• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?

Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?

  • Yes

    Votes: 46 78.0%

  • No

    Votes: 13 22.0%
  • Total voters
    59
Unless it is a gun related felony I don't think there should be any restriction whatsoever even considered. I don't think because someone who violated a Department of Agriculture reporting rule on fertilizers then that the person now is deprived the right of self defense or to defend his/her family. Gun ownership is a right, not a granted privilege.

Innocent people plea out all the time since they'll do more time waiting for trial if they don't. They NEVER explain the consequences other than jail time and probation time. They do not declare they essentially also lose all citizen's basic rights too.

But, then, I think felons should be able to vote - even when in prison. A person should be able to vote against a judge they believe unfairly sent them to prison or a DA who played games or against an elected lazy-ass public defender.
 
Last edited:
Rising Sun said:
I'll be happy to wait for the court decision depriving an American citizen of their Constitutional rights once they've completed their sentence.
Click to expand...

If the loss of constitutional rights is part of their sentence, then they haven't completed their sentence. It's one of those mutually exclusive thing. It shouldn't be this difficult to comperhend.

Depriving a person of their rights forever is like making every crime a death penalty case. If so, then the criminal would have no problem murdering all the witnesses since the penalty for robbing a 7-11 is the same as murdering a police officer. They need to have hope of becoming full citizens again.
Click to expand...

:prof Hyperbole is not an adequate substitute for a reasoned, logical response.

Hint 1: Nobody has said that ALL rights should be restricted

Hint 2: Going to jail and not being allowed to own guns for the rest of your life is not the same as death, even to the most overlydramatic 13 year old girl.
 
Henrin said:
It is designed to carry out the will of the government against its people ...
Click to expand...

False. Our government is designed to carry out the will of the people. It is the will of the people that those who commit crimes receive consequences for their anti-social behavior.
 
Once the idea of depriving an American citizen of one of their Constitutional rights catches on, how long before voters choose to alter the Constitution even more by depriving former criminals of all their rights. We should be careful what we ask for.
 
Henrin said:
I think I understand your basic premise.
Click to expand...

You clearly do not understand my basic premise, as you have many false premises which you believe which prevent you from achieving understanding of my premises.

My basic premise is that people are responsibile for their own actions. Your basic premise is that everyone is a victim of the government. The false latter premise prevents you from comprehending the true former one.
 
Rising Sun said:
Once the idea of depriving an American citizen of one of their Constitutional rights catches on, how long before voters choose to alter the Constitution even more by depriving former criminals of all their rights. We should be careful what we ask for.
Click to expand...

:prof Engaging in logical fallacies doesn't "magically fix" your previous use of hyperbole. In fact, it compounds the problem.
 
Tucker Case said:
False. Our government is designed to carry out the will of the people. It is the will of the people that those who commit crimes receive consequences for their anti-social behavior.
Click to expand...

I have no use for this democracy myth.
 
Tucker Case said:
You clearly do not understand my basic premise, as you have many false premises which you believe which prevent you from achieving understanding of my premises.

My basic premise is that people are responsibile for their own actions. Your basic premise is that everyone is a victim of the government. The false latter premise prevents you from comprehending the true former one.
Click to expand...

An understanding of the history of government and a basic understanding of human nature make the question of the true nature of government and the relationship it has with its people a pretty easy one to get your head around.
 
Henrin said:
An understanding of the history of government and a basic understanding of human nature make the question of the true nature of government and the relationship it has with its people a pretty easy one to get your head around.
Click to expand...

True. For example, a basic understanding of human nature shows us that people often pretend to be victimized in order to avoid admitting that their own ****ty decision-making is what got them into their predicament.
 
Tucker Case said:
Actually, mine is the only argument which empowers the people. Mine is the argument of personal responsibility and autonomy. The only way to not be a subject is to make it your choice.

While yours is the argument of victimhood. Your argument has nothing to do with personal responsibility and everything to do with trying to get others to do things for you instead of against you. Your argument is always doomed to failure, while mine has freed countries.
Click to expand...

Now, you're getting into Orwellian doublespeak. Freedom is slavery. War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Submission to a corrupt, oppressive government that oversteps its authority is freedom.

Our Constitution establishes rules, by which our government is supposed to operate, and which are supposed to restrain it from violating our rights. Our government routinely disobeys this Constitution, and illegally enacts and enforces laws which violate our rights. No matter how much you try to argue it, submitting to these violations is not freedom, and never will be. We should not be talking about consequences for common citizens who exercise the rights that our Constitution affirms on our behalf. We should be talking about consequences for corrupt public officials who violate the Constitution. At the very least, we should be talking about felony perjury charges for violating their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. We should be talking about charges of malfeasance and abuse of their positions. We should be talking about hard jail time for such offenders.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
True. For example, a basic understanding of human nature shows us that people often pretend to be victimized in order to avoid admitting that their own ****ty decision-making is what got them into their predicament.
Click to expand...

Just another completely unrelated post.
 
Tucker Case said:
People commit crimes by choice, ergo they choose to receive their consequences.
Click to expand...

When the “crime” consists of exercising a right which the Constitution explicitly affirms, then, no, I don't buy that argument at all.

It is the public officials who were complicit in enacting and enforcing laws which violate this right, who are the criminals, and who, by their choice to violate the Constitution, ought to be deemed to have chosen to receive the adverse consequences for their crimes.
 
Rising Sun said:
Once the idea of depriving an American citizen of one of their Constitutional rights catches on, how long before voters choose to alter the Constitution even more by depriving former criminals of all their rights. We should be careful what we ask for.
Click to expand...

Indeed, it was very clearly part of the intent of the Constitution to see that rights were protected against temporary whims of the tyranny of the majority. As the cliché goes, democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Our Constitution was set up to assure that the rights of the sheep didn't get completely lost to the vote of the wolves.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Now, you're getting into Orwellian doublespeak. Freedom is slavery. War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Submission to a corrupt, oppressive government that oversteps its authority is freedom.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about submission? Don't invent things which aren't there.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Our Constitution was set up to assure that the rights of the sheep didn't get completely lost to the vote of the wolves.
Click to expand...

Our constitution wasn't set up to help the wolves, though. We're talking about people who commit certain, specific crimes against their fellow citizens losing certain rights because of their choice to commit said crime. This is not random people, or "the rights of the sheep".
 
Tucker Case said:
I'm of the mind that people who commit crimes with guns relinquish their right to use a gun for self defense. Mother ****ers can use a crossbow from now on.
Click to expand...

I understand that. Still, gun criminals get old and legit and have every right to defend their life and home (and property, in SYG states). Further, ex-criminals have all the more reason to fear something bad happening, as a result of their past.
 
ecofarm said:
I understand that. Still, gun criminals get old and legit and have every right to defend their life and home (and property, in SYG states). Further, ex-criminals have all the more reason to fear something bad happening, as a result of their past.
Click to expand...

They would still have the right to defend their life and property, but they relinquished their right to do so using a gun. A crossbow is still highly effective for that purpose.
 
Tucker Case said:
They would still have the right to defend their life and property, but they relinquished their right to do so using a gun. A crossbow is still highly effective for that purpose.
Click to expand...

Your equivalence premise undermines gun rights. And one cannot carry a crossbow. Yes, I'd give felons concealed rights as well, except in some cases.

Ever known a felon trying to get an apartment? It's ****ed up. People gotta be given a real chance, not one with a weight on their ankle.
 
Tucker Case said:
:prof Engaging in logical fallacies doesn't "magically fix" your previous use of hyperbole. In fact, it compounds the problem.
Click to expand...
Call it whatever you want, but the Left is using the exact same logic of altering the Constitution to deprive us of our gun rights. It'd be smarter to never, ever let the Camel of altering our Constitution to deprive Americans of their rights into the tent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom