Name: Anonymous 2008-11-19 2:35
Why should people be banned from owning guns for life just for committing a felony?
To begin with, many things that are considered "felonies" are not really violent crimes. It seems unreasonable to assume that a person convicted of a "felony" that was non-violent is automatically a significantly greater threat to the general public if entrusted with the right to bear arms than any other ordinary person.
Does it seem reasonable that people convicted of "felonies" with regard to tax paperwork or something else similarly non-violent should be banned from possession of guns for life? Its not like if they have a gun they're suddenly going to go shoot their neighbors... for real.
People who support bans on the possession of guns for felons who have served out their prison sentences will say that these people are a danger to society if entrusted with a gun.
Really? If they're a danger to society, WHY AREN'T THEY STILL IN PRISON?
And if they are not dangerous enough to be in prison, why are they too dangerous to have a gun?
That said, looking at things from a purely constitutional standpoint, does it make sense that a person released from prison regains their 1st amendment right to protest and speak, but doesn't regain their 2nd amendment right to own the means to protect themselves?
There's a constitutional double standard there. Regardless of whether or not laws barring all felons from possession of guns are "reasonable" or not, they are clearly not consistent with the constitution.
So in sum, there's three solid arguments for why felons who have served their prison sentence out and been released from prison should be allowed to purchase guns legally.
1. Just because they're felons doesn't mean mean they're violent or dangerous people. Some things are felonies that are not violent crimes. Is it reasonable to keep murderers, rapists, thieves, and people like this from owning guns for life? That's another issue. In any case, at the very least, NON-VIOLENT felons should be allowed to own guns.
2. If a person is too dangerous to own a gun, they should be in jail. If they are NOT too dangerous to own a gun, they should be free - and should get their rights back as well.
3. It makes no sense from a CONSTITUTIONAL STANDPOINT that people released from prison are allowed every constitutional right except those mentioned in the 2A when released from prison. Why is the 2nd amendment any different from a PURELY LEGAL perspective in terms of felons than the 1st? It makes no sense at all.
To begin with, many things that are considered "felonies" are not really violent crimes. It seems unreasonable to assume that a person convicted of a "felony" that was non-violent is automatically a significantly greater threat to the general public if entrusted with the right to bear arms than any other ordinary person.
Does it seem reasonable that people convicted of "felonies" with regard to tax paperwork or something else similarly non-violent should be banned from possession of guns for life? Its not like if they have a gun they're suddenly going to go shoot their neighbors... for real.
People who support bans on the possession of guns for felons who have served out their prison sentences will say that these people are a danger to society if entrusted with a gun.
Really? If they're a danger to society, WHY AREN'T THEY STILL IN PRISON?
And if they are not dangerous enough to be in prison, why are they too dangerous to have a gun?
That said, looking at things from a purely constitutional standpoint, does it make sense that a person released from prison regains their 1st amendment right to protest and speak, but doesn't regain their 2nd amendment right to own the means to protect themselves?
There's a constitutional double standard there. Regardless of whether or not laws barring all felons from possession of guns are "reasonable" or not, they are clearly not consistent with the constitution.
So in sum, there's three solid arguments for why felons who have served their prison sentence out and been released from prison should be allowed to purchase guns legally.
1. Just because they're felons doesn't mean mean they're violent or dangerous people. Some things are felonies that are not violent crimes. Is it reasonable to keep murderers, rapists, thieves, and people like this from owning guns for life? That's another issue. In any case, at the very least, NON-VIOLENT felons should be allowed to own guns.
2. If a person is too dangerous to own a gun, they should be in jail. If they are NOT too dangerous to own a gun, they should be free - and should get their rights back as well.
3. It makes no sense from a CONSTITUTIONAL STANDPOINT that people released from prison are allowed every constitutional right except those mentioned in the 2A when released from prison. Why is the 2nd amendment any different from a PURELY LEGAL perspective in terms of felons than the 1st? It makes no sense at all.