Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The label "Convicted Felon" conjures up images of the Boogie Man to many people who aren't aware of the laws.
I think that a lot of people don't realize that you don't have to be convicted of a violent crime such as murder, rape or robbery to be guilty of a felony.
In fact there are things that many people may be guilty of that the average person may not even realize is a crime, much less a felony.
Add in things like simple possession of narcotics and DUI laws that are felonies in one state but not in another and it can get pretty confusing.
For a lot of people out there who were less than perfect their whole lives, the only difference between them and a felon is the convicted felon got caught.
I also think it's worth noting that even the more serious crimes committed aren't necessarily a good representation of who a person is. Rape, for example, is always wrong, but there's a huge difference in character between the college student who rapes a girl at a party due to alcohol induced poor judgment and the man who lures an unsuspecting woman in with the intent to drug and rape her. The latter is way worse. Similar logic can be applied to any crime. Killing someone while drunk driving is very different than loosing your temper and killing your boss for not giving Karen the raise instead of you. Robbery out of desperation vs robbery because I wanted a new TV.
Committing crimes is wrong. But this is not an excuse to assume we know what kind of person a 'criminal' is. It's not who they are, it's what they do. People change all the time. I understand the skepticism with people who have committed crimes, but they're still human? If you're not the same exact person you were 10 years ago, then there's a good chance the guy picked up for robbing a gas station isn't either.
The moment I read disenfranchisement I knew what side you were on.
First of all, does it surprise anyone that liberals worry about "criminals rights"? Heck you cannot turn on MSNBC and not find all sorts of "Locked Up" type of shows giving prisoners lives a voice so to speak. Aside from the disproportionate amount of minorities which would presumably vote (D) if allowed, I suspect most criminals regardless of race would vote (D).
So I guess it is a natural extension of things that (D's) are the ones pushing for criminals to be able to vote because they view it as a net win.
I wonder if these same liberals would be interested in restoring the 2nd Amendment rights of felons once they have served their time?
I'm not a Liberal and I advocate full restoration of all privileges including 2nd amendment rights in most cases if the person is not a repeat violent offender.
Stripping away a persons constitutional rights forever due to what may be little more than an indiscretion of youth is un-American IMO.
And thinking otherwise hardy makes one a Liberal.
I also think it's worth noting that even the more serious crimes committed aren't necessarily a good representation of who a person is. Rape, for example, is always wrong, but there's a huge difference in character between the college student who rapes a girl at a party due to alcohol induced poor judgment and the man who lures an unsuspecting woman in with the intent to drug and rape her. The latter is way worse. Similar logic can be applied to any crime. Killing someone while drunk driving is very different than loosing your temper and killing your boss for not giving Karen the raise instead of you. Robbery out of desperation vs robbery because I wanted a new TV.
Committing crimes is wrong. But this is not an excuse to assume we know what kind of person a 'criminal' is. It's not who they are, it's what they do. People change all the time. I understand the skepticism with people who have committed crimes, but they're still human? If you're not the same exact person you were 10 years ago, then there's a good chance the guy picked up for robbing a gas station isn't either.
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think I would take it quite as far as some of the examples you are citing.
My opinion is that the "war on crime" has led to nationwide "zero tolerance" policy attitudes on some things that are just as about as silly as the zero tolerance policies that schools use when they kick kids out for biting a pop-tart into the shape of a gun.
The thing is, the concept of taking away someones constitutional rights forever on a federal level over things that may not be a felony in another state or things that aren't serious enough to make sense to the average person to label as a felony just seems as unconstitutional as all Hell to me.
Not only should felons have voting rights, but some felons behind bars should have voting rights (as long as they're not murderers or violent sex criminals)
I'm not a Liberal and I advocate full restoration of all privileges including 2nd amendment rights in most cases if the person is not a repeat violent offender.
Stripping away a persons constitutional rights forever due to what may be little more than an indiscretion of youth is un-American IMO.
And thinking otherwise hardy makes one a Liberal.
The question was not posed to imply only liberals felt the way you do. Instead it was to point out the typical hypocrisy of those who worry about the poor criminals rights, yet want peoples 2nd Amendment rights to be lost forever. In some cases over misdemeanors or things classified as felonies for political reasons.
So if they wish to be consistent, they should want all the persons rights restored, not just their voting rights. That should be true even if they are anti-gun or not.
The moment I read disenfranchisement I knew what side you were on.
First of all, does it surprise anyone that liberals worry about "criminals rights"? Heck you cannot turn on MSNBC and not find all sorts of "Locked Up" type of shows giving prisoners lives a voice so to speak. Aside from the disproportionate amount of minorities which would presumably vote (D) if allowed, I suspect most criminals regardless of race would vote (D).
So I guess it is a natural extension of things that (D's) are the ones pushing for criminals to be able to vote because they view it as a net win.
I wonder if these same liberals would be interested in restoring the 2nd Amendment rights of felons once they have served their time?
I'm not sure if you're implying that I had an issue with gun rights or not...
I don't. I support people's rights to own fire arms; I ask that they use them responsibility.
And frankly, I have no problem with felons having their second amendment rights restored once out of prison (and probably parole as well). In a just prison system, their time in their serves as punishment as well as rehabilitation. Meaning, once out, we can assume they're safe. This means, a former gang banger who was arrested for shooting someone, once served their time, can legally own a gun for all I care. If they shoot someone else, they know where they end up. And I do think for repeat offenses, the sentences should be longer than the first (I assume this is the case already, but I don't know). But even someone who served time for aggregated assault should be able to own a gun so long as they use it lawfully like everyone else. If someone break into an ex-convicts house and holds a gun to his daughter's head, I think it's cruel to say he shouldn't be able to own a gun. I get the concern, but I think it's a temporary solution to a much larger problem. We put restrictions on those released from prison because our prison system is so incredibly inefficient that many people do end up going back. And instead of actually handling the problem and fixing our system, we just try and patch up some possible holes in the system.
But yeah, a progressive who says they should only have some rights restored may be guilty of hypocrisy. I generally say a temporary ban from firearms is reasonable as a compromise, but if it were up to me they could buy a gun the day they get out. Because if it were up to me I'd be investing in a prison system that is meant to whip people back into shape instead of just giving them a mandatory gym membership for 5 years.
I think felons should have all their rights restored after a set number of years living crime free. It gives them a goal and rewards good behavior. Telling a felon they will never clear their record pretty much tells the felon there is no hope and no goal. Not sure what the number of years should be or how it would work but there should be a program that helps them.
The question was not posed to imply only liberals felt the way you do. Instead it was to point out the typical hypocrisy of those who worry about the poor criminals rights, yet want peoples 2nd Amendment rights to be lost forever. In some cases over misdemeanors or things classified as felonies for political reasons.
So if they wish to be consistent, they should want all the persons rights restored, not just their voting rights. That should be true even if they are anti-gun or not.
See my point now?
Absolutely, sorry I misunderstood.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
