Gov McAauliffe is a moron

[Timjoebillybob]

Kind of seems to me that voting is one of the most important rights that a person can have. I maybe wrong but I think the Constitution mentions it but frankly my memory fails me here and I don't often review exactly what it says, So I can't remember in what context and where it was mentioned. But actually it also originally didn't give this right to blacks or women hence we have two of the Amendments to the Constitution that we have now.

I wonder what the percentage of repeat offenders there are as that seems that would be a great point to make here as well.

The original Constitution doesn't say much about voting. Here is the full quote.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

There have actually been 4 Amendments regarding voting. The 15th which stated that states can't deny or infringe voting based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The 19th same except for it's sex. The 24th which prohibits poll taxes and failure to pay other taxes for primaries and selecting electors for VP and Pres. And the 26th which states that the states can't deny the right to vote due to age if the person is 18 or older. There are a few other restrictions due to the 14th, as an example religious tests.

For the most part other than above the states are free to set whatever rules they wish. Such as voter ID laws, felons can/can't vote, whether or not that non citizens can vote in elections other than VP and Pres, etc. They could put in place that a person can't vote if they have been found mentally incompetent as an example.

In regards to recidivism rates, it varies depending on the crime.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm

I've mentioned before that I don't specifically agree with the current criteria. This doesn't mean that the UBC would include it anyway. I'm certain the details would have to be worked out anyhow. Regardless if you think I'm going to champion a crooks case I am not. Besides just because your a felon this also doesn't mean it was for a violent crime. Is violent felons the only ones prohibited from gun ownership or does it apply to all felons? Consequences, it's a consequence of doing something you shouldn't have done in the first place.

Federal law prohibits all felons minus a few "white collar" crimes. Along with DV and misdmeanors which carry a sentence of either 2 or more, or over 2 yrs in jail. Can't remember which and I'm feeling to lazy to check. Which is what the background check goes by. And why wouldn't the UBC go by it, all the UBC would do from the proposals I've seen and the laws passed in the various states simply expand the current criteria to all transfers/sales with some exceptions rather than just ones from an FFL.

IN law prohibits serious violent felons as defined in the IC and DV. Main difference is what is considered a "firearm". Federal law doesn't consider black powder or most antiques to be firearms. IN does. So under Fed law a murderer who was released could legally go out and purchase a cap and ball pistol, but not if they are in IN.

 

[IndyDave1776]

https://reason.com/blog/2017/08/16/virginia-state-police-say-they-didnt-fin

Terry is a moron and a liar.

It is a shame that we can't modify the standard Islamic penalty for theft and cut his tongue out. Maybe Sharia isn't such a bad thing after all.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

https://reason.com/blog/2017/08/16/virginia-state-police-say-they-didnt-fin

Terry is a moron and a liar.

"I can assure you that the Virginia State Police personnel were equipped with more-than-adequate specialized tactical and protective gear for the purpose of fulfilling their duties to serve and protect those in attendance of the August 12 event in Charlottesville."

And yet a person is dead and many others injured.

I'm not so assured.

 

[Expat]

And yet a person is dead and many others injured.

I'm not so assured.

You can be well equipped but if you are told to stand down, it doesn't do you much good.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You can be well equipped but if you are told to stand down, it doesn't do you much good.

Yes. You have to be willing and able.

 

[actaeon277]

Ah so you trying to make the point that because that decision was wrong the decision that reasonable limitations on gun ownership is wrong. Ok, get it.

But, sorry I'm just not for everybody having the right to own a GAU-19. I just don't see that being reasonable.

I know people that are against any gun, are against any knife other than a butter knife, and are okay with banning baseball bats.
How is that different than what you said?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

You can be well equipped but if you are told to stand down, it doesn't do you much good.

Apparently, these lovely young women aren't as convinced as the chief is either.

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/antifa-heather-heyer-funeral-purple/

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Yes. You have to be willing and able and in this case allowed.

FTFY.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

FTFY.

That's part of the "able" component.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Why don't we shorten the thread title to a truthful and convenient form and just start calling the man McMoron?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

That's part of the "able" component.

I'll accept that.

 

[Dddrees]

Absolutely. If they are too dangerous to possess all their rights, they are too dangerous to be roaming free. This use of criminal convictions to establish a de facto second-class citizenship does not square with the principles of a free republic. You should also consider the trend to felonize an ever increasing number of behaviors. Even now, I wonder how many laws the average person breaks in a day without even realizing it. Given enough time, well, welcome to serfdom for most anyone.

Lets say you are in charge of a business and you have one job slot to fill. All three candidates are equally qualified and equally experienced. The only difference between these three are the following.

Person 1 is an ex fellon with a hostory of violence.

Person 2 is dishonably discharged individual,

Person 3 has no negative history.

You can only hire one person. Who do you hire and why?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Lets say you are in charge of a business and you have one job slot to fill. All three candidates are equally qualified and equally experienced. The only difference between these three are the following.

Person 1 is an ex fellon with a hostory of violence.

Person 2 is dishonably discharged individual,

Person 3 has no negative history.

You can only hire one person. Who do you hire and why?

My preferences for whom I would hire and/or associate with are irrelevant to the issue of the nature of a right as opposed to a conditional privilege.

Just for fun, I will throw out that I know felons who are more honorable than most other people, and statistically a first time murderer is one of the least likely candidates to recidivate.

 

[Dddrees]

The original Constitution doesn't say much about voting. Here is the full quote.


There have actually been 4 Amendments regarding voting. The 15th which stated that states can't deny or infringe voting based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The 19th same except for it's sex. The 24th which prohibits poll taxes and failure to pay other taxes for primaries and selecting electors for VP and Pres. And the 26th which states that the states can't deny the right to vote due to age if the person is 18 or older. There are a few other restrictions due to the 14th, as an example religious tests.

For the most part other than above the states are free to set whatever rules they wish. Such as voter ID laws, felons can/can't vote, whether or not that non citizens can vote in elections other than VP and Pres, etc. They could put in place that a person can't vote if they have been found mentally incompetent as an example.

In regards to recidivism rates, it varies depending on the crime.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/reentry/recidivism.cfm



Federal law prohibits all felons minus a few "white collar" crimes. Along with DV and misdmeanors which carry a sentence of either 2 or more, or over 2 yrs in jail. Can't remember which and I'm feeling to lazy to check. Which is what the background check goes by. And why wouldn't the UBC go by it, all the UBC would do from the proposals I've seen and the laws passed in the various states simply expand the current criteria to all transfers/sales with some exceptions rather than just ones from an FFL.

IN law prohibits serious violent felons as defined in the IC and DV. Main difference is what is considered a "firearm". Federal law doesn't consider black powder or most antiques to be firearms. IN does. So under Fed law a murderer who was released could legally go out and purchase a cap and ball pistol, but not if they are in IN.

So how do you see the relative importance of voting vs one of the Rights in the Bill Of Rights? Because if you ask me it certainly seems here on this website if nothing else people find this to be extremely important. Heck in fact I think that's one of the reasons we had a Revolution in the first place. Taxation without Representation. The fact there have actually been 4 Amendments which almost take an act of G** to get. So although it seems you try to minimize it it seems pretty important to me. So the hardship some minorities might have getting a gun vs getting an ID to vote should be of equal concern in my opinion.

Sounds like inconsistencies with regards to how these laws are applied but I'm not amazed. I think you could find that anywhere. But yes when researching whether I could or not fire my Air Gun within the city limits I noticed some of these inconsistencies with regards to not only how states vary but also how varies counties as well.

Please see my response above with regards to job opening.

 

[Dddrees]

My preferences for whom I would hire and/or associate with are irrelevant to the issue of the nature of a right as opposed to a conditional privilege.

Just for fun, I will throw out that I know felons who are more honorable than most other people, and statistically a first time murderer is one of the least likely candidates to recidivate.

I don't know, but I think most would chose the person who has no negative history. They might say all they want about how they have served their time and so on but when it comes down to brass tacks they would chose the person with no negative past.

Besides what if you don't know him or her?

Anyway from a statistical point it's hard to make the case that ex-felons, domestic abusers might be of no danger when at this point they are not allowed to purchase any firearms so we have no data. That's because they currently aren't allowed to purchase one.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I don't know, but I think most would chose the person who has no negative history. They might say all they want about how they have served their time and so on but when it comes down to brass tacks they would chose the person with no negative past.

Besides what if you don't know him or her?

Anyway from a statistical point it's hard to make the case that ex-felons, domestic abusers might be of no danger when at this point they are not allowed to purchase any firearms so we have no data. That's because they currently aren't allowed to purchase one.

Again, the denial of a right (i.e., treating it as a conditional and revocable privilege) and the creation of a de facto second-class citizenship are the points at issue, not whether or not the honor or lack thereof of any given ex-con makes my tummy or anyone else's feel good. Perhaps I should defer to the excellent explanation of this issue offered by Ayn Rand:

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, 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 laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”


― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Please note that the direct result is that any given person has rights and/or roams free at the pleasure of the government, not because he is a free man.

 

[Dddrees]

Again, the denial of a right (i.e., treating it as a conditional and revocable privilege) and the creation of a de facto second-class citizenship are the points at issue, not whether or not the honor or lack thereof of any given ex-con makes my tummy or anyone else's feel good. Perhaps I should defer to the excellent explanation of this issue offered by Ayn Rand:



Please note that the direct result is that any given person has rights and/or roams free at the pleasure of the government, not because he is a free man.

Interesting.

 

[Dddrees]

Besides surrendering the right to own a gun by the way do felons or ex-felons surrender the right or ability to do anything else that any one knows of?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Besides surrendering the right to own a gun by the way do felons or ex-felons surrender the right or ability to do anything else that any one knows of?

I don't know that surrendering is the word you really need since it is stripped without any cooperation needed. Generally they are also prohibited from voting, they have a long list of restrictions ranging from reasonable to asinine while on parole which can last as long as the portion of their sentences remaining when they are released on good behavior. Never mind that they are virtually unemployable aside from jobs an illegal won't do. It really does become a life sentence flying in the face of someone paying their penalty and being square with the world thereafter. It really is a miserable rest of your life.

 

[Dddrees]

Besides surrendering the right to own a gun by the way do felons or ex-felons surrender the right or ability to do anything else that any one knows of?

It looks like seven States have laws relating to felony disenfranchisement.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_disenfranchisement