Taking On The Felons And Firearms In Wisconsin

[jdgatliff]

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".

Is free speech something I can use to commit a crime at any given point? Can I pull an assembly out of my pocket and destroy an innocent persons life with it? Can I use my freedom of religion to strike people dead? Can I use my right to privacy at a moments notice to kill your mom? Can I use my right to due process to kill a convenience store clerk? Can I use my right to trial by jury to hold up an Amish elementary school?

None of these you mentioned can be used as deadly force and concealed 2 seconds later. I would laugh at someone trying to use one of these to rob me. Whereas if someone uses their second amendment right to rob me I would use mine right back given the chance.

I do believe the best possible answer is to do away with all gun control laws and arm everyone. Who ever would be stupid enough to rob anyone then would deserve what they get.

 

[ATM]

Nobody has ever used the right protected by the 2A to harm anyone.

Likening the RKBA to something which can be used to harm others is a poor analogy.

Free men may be armed according to the 2A.

If one is so prone to victimizing others that they cannot be allowed a simple tool, why is that person allowed to be free?

 

[mrjarrell]

Nobody has ever used the right protected by the 2A to harm anyone.

Likening the RKBA to something which can be used to harm others is a poor analogy.

Free men may be armed according to the 2A.

If one is so prone to victimizing others that they cannot be allowed a simple tool, why is that person allowed to be free?

Precisely!

 

[jdgatliff]

Nobody has ever used the right protected by the 2A to harm anyone.

Likening the RKBA to something which can be used to harm others is a poor analogy.

Free men may be armed according to the 2A.

If one is so prone to victimizing others that they cannot be allowed a simple tool, why is that person allowed to be free?

"Nobody has ever used the right protected by the 2A to harm anyone."

I think the 9,200 people murdered in 2007 by firearms would disagree with that statement. I think criminals that use firearms to commit crimes abuse the 2a every time they commit a crime bearing arms. I hate to say it but if it weren't for these low life POS committing crimes with guns, I don't think we'd have the gun control laws we have now.

I'm sorry if I came across as likening the RKBA to something that can be used to harm someone. I have over 10 guns in my house and hold a LTCH. I was simply pointing out the rights Hawkeye stated aren't abused in a way that will put others in harms way.

Since most believe felons should get their RKBA back after serving their time, why is ok to strip them of this right while their behind bars? Isn't that picking and choosing as well? I could make the argument that it's the best time for them to be armed. It would thin their breed for sure!

 

[mrjarrell]

Is free speech something I can use to commit a crime at any given point? Can I pull an assembly out of my pocket and destroy an innocent persons life with it? Can I use my freedom of religion to strike people dead? Can I use my right to privacy at a moments notice to kill your mom? Can I use my right to due process to kill a convenience store clerk? Can I use my right to trial by jury to hold up an Amish elementary school?

None of these you mentioned can be used as deadly force and concealed 2 seconds later. I would laugh at someone trying to use one of these to rob me. Whereas if someone uses their second amendment right to rob me I would use mine right back given the chance.

I do believe the best possible answer is to do away with all gun control laws and arm everyone. Who ever would be stupid enough to rob anyone then would deserve what they get.

Hitler used speech to exterminate over 11 million people and caused a few million more deaths when he spoke out and caused a war.
Jim Jones used religion to kill a bunch of people in Guyana. Al-Quaeda uses speech and religion to murder innocents.
OJ Simpson convinced a jury that he was innocent of murder and walked. Yes, rights can be abused, that's no reason to curtail them for everyone else.

 

[Hawkeye]

Is free speech something I can use to commit a crime at any given point? Can I pull an assembly out of my pocket and destroy an innocent persons life with it? Can I use my freedom of religion to strike people dead? Can I use my right to privacy at a moments notice to kill your mom? Can I use my right to due process to kill a convenience store clerk? Can I use my right to trial by jury to hold up an Amish elementary school?

None of these you mentioned can be used as deadly force and concealed 2 seconds later. I would laugh at someone trying to use one of these to rob me. Whereas if someone uses their second amendment right to rob me I would use mine right back given the chance.

I do believe the best possible answer is to do away with all gun control laws and arm everyone. Who ever would be stupid enough to rob anyone then would deserve what they get.

Your logic, if you used any, escapes me.

 

[Hawkeye]

Precisely!

I'm glad to see you and ATM get it.

 

[ATM]

"Nobody has ever used the right protected by the 2A to harm anyone."

I think the 9,200 people murdered in 2007 by firearms would disagree with that statement. I think criminals that use firearms to commit crimes abuse the 2a every time they commit a crime bearing arms.

They may disagree emotionally but it doesn't hold water logically.
The right to the arms wasn't abused. The illegal use of those arms violated some laws, sure... but the 2A restriction on the government from infringing on the right of the People to those arms could not have been one of them.

...why is ok to strip them of this right while their behind bars? Isn't that picking and choosing as well?

Because they are not free men while incarcerated. It's one of the rights we picked and chose that they don't maintain while serving their sentence.

The debate becomes: should they get this right back with most of the others if and when they become free again?

...it's the best time for them to be armed. It would thin their breed for sure!

Rec time would certainly get interesting.

 

[jdgatliff]

The debate becomes: should they get this right back with most of the others if and when they become free again?

Since my logic seems to escape some of you I'll go back to the main topic. Speaking from statistics I am opposed to felons regaining their RKBA unless all guns restrictions are lifted (which I think they should be anyways). That means no checks to buy, no licensing or training to carry. Also no "gun free zones" which are a joke anyways. Anyone and everyone can carry anytime or anywhere they go. Lawyers should tackle restoring the rights of law abiding citizens before restoring felons rights.

 

[mrjarrell]

Violent felons who are recidivists are having no troubles at all exercising RKBA in the commission of new crimes. Those who get their lives together after serving their time are frequently victimised and have no recourse to arms to defend themselves and their families.

 

[Hawkeye]

Violent felons who are recidivists are having no troubles at all exercising RKBA in the commission of new crimes. Those who get their lives together after serving their time are frequently victimised and have no recourse to arms to defend themselves and their families.

Now your logic I do see and comprehend!

 

[jdgatliff]

Violent felons who are recidivists are having no troubles at all exercising RKBA in the commission of new crimes. Those who get their lives together after serving their time are frequently victimised and have no recourse to arms to defend themselves and their families.

Maybe I'm just too much of a hard a**. I say screw all the felons who made a choice to commit a crime. If they really wanted to preserve their rights they shouldn't have violated the rights of others. They shouldn't have violated the law, and now they should have to pay for that choice by giving up a right they must not have really wanted anyways. That's right they gave up the right willfully. They made a choice and knew what was at stake. So forgive me for not giving a damn about a felons rights. Some say lock them up if they can't be trusted. WHAT? You want to stand up for the rights of criminals and lock up people we can't trust. Since when is not being trustworthy a crime. I believe NY is trying to make a law like that. No guns if you can't be trusted.

I will stand arm in arm to preserve law abiding citizens rights. It's not hard to be a law abiding citizen in this country, or am I the only one who finds it easy to avoid committing felonys?

I find it laughable people give this lawyer kudos for standing up for felons. What about fixing the law abiding citizens rights FIRST? What about eliminating guns free zones so I can protect myself from these criminals ya'll want to arm. I'll give kudos to the lawyer who takes this on first!

 

[Jack Ryan]

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

Some of the positions are so absurd I can't resist it.

We have to PAY and APPLY for a free, tax paying, loyal citizen to exercise a God given right to defend himself from low life scum sucking trash and what are we debating here?

The rights of CONVICTED scum sucking trash to arm themselves in the future.

This thread of "civil debate" makes a mockery of the rights of tax paying law abiding citizens.

Sorry if it offends you but I just don't give a crap about the rights of convicted child molester, murders and rapists nor about the rights of car thieves, arsonists or the people caught breaking in to working citizens homes in the middle of the night. If it were up to me this wouldn't even be more than hypothetical because I think all those people should be dead by dawn of the day after conviction.

 

[Bill of Rights]

"Nobody has ever used the right protected by the 2A to harm anyone."

I think the 9,200 people murdered in 2007 by firearms would disagree with that statement. I think criminals that use firearms to commit crimes abuse the 2a every time they commit a crime bearing arms. I hate to say it but if it weren't for these low life POS committing crimes with guns, I don't think we'd have the gun control laws we have now.

I'm sorry if I came across as likening the RKBA to something that can be used to harm someone. I have over 10 guns in my house and hold a LTCH. I was simply pointing out the rights Hawkeye stated aren't abused in a way that will put others in harms way.

Since most believe felons should get their RKBA back after serving their time, why is ok to strip them of this right while their behind bars? Isn't that picking and choosing as well? I could make the argument that it's the best time for them to be armed. It would thin their breed for sure!

ATM is correct. "Nobody has ever used the right protected by the 2A to harm anyone." The right protected by the 2A does not include harming others. No right does. Your right to swing your fist around ends at the tip of my nose. You're correct that criminals abuse their rights, but they will always do so-that's what makes them criminals.

You mentioned upthread that you knew two people who had met violent ends, your stepbrother having been shot and the taxi driver who was killed with a knife. My condolences on your losses of family and friend. I would ask you, though, why do you not seek laws banning knives or laws banning taxis? If the driver did not work in a taxi, would he still have been killed? There is no prohibition anywhere in IN law that I know of stopping a person from owning a knife; rich man, poor man, begger man, thief, White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, whatever. Why? Because the object does not commit the crime, the person does. We need criminal control far more than we need "gun control". The point of changing the law in re: felons is that incrementally, this can work to our favor without additional harm (the felon who chooses to be armed will be armed, laws notwithstanding) and if the former criminal only uses his firearm for self-defense, I welcome his ownership of it.

See, legislators will be fearful of this, and if they're told that laws restricting former, now-released ex-cons are disallowed, they just might see their way clear to give themselves and everyone else a fighting chance.

As to criminals not being armed... ever hear of a shiv or a shank? Yeah, prison is a safe place.

Your goal seems to be the same as most of us, that every free man may be armed. It's how you're getting there that's getting the response you've received.

BTW, if they can't be trusted again, ever, why would you not support longer sentences or capital punishment to prevent the people who commit the crimes from being free to do so?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jdgatliff]

See, legislators will be fearful of this, and if they're told that laws restricting former, now-released ex-cons are disallowed, they just might see their way clear to give themselves and everyone else a fighting chance.

I would hope so but these are politicians you talking about here.

BTW, if they can't be trusted again, ever, why would you not support longer sentences or capital punishment to prevent the people who commit the crimes from being free to do so?

Agreed, however jails and prisons across this country are already overcrowded. Some places are putting criminals on waiting lists to serve their time.

If our bureaucratic Government would stop spending billions of dollars fighting this endless drug war, and stop locking people up for what they put in their own bodies we would have a lot more room to incarcerate the violent criminals longer.

Capital punishment should be used more. It shouldn't take 10 years to execute someone sentenced to death. I would support this option for more than just murders also. I have never understood life sentences, capital punishment should be used to end them.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I would hope so but these are politicians you talking about here.

Believe it or not, those politicians are still human, as hard as that is to fathom, and as such, self-preservation is still the strongest instinct. I think they'd see their way clear for it to happen.

Agreed, however jails and prisons across this country are already overcrowded. Some places are putting criminals on waiting lists to serve their time.

If our bureaucratic Government would stop spending billions of dollars fighting this endless drug war, and stop locking people up for what they put in their own bodies we would have a lot more room to incarcerate the violent criminals longer.

True enough, but now you're trying to make sense. These are politicians we're talking about here. (Hmm. I've heard that somewhere....)

Capital punishment should be used more. It shouldn't take 10 years to execute someone sentenced to death. I would support this option for more than just murders also. I have never understood life sentences, capital punishment should be used to end them.

A reason that capital punishment is not more commonplace is that it is irreversible. If a man is wrongfully locked up for the remainder of his life and later, evidence is found exonerating him, he can be released with or without the apologies of the court. Kinda tough to do that when you bury the wrong guy. I understand where you're coming from, but while overall, I do think capital punishment serves a good purpose, I can also understand the idea that the power of life and death is an awfully big responsibility to entrust to people I can't trust to be responsible with something so mundane as my taxes.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[mrjarrell]

Capital punishment should be used more. It shouldn't take 10 years to execute someone sentenced to death. I would support this option for more than just murders also. I have never understood life sentences, capital punishment should be used to end them.

Death is irrevocable and too many innocent people have come too close to being wrongly executed by the state. That's a power that really needs to be taken out of the hands of the government. Shoot. Texas just had to release a man who was on death row after they'd been wrongfully convicted of a crime he didn't commit. Had his sentence been carried out, as you wish an innocent man would be dead. This happens too often to be allowed any more, especially when sattes have an express lane to execution. Sorry, but the death penalty has to go. Life in prison gives a man or woman a long time to think about what they did wrong.

 

[rambone]

Speaking from statistics I am opposed to felons regaining their RKBA unless all guns restrictions are lifted (which I think they should be anyways).

The constitution is not subject to statistical analysis.

Maybe I'm just too much of a hard a**. I say screw all the felons who made a choice to commit a crime.

Supporting Gun Control doesn't make you a harda**. Stand up for the constitution.

Sorry if it offends you but I just don't give a crap about the rights of convicted child molester, murders and rapists nor about the rights of car thieves, arsonists or the people caught breaking in to working citizens homes in the middle of the night. If it were up to me this wouldn't even be more than hypothetical because I think all those people should be dead by dawn of the day after conviction.

I'm glad our Founding Fathers gave a crap about prisoners' rights. That's why Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8 have to do with the arrest & imprisonment process. You sound like you trust that your government will never make you a political prisoner from some bogus law that is yet to be written.

 

[Jack Ryan]

I'm glad our Founding Fathers gave a crap about prisoners' rights. That's why Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, & 8 have to do with the arrest & imprisonment process. You sound like you trust that your government will never make you a political prisoner from some bogus law that is yet to be written.

I trust the government about as far as I trust you.

 

[PatriotPride]

These threads tend to baffle and bemuse me. Seems to me that everyone is an expert on offenders, rehabilitation, recidivism...the whole 9 yards. I had no idea that we had so many people on INGO who work with offenders as part of their career, and who are qualified to assess whether or not a released offender should be allowed to defend him/herself.

For the record, I firmly support the Constitution. If you fully support the Constitution, then you support the idea that when offenders are released, they are to be restored their rights that are affirmed by the Constitution. Not "given", AFFIRMED.

That being said, I think we should do away with "good time" and other such nonsense. You do the crime, you pay the time---the FULL duration. Plain and simple.