• 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
Tucker Case said:
Of course not. Those examples are not examples of someone "merely exercising their right". They are examples of people knowingly violating the laws associated with that right for selfish reasons, rather than rational ones. That's why it's irresponsible. People need to have more personal responsibility and stop playing the victim. They make a decision to violate the laws, they need to slap on a pair of balls and accept the consequences for it, not play the victim.
Click to expand...

“Laws” which are enacted and enforced illegally, in blatant violation of the Constitution; for the specific purpose of violating these rights which the Constitution explicitly affirms.

Politicians, judges, and police officers made the decision to violate the Constitution. What justification can there possibly be for punishing honest citizens for the illegal activity of public servants? I say that it is the corrupt public servants who need to be held responsible, and to bear significant consequences for their malfeasance.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
“Laws” which are enacted and enforced illegally, in blatant violation of the Constitution; for the specific purpose of violating these rights which the Constitution explicitly affirms.
Click to expand...


That's ultimately for the courts to decide. If one wishes to violate a law in protest, more power to them, but they castrate their efforts if they are not willing to accept the consequences of their decisions.
 
Its time to stop pretending that poor innocent criminals dont know what time it is. Even at the tender age of 18 they understand. They get it.There is a reason why gangs are sending members under the age of 18 out to rob, steal, sell drugs, and even kill. The expectation is that if they get caught they will get sentenced as a juvenile. These folks understand the rules of the game better than the cops. So no more coddling them. You want to see a change then build LOTS of new prisons and invoke at a minimum the mandatory minimum sentences for commission of crimes using a firearm. Say...sentence of the crime plus a mandatory 20 years (Id still lean towards life imprisonment but lets err on the side of leniency) to be served consecutively and no early release possible on the gun sentences.
 
For Bob Blaylock: I'm playing devil's advocate a bit on this a bit since I don't really believe that people should be permanently banned from owning a gun for the two examples you put in bold (nor do I think they are irresponsible idiots. For that matter, if a poor person poaches a deer because they need food, they are being responsible and intelligent, but if they are doing it for sport they are an irresponsible idiot, IMO. there's no excuse for imbibing intoxicants while carrying a deadly weapon of any sort, let alone one as efficient as a gun, IMO. It's a recipe for disaster).

That being said, I do stand by my argument that one must be willing to accept the consequences of violating a law in protest for that protest to be effective.
 
Tucker Case said:
That's ultimately for the courts to decide. If one wishes to violate a law in protest, more power to them, but they castrate their efforts if they are not willing to accept the consequences of their decisions.
Click to expand...

The big problem is that there are no appropriate consequences for judges, politicians, and other public servants who make teh choice not to obey the Constitution. Every such servant, on taking office, takes an oath to uphold and defend eh Constitution, yet far too many openly violate this oath, and face no consequences for doing so.

I do not see how you can rationally argue that a common citizen's choice to exercise a right which the Constitution explicitly affirms, should be prepared to face adverse consequences for so doing; while neglecting to call for much harsher consequences for corrupt public officials who openly violate the Constitution with the specific intent of denying that common citizen the right which he seeks to exercise.

Yours is the argument of one who has accepted his place as a subject, and the public servants as his masters.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Yours is the argument of one who has accepted his place as a subject, and the public servants as his masters.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I vote no.

Self defense is a human right and it should only be taken away in some cases.
 
ecofarm said:
I vote no.

Self defense is a human right and it should only be taken away in some cases.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Luna Tick said:
Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?
Click to expand...

No. It's a Constitutional right. Once a person has completed their sentence, including probation, they should have all of their Constitutional rights restored. If we want to make prison sentences longer for using a gun in a crime, that'd be fine with me.
 
0bserver92 said:
That charge will stay on your record and will make things very difficult for that person in the future especially if they want to do anything around children or get a job.
Click to expand...

Exactly, its up to people to decide if they wish to do business with you due to your past history which is entirely different than the government restricting your rights forever.
 
Luna Tick said:
Should someone who commits a crime with a gun be forever banned from owning one?
Click to expand...

I think someone who commits a gun crime should get the death sentence.
 
Henrin said:
Exactly, its up to people to decide if they wish to do business with you due to your past history which is entirely different than the government restricting your rights forever.
Click to expand...

They'd only have themselves to blame for their loss. It's not the government restricting their right, it's the criminal relinquishing their right to bear arms by virtue of making the conscious decision to commit a crime with a gun. They only have themselves to blame for their predicament.
 
Tucker Case said:
They'd only have themselves to blame for their loss. It's not the government restricting their right, it's the criminal relinquishing their right to bear arms by virtue of making the conscious decision to commit a crime with a gun. They only have themselves to blame for their predicament.
Click to expand...

Honestly? When the government finds you in breach of the law and sentences for the crime they are taking away your rights.
 
Henrin said:
Honestly? When the government finds you in breach of the law and sentences for the crime they are taking away your rights.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Criminals are not victims, they are people who choose to engage in anti-social behavior knowing the consequences that society places upon such choices. By doing so, they relinquish their rights within that society by choice.

The government merely acts as a record keeper and guardian of the criminal's own decision.
 
Tucker Case said:
Nonsense. Criminals are not victims, they are people who choose to engage in anti-social behavior knowing the consequences that society places upon such choices. By doing so, they relinquish their rights within that society by choice.

The government merely acts as a record keeper and guardian of the criminal's own decision.
Click to expand...

Which is why they go to prison. However, once they've served their sentence, do we keep punishing them? How does that jive with the Eighth Amendment?
 
Rising Sun said:
Which is why they go to prison. However, once they've served their sentence, do we keep punishing them?
Click to expand...

If part of the sentence is a permanent ban on gun ownership, they are merely continuing to serve their sentence. Prison is but one level of consequence.

How does that jive with the Eighth Amendment?
Click to expand...

It's not an excessive fine or bail, nor is it cruel or unusual.
 
Tucker Case said:
If part of the sentence is a permanent ban on gun ownership, they are merely continuing to serve their sentence. Prison is but one level of consequence.

It's not an excessive fine or bail, nor is it cruel or unusual.
Click to expand...

Do you feel these criminals, who betrayed a public, and in some cases sworn, trust should lose some of their Constitutional rights forever? A guide to GOP scandals. - Slate Magazine
 
Tucker Case said:
Nonsense. Criminals are not victims, they are people who choose to engage in anti-social behavior knowing the consequences that society places upon such choices. By doing so, they relinquish their rights within that society by choice.

The government merely acts as a record keeper and guardian of the criminal's own decision.
Click to expand...

I'm describing the action taken by the government no matter the law violation or punishment. What the government does is take away the rights of those they punish no matter if they violated someone else's rights or not.
 
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...

From what I have seen from you today and yesterday your ideas are what has lead to oppression.
 
Rising Sun said:
Do you feel these criminals, who betrayed a public, and in some cases sworn, trust should lose some of their Constitutional rights forever?
Click to expand...

I do not believe that such rules should be enacted retroactively because doing so would prevent it from being said person's choice. A person must know (or at least have the potential to know) the complete consequences of their choices prior to making the choice. Thus, I wouldn't have any opinions about any individuals who committed a crime prior to any such consequences being in place.

That being said, if a public official/politician is found guilty of some crime related to their office, I believe that it should be considered treason and the guilty party should be executed for their crime (that takes away ALL of their rights).




A guide to GOP scandals. - Slate Magazine
Click to expand...

Why did you link this? Are you under the misguided impression that party affiliation would affect my opinions in some way?
 
Henrin said:
I'm describing the action taken by the government no matter the law violation or punishment. What the government does is take away the rights of those they punish no matter if they violated someone else's rights or not.
Click to expand...

People commit crimes by choice, ergo they choose to receive their consequences.
 
Tucker Case said:
I do not believe that such rules should be enacted retroactively because doing so would prevent it from being said person's choice. A person must know (or at least have the potential to know) the complete consequences of their choices prior to making the choice. Thus, I wouldn't have any opinions about any individuals who committed a crime prior to any such consequences being in place.
Click to expand...

I'll be happy to wait for the court decision depriving an American citizen of their Constitutional rights once they've completed their sentence.

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

That has nothing at all to do with my point. The fact is law doesn't work in accordance with rights and its not designed for such a function. It is designed to carry out the will of the government against its people be those people in violation of a fellow citizens rights or just another jaywalker.
 
Tucker Case said:
How much of what you've seen can also be considered something which you have understood, though?
Click to expand...

I think I understand your basic premise. If I'm endangering you than I need to be punished for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom