Gov McAauliffe is a moron

[Dddrees]

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.

Thats a fairly poignant way to put that.

 

[IndyDave1776]

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


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

OK, I am going by memory from working for the Department of Correction and the circumstances of the felons to whom I had access.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

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?

Honestly. Probably by interview and work history. Does the person with no negative history show up 10 minutes late for the interview, hung over, and reeking of booze and body odor? Does the felon show up 10 minutes early, bright eyed and bushy tailed, dressed in nice slacks, shirt, and tie? All other things being equal, I'm going with the felon.

But that doesn't really relate, closest I could make it would be that the govt says that numbers 2 and 3 can't even apply for a job.

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.

I feel voting is very important, but it's hard to rank them. One is a Constitutionally guaranteed natural right, the other is a Constitutionally granted conditional privilege. Apples and oranges so to say. That is not to minimize the importance of voting. Also I don't separate the BoR, I consider them as a whole for one large reason. That would be if they can infringe on one, they can infringe on all. Should felons after they have completed their time be subjected to searches without warrant? Should they be compelled to testify against themselves? Should they be able to have a fair and impartial jury, subpoena witnesses, confront witnesses for the state, and have competent counsel? How about bail? I'd bet that stripping them of those rights would make the US a much safer place than just a blanket ban on them owning firearms.

There are "inconsistencies" in almost all laws between the various states and with the feds. We are not a monolithic nation, we are a union of individual states. Each which is free (for the most part) to set the laws as they see fit.While not a perfect analogy, compare it to the EU. A group of individual nations that agreed to be part of a larger coalition.

Please see above for my answer.

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.

Actually no it's not all that hard, compare before and after effects along with general trends. They both were legally allowed to purchase them before. For felons pre 1968 and for domestic abusers pre 1997.

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


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

Actually all but 2 states have laws relating to it. It just the laws vary about when they are or can be re-enfranchised. In IN you can't vote while incarcerated (doesn't matter if felony/misd/whatever, if you're locked up no vote), some states require you to be off parole. And others are, as you put it above "inconsistent" with the previous examples.

 

[Dddrees]

Honestly. Probably by interview and work history. Does the person with no negative history show up 10 minutes late for the interview, hung over, and reeking of booze and body odor? Does the felon show up 10 minutes early, bright eyed and bushy tailed, dressed in nice slacks, shirt, and tie? All other things being equal, I'm going with the felon.

But that doesn't really relate, closest I could make it would be that the govt says that numbers 2 and 3 can't even apply for a job.



I feel voting is very important, but it's hard to rank them. One is a Constitutionally guaranteed natural right, the other is a Constitutionally granted conditional privilege. Apples and oranges so to say. That is not to minimize the importance of voting. Also I don't separate the BoR, I consider them as a whole for one large reason. That would be if they can infringe on one, they can infringe on all. Should felons after they have completed their time be subjected to searches without warrant? Should they be compelled to testify against themselves? Should they be able to have a fair and impartial jury, subpoena witnesses, confront witnesses for the state, and have competent counsel? How about bail? I'd bet that stripping them of those rights would make the US a much safer place than just a blanket ban on them owning firearms.

There are "inconsistencies" in almost all laws between the various states and with the feds. We are not a monolithic nation, we are a union of individual states. Each which is free (for the most part) to set the laws as they see fit.While not a perfect analogy, compare it to the EU. A group of individual nations that agreed to be part of a larger coalition.

Please see above for my answer.



Actually no it's not all that hard, compare before and after effects along with general trends. They both were legally allowed to purchase them before. For felons pre 1968 and for domestic abusers pre 1997.



Actually all but 2 states have laws relating to it. It just the laws vary about when they are or can be re-enfranchised. In IN you can't vote while incarcerated (doesn't matter if felony/misd/whatever, if you're locked up no vote), some states require you to be off parole. And others are, as you put it above "inconsistent" with the previous examples.

Ok great points, but it does seem you are inconsistent in your application or desire to require an ID for voting which may would make it harder for some minorities vs UBC which would make it harder for the Amish and possibly other minorities.

Am I reading this wrong?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Ok great points, but it does seem you are inconsistent in your application or desire to require an ID for voting which may would make it harder for some minorities vs UBC which would make it harder for the Amish and possibly other minorities.

Am I reading this wrong?

I believe you are reading this wrong or not understanding. What you consider inconsistent isn't really. They are two different things, one is as I stated above a Constitutionally protected natural right, the other is a Constitutionally granted conditional privilege. Can a permanent legal resident or even a person on a temporary visa (not citizen) purchase and carry a gun? Can the same person vote? The answers respectively are Yes and No. I see no inconsistencies in that. I can compare virtually all other rights with the same results if you would like. Hell most of them even apply to illegal aliens. (Personally I feel that the 2nd applies to illegals as well, but it seems SCOTUS disagrees)

Requiring an ID for voting and requiring a background check will effect all the same, with the exception that the UBC will effect a greater population. An Amish (and other sects that prohibit graven images) person can still vote with a photo exempt ID, they can not purchase a firearm from an FFL. Without a UBC they can purchase firearms from private individual, with one they may not purchase at all. With voter ID, they can still vote. So by advocating for a UBC you are effectively advocating for disarming those who have done nothing wrong. Which is why I asked why you hate the Amish so much.

And actually in IN and other states it will effect the same minorities as a voter ID law more so. In IN and other states that require voter ID, one will be provided at no cost for the purposes of voting. But it is not valid for any other purpose, including as ID for the purposes of a form 4473.

 

[Dddrees]

I believe you are reading this wrong or not understanding. What you consider inconsistent isn't really. They are two different things, one is as I stated above a Constitutionally protected natural right, the other is a Constitutionally granted conditional privilege. Can a permanent legal resident or even a person on a temporary visa (not citizen) purchase and carry a gun? Can the same person vote? The answers respectively are Yes and No. I see no inconsistencies in that. I can compare virtually all other rights with the same results if you would like. Hell most of them even apply to illegal aliens. (Personally I feel that the 2nd applies to illegals as well, but it seems SCOTUS disagrees)

Requiring an ID for voting and requiring a background check will effect all the same, with the exception that the UBC will effect a greater population. An Amish (and other sects that prohibit graven images) person can still vote with a photo exempt ID, they can not purchase a firearm from an FFL. Without a UBC they can purchase firearms from private individual, with one they may not purchase at all. With voter ID, they can still vote. So by advocating for a UBC you are effectively advocating for disarming those who have done nothing wrong. Which is why I asked why you hate the Amish so much.

And actually in IN and other states it will effect the same minorities as a voter ID law more so. In IN and other states that require voter ID, one will be provided at no cost for the purposes of voting. But it is not valid for any other purpose, including as ID for the purposes of a form 4473.

Well this certainly has been educational not only in the information that has been provided but also how it was done and how the people here feel about it.

I may have used a grenade and I appolozize for that. I'm not sure that I have run out of questions because I still want to take some time to reflect on what I have received so far. But I want to applaud all of your efforts this is most certainly been worth the price of admission to me anyway. Maybe you have tired of me but I have yet to tire of you and you have made that possible.

Thank you gentelman and thank you TimJoeBillyBob.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Leadeye]

I've worked for a business where the most positive and hardest working employees were the ones caught stealing big for an organized crime ring in Indy. Surprised and shook everybody in management when these guys were picked up by metro one night. You can't always judge a book by it's cover as the saying goes.

 

[Dddrees]

I've worked for a business where the most positive and hardest working employees were the ones caught stealing big for an organized crime ring in Indy. Surprised and shook everybody in management when these guys were picked up my metro one night. You can't always judge a book by it's cover as the saying goes.

True, very true.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Well this certainly has been educational not only in the information that has been provided but also how it was done and how the people here feel about it.

I may have used a grenade and I appolozize for that. I'm not sure that I have run out of questions because I still want to take some time to reflect on what I have received so far. But I want to applaud all of your efforts this is most certainly been worth the price of admission to me anyway. Maybe you have tired of me but I have yet to tire of you and you have made that possible.

Thank you gentelman and thank you TimJoeBillyBob.

Cheers,

Dan

You are more than welcome, and thank you as well. I almost always enjoy a civil conversation, especially one that makes me work a bit.

And grenades are fine, what kind of forum do you think you are on here? And please feel free to post any more questions or comments you wish (within forum rules of course). And speaking for myself, I haven't tired of you, not by a long shot. I may perhaps have tired of your Trump is an idiot/moron/imbecile/etc. posts without your posting any reasoning behind them. But discussions like this? Nah, not at all.

One more thing. Regarding your earlier statements about you not caring about rights you're not "invested in". I'd like you to really consider and think about this quote.

“You can protect your liberties in this world only by protecting the other man’s freedom. You can be free only if I am free.”- Clarence S. Darrow

That is from his address to the court in "The Communist Trial" People v Lloyd 1920.

 

[Dddrees]

You are more than welcome, and thank you as well. I almost always enjoy a civil conversation, especially one that makes me work a bit.

And grenades are fine, what kind of forum do you think you are on here? And please feel free to post any more questions or comments you wish (within forum rules of course). And speaking for myself, I haven't tired of you, not by a long shot. I may perhaps have tired of your Trump is an idiot/moron/imbecile/etc. posts without your posting any reasoning behind them. But discussions like this? Nah, not at all.

One more thing. Regarding your earlier statements about you not caring about rights you're not "invested in". I'd like you to really consider and think about this quote.


That is from his address to the court in "The Communist Trial" People v Lloyd 1920.

Me as well.

Yeah I know, that's why this was such a welcomed relief. Kind of good to get this all in one thread. Wish I may have even done a better job representing the other side. Those other threads just didn't represent the issue quite as well. Some of it should be here but just not as good as what you can get with both sides being represented.

Fabulous quote and extremely appropriate.

All great points.

Cheers,

Dan

 

[IndyDave1776]

Ok great points, but it does seem you are inconsistent in your application or desire to require an ID for voting which may would make it harder for some minorities vs UBC which would make it harder for the Amish and possibly other minorities.

Am I reading this wrong?

First, the groups on whose behalf the disenfranchisement arguments are made regarding .gov ID to vote generally need to have .gov ID for a wide variety of other things they do regularly, so I am just not buying the argument on its own merit.

Second, it does not make a damned bit if difference who possesses a firearm so long as he is not actively using it to harm others. By contrast, a proper voter is disenfranchised by every single fraudulent vote.

 

[jamil]

You are more than welcome, and thank you as well. I almost always enjoy a civil conversation, especially one that makes me work a bit.

And grenades are fine, what kind of forum do you think you are on here? And please feel free to post any more questions or comments you wish (within forum rules of course). And speaking for myself, I haven't tired of you, not by a long shot. I may perhaps have tired of your Trump is an idiot/moron/imbecile/etc. posts without your posting any reasoning behind them. But discussions like this? Nah, not at all.

One more thing. Regarding your earlier statements about you not caring about rights you're not "invested in". I'd like you to really consider and think about this quote.


That is from his address to the court in "The Communist Trial" People v Lloyd 1920.

Me as well.

Yeah I know, that's why this was such a welcomed relief. Kind of good to get this all in one thread. Wish I may have even done a better job representing the other side. Those other threads just didn't represent the issue quite as well. Some of it should be here but just not as good as what you can get with both sides being represented.

Fabulous quote and extremely appropriate.

All great points.

Cheers,

Dan

Ah, get a room.


Just kidding.