(02-21-2017 12:03 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  LOL. Of course it exempts white collar rich a$$hole crimes but not other nonviolent offenses.

On that and only that, I agree with you.

I hate the term "non violent felon."

It's an oxymoron. People commit crimes against society as much as they do against individuals.

A drug dealer who victimized society by selling poison and ruining lives is no less violent than a rapist.

(02-21-2017 12:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I hate the term "non violent felon."

It's an oxymoron. People commit crimes against society as much as they do against individuals.

A drug dealer who victimized society by selling poison and ruining lives is no less violent than a rapist.

But you answered yes. And if as you say, all felonies are violent, why are you ok with that not resulting in a revocation of one's right to bear arms?

(02-21-2017 12:12 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I hate the term "non violent felon."

It's an oxymoron. People commit crimes against society as much as they do against individuals.

A drug dealer who victimized society by selling poison and ruining lives is no less violent than a rapist.

But you answered yes. And if as you say, all felonies are violent, why are you ok with that not resulting in a revocation of one's right to bear arms?

Because they have served their sentence and should not be punished indefinitely.

Non violent offenders? Yes.

I do however believe we are being naive if we think we can keep guns out of the hands of any criminal.

(02-21-2017 12:15 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:12 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I hate the term "non violent felon."

It's an oxymoron. People commit crimes against society as much as they do against individuals.

A drug dealer who victimized society by selling poison and ruining lives is no less violent than a rapist.

But you answered yes. And if as you say, all felonies are violent, why are you ok with that not resulting in a revocation of one's right to bear arms?

Because they have served their sentence and should not be punished indefinitely.

I disagree. Sure they may have served their time , however, have they been rehabilitated?

They will certainly be forgive , if they repent, with regards to the. Ext life, but it doesn't mean that there is not an earthly penalty to be paid ... held accountable and marked while in this earth.

There are consequences to one's actions.

Im open to allowing even violent rehabilitated felons back gun rights after a period of time...say 5 to 10 years as long as they exhibit good citizenship. The recidivism is way too high to allow it right out of jail. Of course..again..We all know that if a felon wants a gun? They will get one.

(02-20-2017 10:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Guns: no

Voting: yes

I disagree. No to both.

(02-21-2017 06:54 AM)gdunn Wrote:  

(02-20-2017 10:45 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Guns: no

Voting: yes

I disagree. No to both.

Convicted felons are Dem so you can see were his hypocrisy stems.

(02-21-2017 12:01 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  So I found this little nugget:

Quote:18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). It says that anyone "who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" is barred from possessing a gun. The only felonies that are not covered by the federal gun ban are 1) those "pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices," per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(A); and 2) felony convictions from foreign countries, per Small v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 2005 WL 946620 (April 26, 2005).

So these felons and the State of Georgia are violating federal law, no? Or am I missing something? Does this mean that if a fed comes across one of these felons they get put away for ten years?

Quote:The penalty for violating this law is ten years imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine.

Does that relate to federal convictions only?

Everyone should have the right to self-defense and defense of their families and possessions, so yes. Most felons live in the worst neighborhoods and actually need the firearms more than the rest of us.

(02-20-2017 11:30 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  No No No. Absolutely Not. And that entire article is full of all kinds of stupid.

Quote:The State Board of Pardons and Paroles restored firearms rights for more than 1,400 felons between 2008 and 2013, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Sunday. The board restored gun rights for 666 people last year, which is 10 times the number of pardons that restored firearms rights six years ago. The overall number includes 358 felons who were convicted of violent crimes, 166 who were convicted of drug crimes and 32 who killed another person. Between 2008 and 2013, the board denied about 700 applications from felons looking to have their gun rights reinstated.

Are you freakin' shitting me? These felons convicted of violent crimes and actually killing other people had their firearms rights restored? What idiocy is this ****? This is 100 times worse than giving these criminals their voting rights back.

The violent crimes will still be illegal. This doesn't change that.

(02-21-2017 06:48 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Im open to allowing even violent rehabilitated felons back gun rights after a period of time...say 5 to 10 years as long as they exhibit good citizenship. The recidivism is way too high to allow it right out of jail. Of course..again..We all know that if a felon wants a gun? They will get one.

What happens sometimes is that a pissed of ex GF, or family member drops a dime on an ex con, who is leading an otherwise lawful life, calls 911 and there is an ex con living there and he illegally has guns.

The ex cons have to go through their parole period and then submit an application at least 5 years later.

(02-20-2017 10:17 PM)pcm0103 Wrote:  They will in Georgia.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/a...ed-felons/

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Depends on the category of felony IMO.

(02-21-2017 08:33 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:01 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  So I found this little nugget:

Quote:18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). It says that anyone "who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" is barred from possessing a gun. The only felonies that are not covered by the federal gun ban are 1) those "pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices," per 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(A); and 2) felony convictions from foreign countries, per Small v. United States, --- U.S. ---, 2005 WL 946620 (April 26, 2005).

So these felons and the State of Georgia are violating federal law, no? Or am I missing something? Does this mean that if a fed comes across one of these felons they get put away for ten years?

Quote:The penalty for violating this law is ten years imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine.

Does that relate to federal convictions only?

I'm no lawyer. But it does say any court, so I will say no.

(02-21-2017 12:15 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:12 AM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:08 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I hate the term "non violent felon."

It's an oxymoron. People commit crimes against society as much as they do against individuals.

A drug dealer who victimized society by selling poison and ruining lives is no less violent than a rapist.

But you answered yes. And if as you say, all felonies are violent, why are you ok with that not resulting in a revocation of one's right to bear arms?

Because they have served their sentence and should not be punished indefinitely.

Well I'm sorry, I just can't fathom ever allowing a person convicted of violent crimes, especially crimes such as armed robbery, rape, and violence against children to EVER be allowed to wield a gun, I just can't. This is equivalent, in my eyes, to letting a criminal illegal alien back on the streets.

(02-21-2017 08:38 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(02-20-2017 11:30 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  No No No. Absolutely Not. And that entire article is full of all kinds of stupid.

Quote:The State Board of Pardons and Paroles restored firearms rights for more than 1,400 felons between 2008 and 2013, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Sunday. The board restored gun rights for 666 people last year, which is 10 times the number of pardons that restored firearms rights six years ago. The overall number includes 358 felons who were convicted of violent crimes, 166 who were convicted of drug crimes and 32 who killed another person. Between 2008 and 2013, the board denied about 700 applications from felons looking to have their gun rights reinstated.

Are you freakin' shitting me? These felons convicted of violent crimes and actually killing other people had their firearms rights restored? What idiocy is this ****? This is 100 times worse than giving these criminals their voting rights back.

The violent crimes will still be illegal. This doesn't change that.

The sky is also blue. Thanks. I didn't know you were fit trollin' today.

Depends on the crime. Not everything that's classified as a "felony" really ought to be

(02-20-2017 11:41 PM)usmbacker Wrote:  I just wish we could get guns out of the hands of all the convicted felons that have them now.

This was my first thought - as we all know - all the time, convicted felons are in possession of guns. They broke the law to become a felon and they break another law (no possession of guns) BECAUSE THESE FOLKS REALLY DON'T CARE MUCH ABOUT LAWS.

Gun laws do not stop criminals from possessing guns - they ignore this law just like they ignore other laws. That's why they are criminals.

Not just no. but hell no.

You are given your rights to start with no strings attached, but if you do something to abuse those rights you can and should lose those rights.