Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: The armed progressive and why (203 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I will never agree (7+ / 0-)

    Convicted felons don't get to own guns. Sorry.

    Somehow, in some weird, strange collision of circumstances and amid the vicissitudes of fate, I've managed to remain felony-free and so I get to be a gun owner with a CHL. I understand that if I choose to commit a felony, I will give up the the 2A rights I now enjoy.

    It's pretty simple: Felons don't get guns.

    See, a convicted felon doesn't "pay a debt" to anybody. He doesn't pay jack squat to me, and he doesn't pay diddly to you. The felon has, by his or her actions, demonstrated that he or she has poor self-control. Those aren't the people who get to own firearms.

    The standard argument here goes something like this:

    But... but everything's a felony! You commit felonies every day! If you tear the tag off a pillow it's a felony! And then you lose your God-given, enshrined, existential permanent and inalienable right to own guns!

    However, that argument has a subtext. The person making it has no desire to hand out big firepower to the newly paroled. Rather, the argument is made out of fear that the speaker may, himself, commit a felony and then be out of luck, with respect to ownership of firearms.

    Well boo-hoo-hoo. Don't commit serious crimes then. It's your choice. I really don't want some serial robber or rapist or aggravated assault convict going out and buying shotguns. If a felon really wants his 2A rights back, he can petition for them.

    Oh - but in a state like Alaska, there's no extant framework to do that? Then there's an activist project for you. Now, today, before you commit your felony, work your legislature and ensure that your state has a functional rights-restoration process.

    In my state, a felon can petition for the restoration of all relinquished rights. It requires the backing of law-abiding members of the community who will vouch for your good character, and a record of lawful and socially productive conduct. And that's fine with me. If Mr Felon can prove he is trustworthy, then he's clear to bear arms. But the burden is on him, not me.

    Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

    by The Raven on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 07:14:06 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  How can I not tip that? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Shadan7, drewfromct, The Raven, Joieau

      Somehow, in some weird, strange collision of circumstances and amid the vicissitudes of fate, I've managed to remain felony-free

      The most impressive thing about man [...] is the fact that he has invented the concept of that which does not exist--Glenn Gould

      by Rich in PA on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 07:18:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Totally disagree. your sentence should be just (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gerrilea, oldpunk, KVoimakas, theatre goon

      that with no add ons.  Restricting of Voting, Gun rights and anything else they can think up is directly traceable to Jim Crow .....

      Felons could purchase and own firearms until '68 GCA.

      Which traces directly to the Mulford act and fear of the scary armed black man (Black Panther Party and their Protection Patrols).

      With the justice system we have now, there's way too much injustice to warrant removing a basic human and constitutional right without due process on that subject.  There is none in our current system.

      All rights and privileges of a citizen should be reinstated as soon as the sentence is completed.....

      If there is a reason for any other outcome ie violence, that should be made in trial and be part of the sentence, not an add on that just happens......

      •  When I think of a felon armed with a handgun (0+ / 0-)

        I don't have any particular race in mind. I think of a person who has been found to be willing to commit major, serious crimes.

        Just because that person served time in a penitentiary is no evidence that he or she is now trustworthy enough to be given firearms.

        That burden remains with the felon.

        Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

        by The Raven on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:22:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Reckless driving (7+ / 0-)

          is a felony. There are any number of felonies that would appear to have little relationship to the sort of behavior one would presumably not want in a CCW licensee. In addition there are misdemeanors that involve violent behavior.

          "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

          by happy camper on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 08:26:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Good example (0+ / 0-)

            Reckless driving. A person unable to control themselves behind the wheel of several tons of metal hurtling along at high speed.

            Nope, nothing to do with the good character and judgement we require from gun owners.

            Also, the way the law tends to work is that people do not get convicted of felonies and do over a year in prison for trivial violations. Normally, when that happens, the charges are plea bargained down. A bona fide felony conviction will usually follow a pattern of criminal behavior and/or have extenuating circumstances.

            The law should, to some people's way of thinking (and is often explicated in discussions of this subject), differentiate between the violent felon and the non-violent one. That we should contemplate restricting ownership rights for, say, serial rapists, but not for the fellow who embezzles from his employer.

            So we then have a problem: how to determine exactly what sort of felon deserves to be given firearms, and which sort should not. It clarifies the matter to understand that a convicted felon has been found to be so dangerous as to require barring this person off, away from society, for the protection of law-abiding citizens.

            Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

            by The Raven on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 10:05:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Actually not all felons (4+ / 0-)

              do jail time. And as I mentioned, there are misdemeanor convictions every day for violent behavior that result in no more than a slap on the wrist. So the guy who gets a better lawyer who manages to bargain to a lesser charge gets to keep his rights, while the guy with the overworked public defender is convicted...

              I agree that there are violent, unstable people who should not possess firearms, or carry them around. The "every felon" brush is simply too broad for me.

              "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

              by happy camper on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 10:15:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You grasp the situation correctly (0+ / 0-)

                So the guy who gets a better lawyer who manages to bargain to a lesser charge gets to keep his rights, while the guy with the overworked public defender is convicted...

                That's how our system operates. Arguing about that seems to be sort of like arguing about the weather.

                The rate of recidivism is yet another thing to consider. The Bureau of Justice Statistics finds that about 2/3 of offenders commit another serious offense after release.

                Y'know, I worry about a lot of things. Climate change, loss of fresh water, the economy, it's a big list. But nowhere on my list of concerns is a driving desire to put guns into the hands of felons.

                Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

                by The Raven on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 10:45:27 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  It's a civil and human right thus the burden (4+ / 0-)

          rests on the state to prove the need to restrict a right.

          I would have no problem with violent offenders being actually sentenced to a firearms restriction, even for life but to simply abrogate a right for an entire class of people no matter the crime is an overstep of authority imo....

          I feel the same about voting rights and any other restrictions applied in a blanket fashion like restricting the residence of sex offenders.

          If it's adjudicated in trial then I'd not have a problem.  

          As the laws sit, I find them to be an extraordinary infringement on the rights of those who have served their time including any probation/parole.

          •  Absolutely agreed. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Shadan7, buddabelly, KVoimakas

            If a judge rules that someone guilty of a violent crime -- whether involving a firearm or not -- loses their right to Keep and Bear Arms, all right, I can see that.

            But restricting someone's rights to vote or to own a gun because they've had too many traffic violations (which can become a felony?) -- no, I can't get behind that, and will always seek to overturn such a law.

            You want to restrict someone's right to vote because they've broken voting regulations?  I'm with you.

            You want to restrict someone's right to own a firearm if they've used a firearm in the commission of a crime?  I'm with that, too.

            Beyond that -- not so much.

            •  what state do you live in that turns a common (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KVoimakas

              traffic violation into a felony?  My state will suspend your license if you rack up too many tickets but they don't turn speeding tickets into misdemeanors (much less felonies) just because you've accumulated a lot of them.

              The only criminal traffic citations that I'm aware of are DWI and reckless driving.

              There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

              by Crookshanks on Thu Sep 09, 2010 at 06:40:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Guns for convicts! Change you can believe in! (0+ / 0-)
          •  Personally I believe anyone that lies should (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas

            lose their right to speak, and your post is a perfect example of it.

            Where did I advocate "guns for convicts"?  What about the 100's of cases of innocent men on death row for crimes they never committed?
            See Innocence Project's

            "There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. When there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking the law. Create a nation of lawbreakers and then you can cash in on the guilt. Now that’s the system!"

                 Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand

            •  It's precisely a matter of which error you want. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              The Raven

              Do you want to err on the side of safety and sanity, by forbidding convicts from owning lethal weapons, knowing that inevitably some unjustly convicted people will be unfairly disarmed?

              Or do you want to err the other way: default to arming convicted felons unless...what, unless their convictions are somehow "super-proven"? Arm everyone who's not actually in jail?

              If you're such an absolute purist, insisting that everyone has access to lethal weapons, even if they've been convicted of a crime, then there's no point in us having a discussion. You're arguing on a level of pure, symbolic, and absolute ideology that will gladly accept rivers of blood in the streets in return for preservation of a lethal "right".

              I will always support your right to your opinion, and your right to speak it, no matter how mistaken I believe you to be. Your apparent eagerness to silence the voices of those you disagree with, together with your embrace of lethal weaponry, is a disturbing combination.

              •  So, you only support those parts of the (4+ / 0-)

                constitution you agree with. Your post "Guns for Convicts" is not what I said.

                And using your logic is how we came to "your apparent eagerness to silence the voices of those you disagree with".

                If you can exaggerate your position, then I surely am allowed the same.

                Ignoring the actual point I made was intentional misdirection.

                Arm everyone who's not actually in jail?

                And why not?  Check out the Militia Act of 1792.

                http://www.constitution.org/...

                This was the law of the law until 1903.  So, I guess the answer to your question is "yes, why of course we should arm everyone."

                As for this:

                Do you want to err on the side of safety and sanity, by forbidding convicts from owning lethal weapons, knowing that inevitably some unjustly convicted people will be unfairly disarmed?

                When it happens to you, get back to me, will ya?

                I'd rather let 1000 guilty men free than put to death 1 innocent man.  

                •  Even if I didn't agree... (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gerrilea, buddabelly, KVoimakas

                  ...with the totality of your post, I would rec for:

                  I'd rather let 1000 guilty men free than put to death 1 innocent man.

                  I know, the whole idea of "innocent until proven guilty" is rather passe in some circles, but it's still a concept I agree with.

                •  Two wildly different things. (0+ / 0-)

                  But you knew that.

                  To conflate preventing some unjustly convicted persons from possessing lethal weapons with executing innocents is obviously absurd on its face.

                  Unless you're so unhinged that you equate owning an arsenal with breathing. If you're living in a survivalist alternate universe where being heavily armed equates with survival....

                  Well, I'm glad I don't live where you do. In every sense of the phrase.

                  •  Actually its all part of the same system we (0+ / 0-)

                    have, and until we design or implement a better system with genuine checks, balances and integrity, I think I'll keep "conflating" the issues.

                    The execution of an innocent man, just one innocent man is, by my standards, one too many.  And how many times have we done so in the name of or for protecting society?  When there is actual accountability for dishonest prosecutors, lawyers, police and judges then I'll stop "conflating". Okay?

                    It's absurd that one can be stripped of his/her unalienable rights because they are on a "no fly list" or "deemed unfit" by some State paid psychiatrist. Or that poor Americans can't own guns because they can't afford the "licensing fees, required training, etc."  It's effective disarmament of the citizens by "conditions" our government has set.  

                    The exact power/authority our Founders did not grant to the newly created central government.

                    It's not about a growing "fringe" of Americans that fear our system is going to collapse and denigrate into anarchy or civil war or worse a police state.  Who, out of pure necessity, believe they must protect themselves and their families from unknown dangers and doing so as per our Constitutionally guaranteed unalienable rights.

                    And your diatribe on "survivalist" crap is only stated to impune, denigrate or demonize those of us that exercise those rights or are "purists" with regards to the interpretation of our Constitution and the limits it has placed upon our created government.

                    And as I see this issue, if they can do it with guns, going above and beyond the Constitutional restraints listed, they can do it with any unalienable right.  Like free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press.

                    Oh wait, they have haven't they? "Free speech zones", building "permits", jailing reporters for "contempt of court" because they will not divulge sources.

    •  I'm missing something here, really (4+ / 0-)

      a convicted felon doesn't "pay a debt" to anybody. He doesn't pay jack squat to me, and he doesn't pay diddly to you.

      If this is your position then why does the State claim victimhood i.e. growing marijuana? Or medical use of said? Or any host of other victimless crimes?

      Or this:

      A 72-year-old Port Orchard man was arrested on investigation of manslaughter on Saturday after he apparently shot and killed a fleeing intruder.

      Where is our Constitution in your argument?  I guess the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments can be just whited out and forgotten then.

      If we use your same logic, then it should apply to the 1st Amendment as well, what about someone who uses their right to free speech to incite a riot or advocate killing abortion doctors, i.e. Fox News and Bill O'Reilly?  They should forever lose their right to speak, correct? Or anyone who writes a book on the subject itself, right?

      Wait, we are going after those that exercise their religious freedoms and to assemble.

      See this:
      Donald Crosby, pastor of Kingdom Builders Church of Christ, was charged with disorderly conduct and picketing without a permit, both misdemeanors, after he refused to comply with officers' requests to leave, said Tabitha Pugh, public information officer for Warner Robins police.

      Sorry, I do not agree with your position here and never will, until the Constitution is changed, actions/policies/laws such as "three strikes", or victimless drug "violations" or even child molesters being forced to relinquish their unalienable rights after they have paid their debt to society is simply unconstitutional.  And this last one is very personal to me...see my previous diaries...

      I do believe in our Constitution and if you want to take away someones rights, do it as per the instructions outlined there.  

      •  Ah, and there you've hit on it... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shadan7, gerrilea, KVoimakas, PavePusher

        ...too many anti-rights activists fully realize they don't have the needed support to actually amend the Constitution, so they'd prefer to legislate around the parts they don't like.

        And, all too often, those on the Progressive end of the spectrum are happy to do so with what they personally don't believe is "Progressive," at least to their own, very narrow, definition of the word.

        If you tried to legislate out of existence one of the Rights they do approve of, however, they'd be jumping up and down and turning blue in their opposition.

      •  You may need to re-cast your argument (0+ / 0-)

        Because I can't make heads or tails out of what you're saying.

        why does the State claim victimhood i.e. growing marijuana?

        That is a question, because I can see there's a question mark, but the "id est" makes no sense. What are you getting at?

        Where is our Constitution in your argument?

        The law today is somewhat more complex than only the words in the Constitution. If you want to have a discussion in which the only law we have is the exact language of the Constitution and any law not contained in the Constitution is invalid, then we won't have a discussion.

        If we use your same logic, then it should apply to the 1st Amendment as well

        What is "my logic" in this regard? The law currently prohibits felons from owning firearms, or voting (on a state-by-state basis), unless or until they petition for restoration of those rights.

        There are no "inalienable rights" in the Constitution. All such rights are qualified, in the text of the Constitution, as being in effect unless removed by due process of law. Look it up, if you have forgotten.

        Once Constitutional rights have been abridged by a court of law, it is the prerogative of the state to determine the extent to which they are restored. You only enjoy Constitutional rights to the extent that you abide by the rule of law. Once you commit serious offenses to the body politic, your rights to continue abusing the public trust are conditional.

        I really like the comment that follows from theatre goon, who coins the phrase "anti-rights activist."

        That suggests that anybody who is uncomfortable with the idea of handing semi-automatic, high capacity Glocks, shotguns, and carbines to convicted serial rapists and armed robbers and home invaders is, by definition, an "activist."

        Really? I think it's just common sense. Commit a felony and get incarcerated for it, no guns for you until you prove we can trust you. People do petition for their rights to be restored and they get them restored, so I don't see any problem here.

        Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

        by The Raven on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 04:04:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the state may reinstate rights but the feds don't (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea, KVoimakas, theatre goon

          even though there is a provision in the law for it, the Congress refuses to fund the office and the process so in reality, there is no way to reinstate your rights once lost.

          If there was a fair and reasonable method of rights restoration, I might agree with you.

          As there isn't, I think that it's about equivalent to the civil confiscation laws that allow your property to be taken away on mere suspicion but then require you to prove it's not drug money that bought that car or whatever.....

        •  I'll clarify for you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher

          Your claim was that no convicted criminal "pays you or me".

          And for your argument to be valid, then there is no victim, hence "no repayment to society".  And that's the disconnect between our government and it's people today.

          The State claims victim-hood and prosecutes thousands for crimes where thee are no victims.  The State cannot be a victim when a law, policy or statute is violated.  

          This is the first steps in Authoritarian controls, today, indictments will state, The US vs.________(fill in the blank) or New York vs. _______(fill in the blank).

          Whereas, we once prosecuted violators in the name of the people, now its in the name of the State or Federal Government.  Making them the victim, not the people and hence your flawed argument that no convict can "repay you or I".  They are now bound to the State, not the people.  Big difference.

          As for this:

          There are no "inalienable rights" in the Constitution. All such rights are qualified, in the text of the Constitution, as being in effect unless removed by due process of law. Look it up, if you have forgotten.

          First it's not "inalienable", it's unalienable.

          Secondly, the constitution grants nothing but is meant to insure our unalienable rights are not infringed upon by the "body politic".  This is another flaw in your argument.  

          And this:

          The law today is somewhat more complex than only the words in the Constitution. If you want to have a discussion in which the only law we have is the exact language of the Constitution and any law not contained in the Constitution is invalid, then we won't have a discussion.

          Of course we aren't having a discussion.  The whole point of the Constitution is to limit and direct our government on how it must act.  And any laws must conform to said document, that IS the problem.  Our government does not follow the rules we gave it to follow.

          This is the crux of our disagreement here:

          Once Constitutional rights have been abridged by a court of law, it is the prerogative of the state to determine the extent to which they are restored. You only enjoy Constitutional rights to the extent that you abide by the rule of law. Once you commit serious offenses to the body politic, your rights to continue abusing the public trust are conditional.

          I have no duty or obligation to the "body politic" or "public trust".  It is my government that has the obligations to me.  And you ignored my actual point and then belittled and obfuscated it.

          When a convicted felon or violator has repaid his debt to society and is released from public custody, how can the public continue to vilify and prosecute him? Constitutionally, either they've paid that debt or they haven't, and it's clear in your view, any lawbreaker can never repay any transgressions.  

          The fact that felons cannot own guns is separate from the actual crime, whatever it may have been.  Where is the constitution in this?  Where's the due process by a jury of my peers?  I am not aware of any trials that are held that strip convicted felons of those unalienable rights.  They are just taken away upon conviction, clearly unconstitutional.

          And I did state in my original post that I don't think is sane to allow violent felons access to arms.  

          As for this:

          to convicted serial rapists and armed robbers and home invaders is, by definition, an "activist."

          Yes you are an activist, as your emotional argument reveals and might I say say, an activist against said Constitution.  How about petitioning and changing the Constitution to met your "common sense" standards?

          When there are trials specifically held for those convicted felons that strip them of their unalienable rights, then we are on the path of actual Constitutional law. Let a jury decide the constitutionality of those laws.  Let's have an honest public debate on the subject, not emotional branding and labeling to obfuscate these issues.

          But again, unalienable rights cannot be infringed by policy, edict or statute...unless the Constitution itself is changed.  Maybe this is why there aren't any such trials, it's just done.

          •  Right (0+ / 0-)

            Your claim was that no convicted criminal "pays you or me".

            So you tell me, how does a convicted criminal "pay you"?

            The rest of your previous post is confused and not worth fisking. Just consider this: The Constitution says you have a "unalienable" right to life. The court can take that away. Same with liberty. Same with pursuit of happiness.

            Once those rights are removed, their restoration is at the discretion of the court.

            That's the Constitution. If you don't like it, too bad. You're living in this country, so those are the rules.

            As for types of felons, like I said, it's not a simple calculus. Let's say that Bernie Madoff gets paroled. Do you think he should be able to own a firearm?

            Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

            by The Raven on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 05:41:44 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  By relinquishing their freedom (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher

              and being held for a period of time or as in many cases today, fined and probation.

              The court can take that away. Same with liberty. Same with pursuit of happiness.

              That's the problem here, the Court is not taking anyone's right to bear arms away, the Congress did through the 1968 Gun Control Act.

              As for types of felons, like I said, it's not a simple calculus. Let's say that Bernie Madoff gets paroled. Do you think he should be able to own a firearm?

              Again, the Constitution is pretty clear here. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

              How much more clear can this be? It doesn't say "Upon the approval/consent/conditions set forth of or by Congress, the President or the Supreme Court".

              "That's the Constitution. If you don't like it, too bad. You're living in this country, so those are the rules."

              At least we can agree on this point.  

              But our Founding Fathers gave us the tools to change said document, how about you do that?  Because we all know you'd fail at the endeavor.  So, as all good authoritarians and their doublespeak, you ignore that actual constitutional avenue and make laws/policies and statutes that attempt a "run around" of said document.

              Hey if it was brought to a vote or referendum, let's see how many of "We The People" would actually support your definitions and controls?  

              I'm game, if you are!

            •  I missed a point. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher

              So if I'm put to death for whatever crime, how do I petition any Court for restoration of the loss of my life?

              Even the highest crime, as defined by our Founding Fathers, i.e, that of treason, had no specific punishment attached.  In fact, it's the only transgression defined in our Constitution and left to the privy of the Congress.

              Article III Section 3 - Treason

              Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

              The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

              Funny thing here, it's clear "Corruption of Blood" is even mentioned.  Seems those forfeiture drug laws would be unconstitutional.

              But again, how about our government follow the directions they were given, as per said Constitution?

              Too much for you to swallow?  

              •  No problem (0+ / 0-)

                So if I'm put to death for whatever crime, how do I petition any Court for restoration of the loss of my life?

                You're a smarty, so act like it.

                If the court sentences you to death, say, for Murder One, your "right to life" has been removed by the court. Legal, and Constitutional.

                Before you are executed, you can appeal, etc. That is your "petition" that you reference above.

                Please don't waste my time further with fol-de-rol.

                Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

                by The Raven on Tue Sep 07, 2010 at 07:09:30 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  So sorry to bother you with such trifles (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PavePusher

                  You said:

                  Once those rights are removed, their restoration is at the discretion of the court.

                  If that's not what you meant, then I'll stop splitting hairs with you.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site