Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire 3 US Marshals killed

They want to act like a gangster then they can get shot like a gangster. LEO's of today are not the LEO's we all grew up with. It is shoot first let them sue me so I can claim qualified immunity and walk over to a different town to a new job and do the same thing over again. ALL of this BS would stop if qualified immunity was taken away

So you're okay with denying rights to people who commit misdemeanors, too. Like I said, you really haven't put much thought into this.

Let's play with this for a minute. I honestly struggle with where I stand on this issue. There's a part of me that sees it the way you do and there's a part of me that disagrees.

IF a person were sentenced properly for their violent crimes, I would be much more likely to go along with this thought process, but we have 18 year old violent criminals who do months for trying to kill someone with a gun. They are let back out on the street with scarcely any punishment and no rehabilitation.

A little bit of mental/verbal gymnastics here, but I consider part of the sentence for a violent felony the loss of the right to keep and bear a gun. The incarceration is just one part of the punishment. Isn't this simply a societal agreement that we have? You have rights. In order to keep them, you can't commit felonies. You voluntarily and permanently surrender rights when you commit felonies.

Last thought. If you answer the question of why you lose rights when you are imprisoned, wouldn't that same answer apply after release?

How does infringing their gun rights solve the sentencing problem?


If a person cannot be expected to behave like a normal person when out they should not be out.

It doesn't solve a sentencing problem. Theoretically it provides some measure of protection to others, but only IF when they are busted for felon in possession, they go back to jail for a long time.

Your second response doesn't answer the question of why certain rights are lost while incarcerated.

Ok. I would rather they be incarcerated longer, and any post-release restrictions on their rights be time bound rather than for life.


Losing freedoms is inherent in being incarcerated and part of the point of it. As a purely logistical matter I can't think of an effective way to incarcerate someone but still allow them to hang out on their neighbor's porch and smoke dope so their freedom of association is not infringed, for example. But as above, if part of convincing a person not to behave badly again involves some temporary additional restrictions while they prove they will behave, that seems reasonable to me.

You went beyond the constitutional conversation and your position is based on thoughts and feelings.

I am not being critical in pointing that out. My position is based on beliefs. Beliefs that are in conflict with an otherwise pretty strong constitutionally conservative mindset.

"But as above, if part of convincing a person not to behave badly again involves some temporary additional restrictions while they prove they will behave, that seems reasonable to me."

You seem to be okay with temporary restrictions on constitutional rights, but not permanent. What if as a condition of sentencing, someone was willing to permanently bargain away their right to keep and bear arms and to vote. Would you be okay with that?

FWIW, I am not entrenched in my beliefs on this matter. I am looking for a strong, logical, persuasive argument that challenges where I stand, which is admittedly somewhat astraddle a fence.

Dead Federal Cops, dead bad guy…Win Win !

What difference does it make if the theft, physical injury, or death is brought about while possessing/using a firearm vs. knife, club, fire, hands, car, and son on?

Is the victim of the theft, physical injury, death featuring a firearm more robbed, injured, or dead than if another tool/technique was used during the theft, assault, or killing?

If removing rights due to committing a crime is punishment while in prison, what incentive does the released have to not commit crimes after release if they will continue to be punished no matter what?

The whole assumption of a crime occurring based on being in possession of a firearm allegedly aimed at criminals is much more likely to negatively affect those who are not engaging in crimes.

Another issue is in cases of theft, physical injury, or unlawful killing where the perp had a firearm, the firearm possession tends to equal(occasionly over shadow) the theft, physical injury, or death when the perp is a private citizen and gets used to justify 2A rights infringements.

When the perp is an member of le, why is it that the firearm rarely comes up and is NEVER used to reduce le special firearms priveleges?

I don't know any other way to do it. If I read the Federalist Papers correctly the Constitution itself is based on the framers' thoughts about government and human nature. That is just how subjective things like this get worked out to actual execution.


No. I think sentences should be pretty narrowly defined and neither side of the court should be able to negotiate much within them. Except for a small number of crimes, or people who repeat particularly harmful ones, I don't think those guidelines should have permanent effects.

Felonies, 2 trespassing tickets in 3 years, a few DUI's, etc.......

Where did I say anything about denying any rights to people who have been convicted of misdemeanors? Misdemeanors are relatively minor crimes, typically with a maximum penalty of one year in jail, and are the binary opposite of felonies that are considered more serious crimes and carry a maximum penalty of over one year in jail.

In some states, such as Pennsylvania, you can get 2 years for a misdemeanor, which meets the 922 definition of a felony.

Criminal offenses are not binary. There's infractions, misdemeanors and felonies. The polar opposite of felony is infraction.

Okay, you win. Infractions are things like speeding tickets that you can typically resolve by paying a fine and going on about your business.

It doesn't seem as though many felons pay much attention to any post incarnation restrictions.....................but I might be wrong. LOL.

Rehab doesn't seem to be working well either.

MM

In the bold part above. You are aware, I hope, that a conviction of misdemeanor domestic violence is a legal prohibition to owning guns.

It seems like most of your responses are knee jerk reactions. Made without thinking about what you're really saying.

Although, I am glad that you backed down from "execute all felons" to "lose some rights".

Several on here have said “I believe this or I believe that”. Well that is just fine you are entitled to believe whatever you want. But the United States Constitution is the determining document when it comes to people’s rights and limitations placed on government in this country. There are processes by which the Constitution can be changed and it has been over the years. Currently the Constitution says “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. End of discussion.

Points to non criminals being the focus of antigun laws.

Until prohibitions are found to be unconstitutional by the judiciary, laws are assumed to be constitutional. SCOTUS recently heard a case regarding this. It will be interesting to see how they find.

Unfortunate but very true. And the entire judiciary is doing everything they can to interpret it the way they think it should be, not what the Constitution says. The Supreme Court is going out of their way to avoid having to make a decision.