Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site