Taking On The Felons And Firearms In Wisconsin

[golandmark@gmail.com]

Jefferson said a "armed society is a polite society"

 

[wag1911]

It doesn't do much to stop them from committing any other crime.

May be the NRA should be working to make murder, rape, theft and the rest of the crimes criminals commit legal?

You are right it doesn't do much to stop them from committing any other crime other than the known penalty for which they have already served. Perhaps stiffer sentences could help as a deterrent? While I don't think the Middle Eastern way of dealing with crime is exactly what we want.....ala chopping off the hands of thieves, lopping off the p*ckers of sex offenders, etc., they don't have near the crime we do. PERSONAL STORY: while I was serving overseas a hash dealer in Saudi Arabia was caught and sentenced. His sentence, death. No appeals, no sob stories - just execution. Similar crime here, maybe a year in prison with TV, 3 squares, with the sentence cut in half for good behavior. Which is more of a deterrent? His sentence, while damn harsh, served as a deterrent to other dealers and sent one helluva message.

If a crime is so heinous that a person should not regain their rights as a 'free man' after serving such penalty, then shouldn't we be working to keep them locked up longer rather than half-assed justice like letting them walk free but stripping their rights?

Just because they have served their time doesn't mean they've learned their lesson.

"Notably, only 15 percent of all Americans have criminal records, yet more than 90 percent of murder suspects have a history of crime. Their criminal careers average six or more years’ length, including four major adult felonies, in addition to their often extensive juvenile records.​

A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders in that city between 2003 and 2005 found that “more than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.” Baltimore police records show similar statistics for its murder suspects in 2006. In Milwaukee, police reported that most murder suspects in 2007 had criminal records, while “a quarter of them [killed while] on probation or parole.” The great majority of Illinois murderers from the years 1991-2000 had prior felony records. Eighty percent of Atlanta murder arrestees had previously been arrested at least once for a drug offense; 70 percent had three or more prior drug arrests — in addition to their arrests for other crimes."
Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: Gun control restricts those least likely to commit violent crimes | San Francisco Examiner​

Another study Futurity.org – Crimes escalate for convicted gun owners​

The same argument could be made for pedophiles. They served the time why should we keep them away from schools and make the register their address. I sure wouldn't let one work at my kids school, daycare, or drive their bus. The reason is the same. They have proven they have no respect for the law, and as studies show they will break the law again given the chance. I love the 2nd amendment and will support any law abiding citizens right to keep and bear arms. However If you commit a crime. First you know it's a crime. Second you know you will lose your second amendment right if you commit the crime, and you do it anyways. You lost your right when you committed that felony and you should not get it back. ​

I think we're more in agreement than not. I just see a different path as being preferable.

I'm sure these statistics are valid and I do not dispute them. I think we are overlooking a simpler solution to this - keep them locked up for longer periods and make their stay something a less cozy than a bad Days Inn. Deterrence is in the sentences dulled out, not the rights lost upon discharge from prison.

After all, if these guys want to carry a gun when they get out of prison we shouldn't be naive enough to think they won't find a way to do so. It's only the guys, like a neighbor of mine, who served their time, learned their lesson that are kept from exercising their rights. Is it really our want to keep a so called 'free man' from being able to protect his family? He has a wife and three kids. If not, then we should have kept the ball and chain on him.

 

[jdgatliff]

PERSONAL STORY: while I was serving overseas a hash dealer in Saudi Arabia was caught and sentenced. His sentence, death. No appeals, no sob stories - just execution. Similar crime here, maybe a year in prison with TV, 3 squares, with the sentence cut in half for good behavior. Which is more of a deterrent? His sentence, while damn harsh, served as a deterrent to other dealers and sent one helluva message.

Well surely he wasn't the first one sent to death for dealing hash. While that punishment seems harsh it didn't deter him from dealing. Just like murders, rapist, and pedophiles. They all carry stiff sentences up to and including death for committing murder. Yet they still happen every day in America. For me and most of America these do serve as deterrents. I obey the laws and don't commit crimes because I would hate to even spend one night in jail. Let alone a lifetime. But most criminals commit more crime than they are ever caught and convicted for. They aren't deterred by penalties when they can go see some old friends on the inside. We can't just lock people up whom we don't trust to carry guns either.


I do agree gun control is unconstitutional and harms way way more people than they would ever admit. I also agree that no law has ever or will ever prevent a crime or a criminal from obtaining a gun. The best way to deter crime is to arm everyone possible.

However I also believe there are certain people who should not own guns. I wish there was an easy answer to this that everyone could sleep at night with. In the 2nd amendment is says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I would like to think that means keeping arms out of peoples hands who would do us harm.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I think the nra should tackle the fact that is illegal even to have a handgun in your own home in Chicago...now that is un Constitutional if u ask me

There was this little thing called McDonald v. City of Chicago that was heard by some folks in black robes last year that addressed this. Maybe you heard about it?

Here's a link to more info.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

HTH!

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ATM]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I would like to think that means keeping arms out of peoples hands who would do us harm.

Sorry, but that's not what it meant.

It meant a populace equipped and proficient to maintain their own freedom.
Since that is necessary, don't even think about messing with their right to arms.

 

[jdgatliff]

Sorry, but that's not what it meant.

It meant a populace equipped and proficient to maintain their own freedom.
Since that is necessary, don't even think about messing with their right to arms.

Well Regulated The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc. 2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.
​

[obsolete sense] b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.


​

 

[Eddie]

Well Regulated The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc. 2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.
​

[obsolete sense] b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.


​

A well regulated militia being neccessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Wow! See that? I can add emphasis too by bolding and underlining. The statement is plain and simple: don't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[mrjarrell]

Jefferson said a "armed society is a polite society"

Jefferson never said that. It was said by Robert Anson Heinlein.

 

[Bendrx]

I think a bigger issue than keeping a free person from having a gun (felon whos served his/her time) is what treasonous $#$@# went a took a urination upon our Constitution and made it legal for said free persons to be stripped of thier God given rights. I bring up the G word only because if you didn't give them, then you have no right to take it back. Reguardless of you feelings or beliefes about the R word - our gov was setup as such that it doesn't give us rights. Kudos for the lawyer.

 

[ATM]

Well Regulated The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc. 2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.
​

[obsolete sense] b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.


​

Just make sure you choose an apt definition which doesn't find itself in conflict with either:

a. being necessary to ensure the securing of freedom, or;

b. infringing on the People's right to keep and bear arms.

...keeping arms out of peoples hands who would do us harm.

does not seem to be a good fit here. The 2A is a restriction on government, not a mandate to take some action.

 

[Eddie]

Well Regulated The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc. 2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.
​

[obsolete sense] b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.


​

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The second amendment consists of two parts, a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The statement about militia is a prefatory clause, it makes an observation. The second part, the operatory clause is the rule. Dictionary definitions don't apply because the Supreme Court already tackled this issue in the Heller decision:

"We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents."

District of Columbia v. Heller

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[jdgatliff]

Well guys I give. The only argument I have is that the felons knew what they were doing. By committing their crimes they knew that if they were to get caught they would be giving up their rights. If that is not enough to discourage them from committing crimes then what will? Jail time? No. Capital punishment? No.

 

[wag1911]

Well surely he wasn't the first one sent to death for dealing hash. While that punishment seems harsh it didn't deter him from dealing. Just like murders, rapist, and pedophiles. They all carry stiff sentences up to and including death for committing murder. Yet they still happen every day in America. For me and most of America these do serve as deterrents. I obey the laws and don't commit crimes because I would hate to even spend one night in jail. Let alone a lifetime. But most criminals commit more crime than they are ever caught and convicted for. They aren't deterred by penalties when they can go see some old friends on the inside. We can't just lock people up whom we don't trust to carry guns either.

The flipside is that the guy knew the risk would mean death if caught AND still committed the crime proving that some people will never be deterred no matter the sentence. Just like gun control laws, the people you most want to disarm are the very people who will not obey these laws!

However, like most, you and I would be deterred. Bottomline, illegal drugs are not anywhere near the problem they are here and there is a strong correlation between low crime rates and stricter sentencing/more policing. (doesn't do any good to have strict laws if they are not able to be enforced)

Part of that solution is stiffer sentencing; the other part is more prosecutions/more police. That would keep a lot of petty criminals from ever committing crimes, and would serve to lock up hardened criminals, who will not be deterred, for longer periods of time.

I wish there was an easy answer to this that everyone could sleep at night with. In the 2nd amendment is says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" I would like to think that means keeping arms out of peoples hands who would do us harm.

The word 'regulated', used in the context of the 18th century by our Founders meant that the militia should be in proper working order.

See this from the Oxford English Dictionary from 1709-1894:

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

Also see the 3rd definition given from a modern dictionary:

Well-regulated | Define Well-regulated at Dictionary.com
to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.

 

[wag1911]

Well guys I give. The only argument I have is that the felons knew what they were doing. By committing their crimes they knew that if they were to get caught they would be giving up their rights. If that is not enough to discourage them from committing crimes then what will? Jail time? No. Capital punishment? No.

You made your points, I made mine - let's call it 'agree to disagree'

 

[jdgatliff]

You made your points, I made mine - let's call it 'agree to disagree'

Agreed!

 

[Eddie]

Well guys I give. The only argument I have is that the felons knew what they were doing. By committing their crimes they knew that if they were to get caught they would be giving up their rights. If that is not enough to discourage them from committing crimes then what will? Jail time? No. Capital punishment? No.

But try thinking about it from the standpoint of protecting your rights. If a felon's right to keep and bear arms can be taken away, who is deciding what is and what is not a felony? Criminal laws change over time. The anti's may not always try a direct attack on your rights, it may be something more subtle. What if more crimes are defined as felonies? What if taking away your right to keep and bear arms is applied to more and more types of offenses? There are more ways to set about disarming the populace than just making guns illegal.

 

[jdgatliff]

But try thinking about it from the standpoint of protecting your rights. If a felon's right to keep and bear arms can be taken away, who is deciding what is and what is not a felony? Criminal laws change over time. The anti's may not always try a direct attack on your rights, it may be something more subtle. What if more crimes are defined as felonies? What if taking away your right to keep and bear arms is applied to more and more types of offenses? There are more ways to set about disarming the populace than just making guns illegal.

I agree with that also.

I've been sitting here pondering why I believe disarming felons is the right thing to do. It's all out of my personal history. My step brother was killed by a felon with a gun. I remember the taxi driver who always drove me and my mom around and was a really nice guy. He was killed by a felon with a knife. Also having close relationships with LEO's and hearing their personal horror stories.

Or maybe it's because disarming felons is what I've grown up with and it has become the "norm" to me.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Why stop now. Why take away their God given rights in the first place. Who the heck are you to decide what a felonie is to begin with? There is noting in the constitution that says one law should carry more weight than another or describing a "felonie". Nothing in the second amendment says you can take away a person's gun just because they get arrested or put in jail.

They still have rights even in jail. What is it about "shall not be infringed" that you don't understand?

Somebody get a lawyer on this. I can't believe the NRA isn't doing something about these prisoners getting their guns taken away. If there's any place on this planet where a decent person NEEDS a gun it is while they are locked up in prison with a pack of murdering thugs, thieves and sex deviates. How the heck do you expect them to defend their selves? All those bars, gates, and red tape rigamarole when they call the guard? Seconds count when you are locked in a 10 foot cell and that guard may come when he feels like or not at all. They need guns more in the joint than you people out here with the cops "minutes away".

That's just not right. They are still human beings. They still have rights.

This place is ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY INSANE.

I'm done now.

 

[wag1911]

Why stop now. Why take away their God given rights in the first place. Who the heck are you to decide what a felonie is to begin with? There is noting in the constitution that says one law should carry more weight than another or describing a "felonie". Nothing in the second amendment says you can take away a person's gun just because they get arrested or put in jail.

They still have rights even in jail. What is it about "shall not be infringed" that you don't understand?

Somebody get a lawyer on this. I can't believe the NRA isn't doing something about these prisoners getting their guns taken away. If there's any place on this planet where a decent person NEEDS a gun it is while they are locked up in prison with a pack of murdering thugs, thieves and sex deviates. How the heck do you expect them to defend their selves? All those bars, gates, and red tape rigamarole when they call the guard? Seconds count when you are locked in a 10 foot cell and that guard may come when he feels like or not at all. They need guns more in the joint than you people out here with the cops "minutes away".

That's just not right. They are still human beings. They still have rights.

This place is ABSOLUTELY TOTALLY INSANE.

I'm done now.

You have a way of taking a civil debate and making a mockery of it.

No one here advocated that a prisoner be armed. When you become incarcerated you lose those rights.....but you failed to see the point: The debate was about whether a criminal should get his rights back AFTER he has served his time and become a so-called 'free man.'

Personal Note: I have never been incarcerated for anything so I have nothing to gain in this debate. I've also suffered the tragedy of a friend who was murdered by a repeat felon. Had he been incarcerated for the rest of his life, which given his offenses, he should have been, he would not have had the opportunity to murder my friend. You see murderers murder; it didn't matter that his rights were not restored. The justice system was what failed.

 

[Hawkeye]

Does conviction of a felony strip you of your civil rights to free speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, right to privacy/freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, due process and freedom from self-incrimination, right to trial by jury, prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment for life? Just curious. sounds like some of you would say "one strike and you're out".