It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I'm a felon, I've served my time...can I have my rights back please?

page: 24
57
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 

Well, look at this a different way, if you can, for just a moment.

Everything happens for a reason. The circumstances of our lives, as they happen within the context of everything (history, geography, culture, etc.), happen for a reason.

It just-so-happens that your life is happening this way, right now, for a reason. You can fight it, or you can embrace it. The universe made you make that mistake, for a reason. The consequence now is that within this country, at this time, you are no longer allowed to own a gun. It sucks, but it is the reality.

How you deal with that reality is your life test. Will you fight it? Will you defy it? Will you choose to live in frustration and misery? Will you choose to let it go? Will you choose to realize that the universe is guiding you along a different path, for a reason?

My advice: focus on the rights you do have. Focus on your ability to have food in your stomach, warmth when you sleep, water when you thirst. Focus on preparing for everything (survival, defense, tactics, etc.), without that gun. This situation you see as a handicap could be just what you need to become the person you want, even more.

Some people have other handicaps: no legs, no eyes, no arms, etc.

Your handicap: no gun.

Use your smarts to figure out how to survive without a gun. Do that, and the skill sets you gain will finally reveal to you that you never needed a gun in the first place. This is a gift, if you choose to open it.

edit on 2/19/2013 by Cryptonomicon because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:39 AM
link   
It's really not just the gun. Do you know how hard it is to get a job? It's just the totality of the situation. That was just one of the issues that's most recent.

My current employer doesn't know and I can't tell anyone. I got hired through a staffing agency and they didn't conduct any tests. Call it lucky because its a good job but I worked hard to find it.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


Violent criminals offend freedom and liberty every day. However, violent crimes are sometimes no more then a simple fist fight. Therefore, I think these types of cases should be dealt with on a case by case basis and your rights should be restored eventually, just like those sex offenders in some states get their full rights back and get off the registration list. Although, you will never shed your criminal record from view of others your rights should be restored. If you only did 6 months, chances are your crime wasn't that terrible.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 

Getting a job with a clean record in this economy is difficult enough, so I can only imagine how difficult it is with a criminal record.

I hear you though. This country is merciless against people who commit crimes. Sometimes, it's justified, others it's not. The problem is that our justice/court system has decided to not distinguish between the two. It's a strange country and a strange time we live in.

If you have the knack for it, begin studying programming in your off time. Open source software. Web development. Everything: the tutorials, example code, the software is FREE. The hardware (cheap laptop or netbook or Chrome-book) can be purchased used for pretty cheap. You can do it from ANYWHERE there is power and a free Wi-Fi signal. It's a whole world of free software that if you master it, can earn you a small fortune. You can do consulting over the internet. People almost never do "background" checks on free lance consultants, because you aren't an "employee". If you can produce good code, you can make money.

Write your future story: "Violent" ex-con transforms himself into peaceful programming guru. Very Zen!

edit on 2/19/2013 by Cryptonomicon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrandStrategy

Originally posted by Gadeff
The laws are put into effect by people who don't want a black eye or a broken cheek bone. They come into effect around people who are non-confrontational and quite passive. The common thought behind your situation is instead of breaking someones face you should have let law enforcement deal with it, and if they cannot handle it, you push the case to the higher-up jurisdiction. There are no words which will make you feel better, the system is not human and is pretty cut throat, there are no stones left unturned.

I'm not sorry for your punishment, because no one would be sorry for me if I were in your shoes. I could have been many times and I opted out. I took the passive "pussy" approach and the way it sits today, I have my rights and I don't get treated like # when I get pulled over. It's hard to live like a non-barbarian, and you end up looking like a pussy in social situations. Let me be the first to say, you can call me a pussy in front of a group of hot chicks because I didn't break your cheekbone, but I'll be sleeping tight with my guns and my security and my money because I didn't need to lash out violently to prove a point to save face in a social situation.

If I need to lash out violently to save someone from being seriously injured, there would be no problem for law enforcement to write the report out accordingly. Unless I'm somewhere I shouldn't be and racist witnesses are making false reports, during which LEO can usually tell the difference and write the report out well anyway.

Cheers, you're already a dangerous man, what do you need guns for?


You own a gun. If we are to judge who and who isn't a barbarian, I think most(Not on ATS of course) would take the view that you are one.

This just goes to show that what's socially acceptable and not a big deal in some circles, is in others. You call him a barbarian for throwing a punch, because that's not what you'd do. Well most people in the western world think of owning guns as pretty barbaric, it's not something civilised people tend to do.

You wouldn't punch a criminal, but presumably you have a gun so that you can shoot a criminal if the situation arises?


Playing devils advocate, I could pick up I'm sure many more things you do that others consider barbaric.

"For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged." - Matthew 7:2-12



I'm having a hard time swallowing your reply. Barbaric to own a gun? Uncivilized? I think you just took at shot at my wallet with a bunch of greek salad sir.

I don't live in Beverly Hills, I didn't get a multi-million dollar trust fund from my parents. I live in a pseudo middle class neighborhood, the one where the low lives from the hood cross the tracks and commit armed home invasions because their "record" is keeping them down. What would be a less barbaric form of defense for me and my family?

To the OP: I worked with a man who has lost his rights from something he did in his teenage years. Spent 5 years working with him and found out years later he is not that monster that would lose his temper and break your face. Unless you press his buttons and step on his toes, then he'd gladly go back to prison for killing someone.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


To all of you, you seem to be so put off by his request for his rights back.

Really? Hopefully you are all sin free saints who have never committed a crime, since you are so quick to pass judgment. The legal system already passed judgment, why do you feel the need to continue to pass judgment on a man that has served his time for the crime committed.?

WE ALL make mistakes. And most of us have done something in our lives that could be counted as a felony if we had been caught. If a man fights another man without weapons, regardless of the outcome should either of the men who were in the fight be scared for life by the legal system?

Although I don't think it should be easy for a felon especially one who committed a violent crime to have his rights returned I do believe that everyone can change and a process should be in place for a changed man/woman to earn their rights back.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
I hit someone once while i was drinking, there was already an ongoing battle between two other people. Lets just say that it was an oddball case. There was alchohol involved and it had an overall influence over the entire situation on all sides.


Due to what I have put in "bold" and also the "underlined", I would say no!!!

You CHOSE a side in an arguement and ASSAULTED someone and then BLAMED it on ALCHOHOL.

This alone shows that you have not matured or accepted your fault!!!!!!!
You are a VIOLENT offender and deserve no rights when it comes to gun ownership
or weapons of any kind!

Between the age of 16 and 22 - I spent the better part behind bars.
I am now 51 and still live with the judgement of my freedoms against my crimes
I committed as a youth.

Although none were acts of violence and nor did they include alchohol,
as a responsible and mature adult - I blame no one or no thing and I accept
the hindrance that I created for myself.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


If a person is truly a violent criminal, they will have a gun regardless.

In any even, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. A felon has every right to protect him/herself as any other person. If you have a right to live, you have a right to protect that life.
edit on 18-2-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)


Well, in 2008, the Supreme Court actually did state otherwise in the case of the District of Columbia vs Heller. See section 2 of the Descision for this particular case...

en.wikipedia.org...

(yes, Wikipedia, but I assume this is a public document for which other sources are freely available).

But on a more interesting note, if the 2nd amendment is taken literally, then you could argue felons have a right to bear arms while actually in jail as the text does not say otherwise!


You could argue that felons would be allowed arms in prison. That is an argument that I will leave for a day when relevance dictates neccessity.

But I have a deep disagreement with the Supreme Court on many issues, the 2nd Amendment is among the biggest.

"All men are created equal", unless you have a military uniform. In that case you are a little more equal, and will have access to higher grade weaponry.

Despite the fact that a standing army is, itself, unconstitutional.

I would presume that these are the points that you refer to? if not, just repost and I will respond.

But i would like to add: while "most' may consider any number of behaviors illegal, or whatever....that is irrelevant. To allow the majority to make rules for the minority is the very definition of mob rule. In the end, unless you have a clear victim directly caused by an action, I do not believe it to be a crime. A crime is an obvious act where there is an obvious victim.
edit on 19-2-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by smurfy
 


I do say so and I know so based on your original reply.

Typically when I'm in a thread I don't like, rather then state that opinion I go to a different topic. Thanks for your input though.

I'm actually enjoying the replys post by most people for or against especially the conversations happening even 23 pages deep.


Well I'm not going to dwell on it. However, I would like to think that people can change their ways, or that some people can be helped to change their ways, in fact individual US states must already understand this, since some return the franchise totally back to a felon, in other states it is disenfranchisement for life.
The Supreme court in fact, recognises the right to disenfranchisement for crime as constitutional through the 14th amendment, so it's not even a proper standard throughout.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


After 20 maybe a felony for a violent crime is nothing to joke about, if it was involving a weapon you should never be able to posses a firearm. I agree you should receive some rights back and be able to be integrated into society but your options of owning a gun or being in a city or state job should be revoked.
edit on 19-2-2013 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


Also after reading your explanation I don't believe you are telling us the whole truth. You've dodged quite a few questions and answering them vaguely, I'd say there was more to this crime. Would you be willing to submit your name, where the crime was committed, and date so we could look into it and make the decision for ourselves. I'm sure there is some public record to, back your story up... right?
edit on 19-2-2013 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-2-2013 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


If a person is truly a violent criminal, they will have a gun regardless.

In any even, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. A felon has every right to protect him/herself as any other person. If you have a right to live, you have a right to protect that life.
edit on 18-2-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)


Well, in 2008, the Supreme Court actually did state otherwise in the case of the District of Columbia vs Heller. See section 2 of the Descision for this particular case...

en.wikipedia.org...

(yes, Wikipedia, but I assume this is a public document for which other sources are freely available).

But on a more interesting note, if the 2nd amendment is taken literally, then you could argue felons have a right to bear arms while actually in jail as the text does not say otherwise!


You could argue that felons would be allowed arms in prison. That is an argument that I will leave for a day when relevance dictates neccessity.

But I have a deep disagreement with the Supreme Court on many issues, the 2nd Amendment is among the biggest.

"All men are created equal", unless you have a military uniform. In that case you are a little more equal, and will have access to higher grade weaponry.

Despite the fact that a standing army is, itself, unconstitutional.

I would presume that these are the points that you refer to? if not, just repost and I will respond.

But i would like to add: while "most' may consider any number of behaviors illegal, or whatever....that is irrelevant. To allow the majority to make rules for the minority is the very definition of mob rule. In the end, unless you have a clear victim directly caused by an action, I do not believe it to be a crime. A crime is an obvious act where there is an obvious victim.
edit on 19-2-2013 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)


No, just interested in your opinion. Sorry, I can't say I find a lot of it valid, your definition of a clear victim may differ from mine and anyway, we are moving off the actual OP. If you or others agree or not, committing a felony is accepted as a reason to not allow you to own a gun. The constitution doesn't say otherwise, in fact the constitution is very clear on ownership of guns to be restricted to a free militia - your opinion of that is swayed by definitions that happened long after the event and one of those is upon further restrictions. I don't have skin in this game, I was just interested in your opinion.

Most laws, certainly most criminal laws evolve depending on issues of the day. I could get dragged into what you consider an obvious victim, but that takes us away from what this thread is about.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


I feel for you, i really do. I do think in some cases, the restricted rights afforded to felons would be unconstitutional.

But.....

you did commit a crime, sure you were young and made a mistake, it happens. But yours, by your own admission, was a violent crime. You've paid your dues so to speak, and want your life back.

the person you affected doesn't get their life back. If we were to say, sure, commit a crime, do a few years, and everything is cool, what type of deterrent is that, exactly?

Personally, i think it should be on a case by case basis, some people who have violently offended should get a second chance, but again, if this is just across the board, really, there are no repercussions for your crime.

I hope you see where I'm coming from.

If you don't want to be punished for the rest of your life, don't commit a violent or federal offense, it really is that simple. I had a pretty screwed up childhood, made plenty of mistakes, none of them violent, none of them affected anyone but me.

and don't make this about guns, you lost your right to own a weapon the second you became a violent offender, and that is 1 thing i won't budge on. Voting, working, etc etc, that, I agree 100%. How can you reintegrate into society without someone giving you a shot.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 





To allow the majority to make rules for the minority is the very definition of mob rule.


No, that's called civilization. Beyond that the "majority" that makes the rules is, in fact, the minority, the government and legislators. Who, of course, are elected by you the people, and work for you the people.

What is your option then, chaos? Because that's were it was before the rule of law, chaos. Police our own? Yeah, that totally works.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by HumAnnunaki
 


And that sir I commend you for. Taking responsibility is the first step and you are mature enough to accept that. I really do wish the world for you and hope that good things come your way. We all make mistakes but to the OP, you have yet to take responsibility for your actions so I absolutely hope you won't be able to own a firearm soon.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NoJoker13
 


I would never release information publicly, not to be rude but you understand? Please point out the questions and answers an ill see what I can do. Although I'm not asking for any vindication like I said before, my case is a catalyst for discussion not the point of the discussion. I didn't use a weapon and I I ly struck the guy once.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by HumAnnunaki
 


I understand personal responsibility. I'm not trying to get away from that. You realize I have Ben through fours of hell over this? Anything for life should be taken seriously.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


Again all I am seeing is all about you. Me me me.... You chose to commit the crime, man up. What about your victim?



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by LoverBoy
 


My victim had a black eye for a few weeks, I'm going to pay for the rest of my life.

As long as questions are asked about me ill keep responding. Your post is a little childish. I'm not looking for sympathy here people aren't reading the thread plain and simple.

If you think a punch, a broken cheekbone and a black eye is worth punishing someone for life, maybe we need to reevaluate ourselves.
edit on 19-2-2013 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


You assaulting someone, blaming it on alcohol them crying on a forum because you can't own a firearm now is childish. Man up, I am glad you won't be owning a firearm.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join