Skip to main content

View Diary: Georgia gun-nuts give rapists, pedophiles back their guns (42 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  well, they should have voting rights restored (10+ / 0-)

    when they've done their time.  But most GOP states won't allow it.

    "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

    by MartyM on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 07:03:42 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The guy who tried to kill my mother (0+ / 0-)

      by crushing her skull in with the claw end of a hammer , raping her and leaving her for dead should be allowed to vote ?

      "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

      by indycam on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 07:17:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  do you (9+ / 0-)

        do you want that person to own a gun ? That is what this diary is about, not voting.

        Proud to be a Veteran, Proud to be a Christian, Proud to be a Patriot, Proud to be a Democrat !

        by exNavalOfficer on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 07:25:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I'd rather (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MartyM, Iberian, Cassandra Waites, sponson

        him have the right to vote than the right to carry offensive weapons.

      •  Is taking voting away really appropriate? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Iberian, ban nock, Joy of Fishes

        I don't see how voting rights has anything to do with whether someone has committed a crime.  

        It's just not an appropriate consequence. You want people back in the system.  

        Streichholzschächtelchen

        by otto on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 07:44:08 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes it is appropriate . (0+ / 0-)

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

          2. California, in disenfranchising convicted felons who have completed their sentences and paroles, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, Pp. 41—56.

          (a) The understanding of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, as reflected in the express language of § 2 of the Amendment, which exempts from the sanction of reduced congressional representation resulting from the denial of citizens' right to vote, the denial of such right for 'participation in rebellion, or other crime,' and in the historical and judicial interpretation of the Amendment's applicability to state laws disenfranchising felons, is of controlling significance in distinguishing such laws from those other state limitations on the franchise that this Court has held invalid under the Equal Protection Clause. Pp. 54—55.

          ...............................
          http://www.loc.gov/...
          14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
          Free! Card showing African American slave reaching freedom.
          Free!

          The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment.

          "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

          by indycam on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 02:54:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  appropriate (0+ / 0-)

            Not lawful.  Appropriate.  

            It is not an appropriate response to a crime.  

            That's what I am saying.  

            Whereas, disallowing ownership of a gun would seem like a more appropriate reaction to someone who is free after having served time for violent crimes.

            I understand that you suffered a great loss, that doesn't change the nature of the question.

            We can come up with all sorts of inappropriate means of enacting consequences, but when you use inappropriate consequences, the entire situation seems absurd, and makes little sense in terms of the need for rehabilitation of criminals.

            Streichholzschächtelchen

            by otto on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 05:02:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I'm very sorry about your mother (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sylv

        Seems some States allow voting rights restored for NON-violent felons.

        "Tax cuts for the 1% create jobs." -- Republicans, HAHAHA - in China

        by MartyM on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 07:46:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  once off parole, yes...or keep them in prison... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ban nock, Penny GC, Samer, Joy of Fishes

        either they are safe to be in society or not and the right to vote or even to own a firearm has nothing to do with it....

        IMO you can't have it both ways....if they're ok to be on the street at all there is no valid reason to bar voting or gun ownership...or really any of the felon restrictions we have now.....

        Do the crime, do the time, then you are done...at least in a perfect world...

        Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
        I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
        Emiliano Zapata

        by buddabelly on Mon Aug 25, 2014 at 08:20:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I disagree, buddabelly. (0+ / 0-)

          Precluding people who have a violent history from having guns is good public policy.  The intent is to mitigate risk, not to impose additional punishment.  We do the same thing with driving licenses for repeat drunk drivers.  Employers perform background checks for would-be caregivers and cashiers to avoid hiring someone with a history of abuse or theft.    

          The key is to identify crimes that point to risk of future gun crime --- past gun crime for sure.  Domestic violence.  Repeat drunk driving.  Assault.  But, not marijuana possession and other minor offenses.  

          Now, I happen to think certain kinds of crimes should warrant being locked up forever, particularly crimes against children and vulnerable adults.  But then I do have a vindictive streak when it comes to such things.  So, I'm not against your suggestion that some people should never be released back into society.

        •  I have to disagree... (0+ / 0-)

          and I'm disliked by a number of gun control advocates here.

          I would say that there is a time and place to restore both voting and firearms rights, but they are not equivalent. I'd suggest voting rights be automatically restored 2 years after the sentence is completed, including the completion of any parole or probation. I'd support restoration of firearms rights for a felon who has completed their sentence and avoided any further convictions for 10 years.

          To be first in the soil, which erupts in the coil, of trees veins and grasses all brought to a boil. -- The Maxx

          by notrouble on Tue Aug 26, 2014 at 05:09:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site