45]

As an LEO of course I understand that when someone breaks the law that they temporarily forfeit some of their "Rights" until they have payed their debt to society. But my main point is to ask yourself that once a person has been released back into society, should they not obtain all their "Rights" back?

No convicted criminal once they are released back on the streets lose ANY of their Rights. They still have the same Rights as all of us as it pertains to speech, religion, serach & seizure.......So how can they lose the 2nd Right?

If we decide that the government can strip a person of their Rights......where does it stop? I thought the Rights enumerated in the 2nd Amendments were pretty much considered Natural Rights.....and the government can't just strip you of them.

I mean can you imagine if you were arrested & convicted of say writing a bad check to Target during Christmas time and it was enough to amount to a felony (over $500)......once you completed your probation, paid back your restitution to Target (hence paid your debt to society) some government employee sends you a letter telling you that you no longer have your Rights to free speech, freedom of religion, & the freedom from illegal search & seizure.....?

How can we advocate that someone can easily lose one of their Rights, but not the others? To me, this is just how the government slowly weakens the 2nd Amendment, until the masses don't consider it as a Right, but rather a privilege.

[jcabin]

Originally Posted by TTT

I'm gonna have to agree with you here. I worked with a guy that was a triple felon before he moved out of CA (before the 3 strikes law). This guy was in the LA gangs til his mid 30s. While he was in for his last time, he found God. In the time I knew him, I got to trust him. I still don't know exactly what his crimes were, but that doesn't matter. It's about who he is now that does. He has stopped drinking, smoking, and has become a model citizen. Except he owns a gun. He has it to protect his daughters and grandkids. Should he not have the right to protect his family due to his past? If he comes home and his 16 year old daughter is being attacked, shouldn't he be able to have the means to help her?.

You said 3 things, gang member, LA, till his mid 30's.. so he found god huh? that seems to be the most effective form of rehabilitation available and its a self help program.. the fact that he was a gang member means he terrorizes assault and possibly killed american citizens since he was probably 12, thats over 20 years of felonious activity.. just because someone gets too old and decides they dont want to die in a drive by living in compton and uses god as an excuse to get out, doesnt clear them of everything theyve done in life. should a child rapist be forgiven if he hasnt sexually assaulted another child after 10 years? i surely hope you do not think so.. this guy spent over half his life being a thug, doing dope, and committing crimes.. he's lost his rights in my eyes

[MGD 45]

Originally Posted by jcabin

This guy spent over half his life being a thug, doing dope, and committing crimes.. he's lost his rights in my eyes

So......in your opinion does he now lose his 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th Rights......cuz we're starting to slide down that slope again....

[jcabin]

Originally Posted by MGD 45

So......in your opinion does he now lose his 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th Rights......cuz we're starting to slide down that slope again....

no, i do not believe he loses his right to those amendments.. since their creation theyve been reinforced in recent history.. terry v ohio 4th amendment, miranda v arizona, 5th amendment.. some sicilian mafioso, i think it was Salerno for the 8th amendment.. i mean i believe in the outcome of all those cases.. however, i do not believe someone who has been committing violent transgressions against society for over half their life? on top of that they were convicted.. i dont think they should be permitted to own/carry a weapon. even if they claim to have suckled from the holy breasts of whatever god they believe in. i've got some different ideas to begin with, they should have a psychological/medical examination at some stage in the gun owning or carrying process.. this would certainly bar most felons from carrying/owning to begin with..

either way, i love our constitution.. but nowhere in the constitution did it say, to be unreasonable and irrational.. giving a gang member a gun legally once they get out of jail is just a rediculous idea.. i guess if someone disagrees they could take it to the supreme court but they wouldnt even bother.. because they already know what the answer would be.

[cypress]

I thought it was interesting when your conversation turned to the founders and their rationale for including the second amendment. You said today we didn't have to worry about tyrannical government. I think the founder's rationale holds up just as well today ..... there's are reason you don't have to worry about a tyrannical government. This is the basis on which we keep our other freedoms.

Sorry, couldn't keep the libertarian in me quiet.

[MGD 45]

Well, we all know that there are certain limitation on our Rights, such as not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, or sacrafice humans as part of our religion....but that generally has to do with protecting the public in general which overrides a person momentary individual Rights.

My main point was to illustrate that in general we do not strip lawbreakers of their Constitutional Rights (once they're out of jail), but we seem to be ok with taking one Right away from them over the other Rights......so where does it stop?

As gunowners, we are pretty sensitive to our "Right to own firearms" but some people seem to fall right in with others in determining who can have those Rights. Seems like once we start deciding who can have them & who can't.......then it ain't a "Right" anymore....

I told ya that I think differently than most of my fellow Officers.......