Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Right but once released for the DV, I would be one of those people to still get one for my own protection. And that other person who wouldn’t get one from the street because it’s too risky but isn’t danger now is he?
Should It Be Okay to Violate Criminal’s Rights?
- Thread starter Marine Cpl
- Start date
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
the bad criminal just steals them and sell to other on the street .. but the good guy/girl has to pass test , fill out papers , pay $$$ ..then wait 6 months to a yr fkin really .. for a pistol ..
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Attempting to control violent people by telling them they aren't allowed to have guns is the height of foolishness.
If you can't trust them you need to lock them up.
If you can trust them to follow the "you can't have guns" law, then you can trust them *with* the guns.
It's really that simple. Who do you think those laws are going to affect ?
libertysnake
.338 Win Mag
I'm cautious about over generalization. Let's take it case by case, while not being blind to the fact it happens. I just don't want to get into the habit of saying "all ______ do _______", whether implied or directly stated, when it comes to discussions.
That is a decision the officer makes. And the officer is backed by others to justify it, but often they loose in the trail and evidence is dismissed and people walk from prosecution.
Deplorable Me
.700 Nitro Express
1. Citizens are persons who obey the law.
2. There are laws that are not just, some are overreaching. Being a convicted criminal is a point of view by your peers.
3. Humans are flawed, specifically they make flawed laws. Not all laws are flawed, but yet we have flawed and unjust laws.
4. There is no perfect society.
Basically I look at a person relative to their history of harm and potential to do harm. I try to keep my nose out of other people's business but have spoken up and acted on behalf of the underdog.
6am, philosophical and no bourbon involved.
2. There are laws that are not just, some are overreaching. Being a convicted criminal is a point of view by your peers.
3. Humans are flawed, specifically they make flawed laws. Not all laws are flawed, but yet we have flawed and unjust laws.
4. There is no perfect society.
Basically I look at a person relative to their history of harm and potential to do harm. I try to keep my nose out of other people's business but have spoken up and acted on behalf of the underdog.
6am, philosophical and no bourbon involved.
Twogunwilly
6.5 Creedmoor
Is it okay for criminals to violate my rights?
John Stark
.44 mag
I can guarantee you that if I was ever arrested for felony assault for example or domestic violence or any other BS and after I did my years in prison, I would get a gun by either making one, buying one off of the back of someone’s truck, robbing someone for their gun when I spot them printing when they least expect it by bashing them over the head if I was desperate enough and all other avenues failed. I would feel bad about that one but I would do what I had to do. He would be compensated though by me giving him a thousand bucks for his gun and trouble.
So you see, not printing matters. You better keep me in jail because I’m going to get one regardless.
This is all hypothetical of course. I won’t be going to jail. Unless I had my rights violated of course.
Looks like the mask has completely slipped here.
Depraved indifference to the point of admitting you would commit a violent armed robbery, at the risk of maybe murdering or permanently disabling an innocent person on the street, so you could steal their property?
But that would be ok because you would scornfully drop a few CBills to "pay" for your depraved indifference for the Life and Liberty and Property of a man walking down the street?
Last edited:
alistair
6.5 Creedmoor
Yes - criminal has paid his debt to society.
seezur
.40 S&W
You’re being irrational though and oversimplifying.You’re making it out as if all gun laws are the same and all criminals are the same. They’re not. There are variances.
A law that checks into people’s criminal backgrounds and then refuses to sell them firearms if they have been convicted of a violent crime is logical. It doesn’t mean that it will always work or that a violent ex criminal can’t buy it off the street, but I don’t have an issue with making the effort to make it more difficult for them. Many people are opportunists and making it that much harder may be enough.
There are a lot of laws that are bullshit in general. There are also some that make sense, even if they can be circumvented. I don’t think the solution is “hey so and so can theoretically bypass law X, so let’s just get rid of it” because that would eventually result in no laws. If the current background check system prevents even half of the violent ex criminals from buying guns, that’s great.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Your logic is flawed.
The reason we have laws is to prevent behavior that is detrimental to society.
There is a concept in law called "prior restraint". It says that you can outlaw a behavior, but it isn't correct to outlaw something that *might* lead to that behavior.
Murder is detrimental, so we outlaw it.
Carrying a gun is not, so it shouldn't be illegal. Full stop.
You should eliminate *all* the prior restraint laws. Whether they were effective or not. So, no, eliminating the ones that aren't effective is not a slippery slope to anarchy.
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Is the search justified and legal? NO
is the person doing something illegal for having an hangun illegally? YES
Result. Somone gets arrested. Find a good lawyer.
Someone doing something illegal is still illegal even if not caugth. You might call them unconvicted criminals but still criminal activity.
Not sure I get where this is going.
Day444
.223 Rem
To answer the posted question, no.
Has an incarcerated person who completes their sentence paid their dept to society, yes.
This would include completing their probation or parole. (No matter how F'd up those systems are.)
Should their rights be "restored" afterwards, yes. But I'll draw the line at past violent offenders, no firearms for them!
Has an incarcerated person who completes their sentence paid their dept to society, yes.
This would include completing their probation or parole. (No matter how F'd up those systems are.)
Should their rights be "restored" afterwards, yes. But I'll draw the line at past violent offenders, no firearms for them!
Mr. terzmo
.308 Win
Convicted people are criminals and should have no rights. Until convicted...everyone should have rights unless it involves an illegal alien. No rights for them whether convicted or not.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
It was a hypothetical.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
So, if they accuse you of being an illegal they can just ship you to El Salvador and drop you off on the street there ?
Hope you can bum some change for a call home.
John Stark
.44 mag
Was it?
Last I checked, there's only one "i" in hypothetical.
There seem to be plenty of I's in your self-declaration.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Yes it was. Since I do not plan on going to jail, it was a hypothetical just the same as any other hypothetical. Kind of like when you talk about taking up arms against the government. We all know you aren’t going to and you know that you aren’t but it is said anyway to prove a point.
You are correct though with the I’s though. You usually say we. I’ll start using we from now on.
seezur
.40 S&W
You’re not being pragmatic; the real world isn’t introductory logic 101. I’m not saying guns should be illegal, I’m saying we shouldn’t freely sell guns to people who have committed violent crimes. That’s really it.
There are very few people who will ever be receptive to the idea that we should do away with even the most rudimentary background checks. If there is a way to mitigate the number of violent criminals acquiring guns, it’s going to be embraced by most rational people. I’m not talking about all the red flag laws and magazine capacity bans etc. that are obvious infringements. I’m talking about doing a background check to make sure a violent child sex offender can’t buy a shotgun at Walmart.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
And I'm saying you shouldn't let people you wouldn't trust with guns walk around freely.
The minute you let him out you *are* trusting him with guns, and no law will change that. Telling him he can't get them at Walmart is just security theater on par with the TSA.
Day444
.223 Rem
That's a long reach! Accused don't get deported, proven illegals do. (Maybe not the case in NY, with the liberal krap this state has been pulling.) How would "they" know if you were from El Salvador?
spat
.700 Nitro Express
He was saying illegals shouldn't have rights. I agree that there are *some* rights that are reserved for citizens alone (voting being the obvious one). But *most* rights shouldn't matter who you are.
But, if you can strip all of someone's rights by merely accusing them of being an illegal, then *anyone* could be so accused and shipped off with no more evidence than "I can tell just by looking at him".
Also, I've always wondered, how do they prove someone is an illegal ?
Do they track down a Somali birth certificate as proof ?
What do they do if Juan insists he was born in east LA and his parents never filed any paperwork ?
Last edited:
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Not all people who committed violent crimes or what the government says is a violent crime should have their guns taken away from them or barred from legally buying them.
Take me for example. I once had a girlfriend in my apartment when I was a young man in my twenties. There were infidelity issues. Lots of screaming back and forth and she slapped me. I responded with a shove and told her to get the hell out. She did.
Had she called the cops or the neighbors called the cops, I would have a DV charge and would be barred from buying guns. Would that be right? No. I don’t have any intentions of committing a crime with a gun.
Same goes with a fight. We’ve all been in one. Most ended with no police involved. But had the police been involved and assault charges stemmed from them, guess what?
And just because a misguided youth committed a robbery with his friends when he was 18, it doesn’t mean that he is a danger to society. Some get out and join the military years later with a waiver. Some keep their nose clean for the rest of their lives.
What you are saying is that guns should be taken away for the greater good from everyone who was convicted regardless if they may or may not be a danger to society. Let’s do this for the greater good. If just one child can be saved....
You see my point?
Toecutter
.308 Win
If an illegal enters this country he does has rights,the natural right of life liberty and property. Remember all men are indowed with inalienable rights, every government that had existed denies people them. Our goverment exists to protect them.
They have to be brought to trial to remove them from the country , that's why its so important to stop them at the borders.
They have to be brought to trial to remove them from the country , that's why its so important to stop them at the borders.
seezur
.40 S&W
No, I’m saying that things aren’t black and white, but from a logistical standpoint it’s reasonable to say as an overarching statement that we should not make it easier for violent criminals to own guns by selling to them. There’s a difference between the fringe cases and what we can realistically do to keep actual bad people from easily acquiring guns. And there is a limit to what we can do as well, and after a certain point we start passing laws that do nothing but jack up good people.
I added nuance in one of my first posts saying something like “rightfully convicted” and I added that specifically to address situations like the ones you presented.
There are absolutely bullshit charges, I agree. There are definitely people who get convicted who are not a threat. I do think that’s probably not very common versus the opposite. But that’s why we have the (imperfect, yes) court system. And even then there are different levels of violence, which again I alluded to (and courts pay attention to). Two drunk guys throwing a punch is not the same as someone beating someone within an inch of their life. You can’t hold the latter in prison indefinitely. There simply is not room or resources.
Twogunwilly
6.5 Creedmoor
That's exactly the problem, they are indeed free and walking around armed, thank a demoncrap.
Phazer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Agreed.
If we, as a society, set a penalty for an action/crime that involves deprivation of freedom and suspension of civil rights, then those rights must be restored once the penalty is completed and the criminal's debt is "paid."
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
I can guarantee you that if I was ever arrested for felony assault for example or domestic violence or any other BS and after I did my years in prison, I would get a gun by either making one, buying one off of the back of someone’s truck, robbing someone for their gun when I spot them printing when they least expect it by bashing them over the head if I was desperate enough and all other avenues failed. I would feel bad about that one but I would do what I had to do. He would be compensated though by me giving him a thousand bucks for his gun and trouble.
So you see, not printing matters. You better keep me in jail because I’m going to get one regardless.
This is all hypothetical of course. I won’t be going to jail. Unless I had my rights violated of course.
What? What?
holdover
.475 A&M Magnum
If the officer had probable cause to search the car for drugs , and found an illegal's gun or body parts , during the search , He is not violating anyones rights rights .
96coal449
.308 Win
I do believe probable cause needs to be defined. A non functioning tail light and a "suspicious" looking character by dress code should not institute probable cause. Now blood trickling from a trunk that the driver refuses to open is. In this instance said vehicle should be towed to impound until warranted search is provided, and driver can be retained without arrest. If a conviction can be made then an arrest can be preformed, with or without presence of a lawyer at his point.
If I am off my rocker I will welcome a correction.
Edit: Maybe the trunk should be opened on spot? You never know if someone may still be alive inside.