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

Originally posted by onequestion
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)

Let's stop and think about the title of your thread for a second if that's ok - do you mind that? Which rights are being witheld from you? You have mentioned owning a gun, is that the main one for you? If so, fine, convicted felons - particularly who committed a violent crime are prohibited from owning a firearm. I've posted the judgement that covered that to a degree - you don't like that? Petition your state governer, petition your government. It is what it is because you committed a violent crime. I hate to say this, but you broke the law, nobody else did.

Now, what other rights are being witheld from you? You are working and you didn't tell your employer that you were a convicted felon - actually, that means you could end up not only losing your job but also being prosecuted. You didn't disclose what you should have. Your employer may very well have employed you anyway but you didn't do what you should have.

So, what other rights are being witheld from you?

reply to post by something wicked


to clarify: a militia member is any able bodied male of legal age.

This is you, me, and my oldest son.

But you are correct....this is (somewhat) off the stated topic. As is what defines a victim, as what was described in the OP clearly creates a victim.

But to shed light on my mindset: i come from a part of the country where we don't typically call the police. Someone stole about 20k worth of building materials from a job site I was working on. The Project Manager went to that persons house with a gun to collect the stolen material.

And I will leave you with the idea that "mob rule" ignores the rights of the individual. If 299 million Americans want to make something that 1 single person wants to do illegal....that is mob rule. It isn't right, it cannot be justified.

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by AnonyWarp

 

When you commit a crime with a victim that is not yourself, more than your beliefs come into play. I have committed no crime, and hurt no one in a way which the law deems criminal or violent. I can say that I am not a criminal, because nothing I have done suggests otherwise.

The OP has a record. He now has a history of committing violent crimes. He may never do so again for the rest of his life, and if so: wonderful. I don't think the OP is a bad person.

But the fact still remains: someone else, who is not the OP, now has to bear the effects of the OP's actions. Just because the OP says he isn't going to hurt anyone, doesn't mean he won't, history proves that he can, has, and just might.

Which is why the state needs a way to prove rehabilitation. So both the victim, and the public at large, know that the OP will most likely not commit anymore crimes.

~ Wandering Scribe

All of what you say is fine and can be a point, but the thing is...we don't banish our offenders to some island. They STILL live and walk among us.

By us not giving them another shot...what other option do they have BUT to reoffend?

reply to post by DZAG Wright


Oh, there are plenty of options:

- retreading tires
- washing dishes/bussing tables
- hot patching roads
- digging ditches


All very rewarding jobs that are bound to make your pockets overflow.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by FreeThinkerbychoice

 

I have empathy, but let's review here.

What is the OP complaining about? He can't vote....own firearms...get a job that requires a background check...or *might* be treated differently by LE?

None of those are show stoppers, imo. Moreover, he can probably live quite well without any of it.

I wonder how much inconvenience that represents compared to the damage sustained by his victims?

edit on 17-2-2013 by loam because: (no reason given)

Every job requires a background check now (I work in employment) so in effect we have sentenced these individuals to never holding a legal job again (yes even Burger King does background checks).

A victim unless they have never cast a stone can't expect anyone to be punished forever. In this instance, the guy who had his jaw broke just has to man up and move on. If he's still emotionally scarred from having his jaw broken in a fight years ago, he's a defective organism.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by something wicked

 

to clarify: a militia member is any able bodied male of legal age.

This is you, me, and my oldest son.

But you are correct....this is (somewhat) off the stated topic. As is what defines a victim, as what was described in the OP clearly creates a victim.

But to shed light on my mindset: i come from a part of the country where we don't typically call the police. Someone stole about 20k worth of building materials from a job site I was working on. The Project Manager went to that persons house with a gun to collect the stolen material.

And I will leave you with the idea that "mob rule" ignores the rights of the individual. If 299 million Americans want to make something that 1 single person wants to do illegal....that is mob rule. It isn't right, it cannot be justified.

Thank you for your comment. The project manager committed a "mob rule" in your example though, but again it's off topic for this thread so I thank you for your response but respectfully say it doesn't mean much apart from you or people in your area believe they are above the law.... bully for them, I hope if they should end up suffering as a result, they won't complain that their rights have been witheld from them.

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
They call it a law for a reason you were full well aware it would end you in hot water, but you did it anyway. You dug your grave now lie down please.

That's the point...he's not in a grave. He's still living and walking the streets. He may even be standing next too you right now!

So unless we're going to start executing all offenders we need to come up with a better answer.

It's an issue everyone wants to turn their heads when the tough questions are asked and the only thing they can say is, "Well he SHOULDN'T HAVE"....I stop them right there and remind them we live in the present not the past.

reply to post by something wicked


No, it wasn't "mob rule". He was not using the support of the majority to enforce rules upon a minority.

What he used was called "vigilante rule", which is just the way things work out this way. Our crime rate is exceptionally low, and if it weren't for the pot that the cops keep busting people for, they would only be left with minor traffic violations and drunk roughnecks to take up their time.

Thoreau once, in Civil Disobedience, stated as his opening paragraph:

I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least";(1) and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war,(2) the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

Eerie how much it sounds like today, isn't it?

Originally posted by Dimithae
reply to post by onequestion

 

I've always thought that rome did a better job of handling criminals.Cruel and harsh,yes.But at least you got to live your life normal after you got out of prison.Your papers were stamped 'PAID IN FULL" and you were released to go on and live your life without your criminal past following you.With our system you never get out from under it fully.

And it's the reason we have such large numbers of repeat offenders. WHERE ARE THEY SUPPOSED to live and how are they to feed themselves and their families, if no job will hire them? A community can only support so many self-employed yardmen!

Originally posted by Creep Thumper

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by Dimithae

 

Romans were lucky to not have the advent of the internet. It probably simplified many aspects of life without mass communication this being one of them.

It seems we have a society dedicated to vengeance rather then acceptance and enlightenment. People want revenge. Such as the romans i guess we mine as well start the games up and have criminals kill each other for the law abiding citizens entertainment.

I don't want revenge. I want peace and quiet and civility. People like the OP upset people like me. Without people like the OP, prisons and jails would be unnecessary. We could spend the money on something else, like the elderly.

People like the OP are every day people also! As a biological entity on this planet we will have instances when we get violent. Even countries do this.

Now let me expose you and other people who think like you. Your mindset is not legitimate in our reality. Your survival depends upon you and politicians who cater to you changing society to where you CAN survive. People such as yourself can be victimized by a butterfly because.......you have no sense of self preservation to the point where you will or can defend yourselves.

Originally posted by Creep Thumper
Stop playing the victim. It's disgusting.

I think his victim and society should stop playing the victim....scust!

Originally posted by Signals
OP, a Governor's Pardon would reintroduce your gun rights....

It should not take a Governor's pardon. If it does we should make it official that committing a crime, any crime will bar you from our society. Then we need to find land where people who have crossed that line can live.

Originally posted by Creep Thumper

Originally posted by Signals
OP, a Governor's Pardon would reintroduce your gun rights....

Yes, let's pardon every felon who whines about losing their rights. He's a felon for a reason. He made a bad decision. He cost the people a lot of time and money. There's a reason he lost rights. It's a package deal.

He should be thankful he has his freedom instead of moping around here complaining that he can't own a gun. There's a reason he can't own a gun. He can't control his temper.

Do and have you always controlled YOUR temper? If so you are one of those people who can be killed by a puppy.

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by FreeThinkerbychoice

 

I have empathy, but let's review here.

What is the OP complaining about? He can't vote....own firearms...get a job that requires a background check...or *might* be treated differently by LE?

None of those are show stoppers, imo. Moreover, he can probably live quite well without any of it.

I wonder how much inconvenience that represents compared to the damage sustained by his victims?

edit on 17-2-2013 by loam because: (no reason given)

Every job requires a background check now (I work in employment) so in effect we have sentenced these individuals to never holding a legal job again (yes even Burger King does background checks).

A victim unless they have never cast a stone can't expect anyone to be punished forever. In this instance, the guy who had his jaw broke just has to man up and move on. If he's still emotionally scarred from having his jaw broken in a fight years ago, he's a defective organism.

Respectfully, I don't see your point, well I do, but I disagree with it. Why shouldn't 'even' Burger King do background checks? BK are outlets in a time pressured team environment facing off to the general public. They are entitled to know if potential employees will have issues with such an environment based on any previous convictions. If they didn't check and something happened.... they would be the ones who are sued.

However, I think you purposefully post the worst case scenario. If you are upfront that you have committed a crime in the past and can provide evidence of what you have done to change behaviour, then the potential employer should balance that out to see if you are worth taking a chance on - remember, the risk is on them, not you.

This though is all moot. The OP wants a gun, that is the gist of his thread, not if he can get a job.

Originally posted by Creep Thumper
reply to post by TechniXcality

 

I call behavior as I see it. You earned your punishment and whatever you lost.

Decent people don't spit on others no matter who they are.

There are many decent people who send someones son/daughter to die in a unnecessary wars or conflicts too! There are many decent people who fire a mother or father causing them to lose everything.

What about those crimes...why aren't those people punished?

reply to post by something wicked


Hey wicked,

I mean this with all manner of respect but icant repeat myself anymore. If you check my profile and look at the responses in this thread you will probably find information.


I'm trying to keep up with the thread so I will read your posts when I get back.

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by FreeThinkerbychoice

 

I have empathy, but let's review here.

What is the OP complaining about? He can't vote....own firearms...get a job that requires a background check...or *might* be treated differently by LE?

None of those are show stoppers, imo. Moreover, he can probably live quite well without any of it.

I wonder how much inconvenience that represents compared to the damage sustained by his victims?

edit on 17-2-2013 by loam because: (no reason given)

Every job requires a background check now (I work in employment) so in effect we have sentenced these individuals to never holding a legal job again (yes even Burger King does background checks).

A victim unless they have never cast a stone can't expect anyone to be punished forever. In this instance, the guy who had his jaw broke just has to man up and move on. If he's still emotionally scarred from having his jaw broken in a fight years ago, he's a defective organism.

Respectfully, I don't see your point, well I do, but I disagree with it. Why shouldn't 'even' Burger King do background checks? BK are outlets in a time pressured team environment facing off to the general public. They are entitled to know if potential employees will have issues with such an environment based on any previous convictions. If they didn't check and something happened.... they would be the ones who are sued.

However, I think you purposefully post the worst case scenario. If you are upfront that you have committed a crime in the past and can provide evidence of what you have done to change behaviour, then the potential employer should balance that out to see if you are worth taking a chance on - remember, the risk is on them, not you.

This though is all moot. The OP wants a gun, that is the gist of his thread, not if he can get a job.

Before I respond let me reinterate that i work in employment...

You state that a employer "should"...I'm sorry but that has stopped being the case now.

WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE SUPPOSED TO DO!!! I guarantee you can't answer that, and because by the grace of God you aren't in the situation you will either turn your head or say "well he SHOULDN'T HAVE".

Concerning the gun issue, unless he has shot someone, I don't see any reason why he can't have a gun. Just because someone has the heart to punch someone (as most people do) doesn't mean they have the mentality to shoot someone.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by something wicked

 

No, it wasn't "mob rule". He was not using the support of the majority to enforce rules upon a minority.

What he used was called "vigilante rule", which is just the way things work out this way. Our crime rate is exceptionally low, and if it weren't for the pot that the cops keep busting people for, they would only be left with minor traffic violations and drunk roughnecks to take up their time.

Thoreau once, in Civil Disobedience, stated as his opening paragraph:

I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least";(1) and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war,(2) the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

Eerie how much it sounds like today, isn't it?

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

Vigilante rule is mob rule, it means that if I am in the majority in your town and you are in the minority, I make the rules. Interesting you use those terms as (I think you are by your avatar) a black man. Vigilante rule meant the rope for any black people the (majority) white people wanted to subjugate not too long ago - we are way off topic here, but you might want to think about what a return to vigilante rule means. To me it means you get your way if you shout louder than me or hit me first. That's not law.

Originally posted by ArcAngel
reply to post by onequestion

 

Yes, I don't understand either why our nation would not give a violent convicted felon the legal right to carry a handgun... I'm stumped.

Because the very wording "violent, convicted, felon" can be misleading. An officer could be assaulting YOU and you snatch your arm back and YOU can be labeled a convicted felon!

See how easy that is? You would see things a lot differently then.

What these responses show is the arrogance, selfishness and bigotry of a lot of people.

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by FreeThinkerbychoice

 

I have empathy, but let's review here.

What is the OP complaining about? He can't vote....own firearms...get a job that requires a background check...or *might* be treated differently by LE?

None of those are show stoppers, imo. Moreover, he can probably live quite well without any of it.

I wonder how much inconvenience that represents compared to the damage sustained by his victims?

edit on 17-2-2013 by loam because: (no reason given)

Every job requires a background check now (I work in employment) so in effect we have sentenced these individuals to never holding a legal job again (yes even Burger King does background checks).

A victim unless they have never cast a stone can't expect anyone to be punished forever. In this instance, the guy who had his jaw broke just has to man up and move on. If he's still emotionally scarred from having his jaw broken in a fight years ago, he's a defective organism.

Respectfully, I don't see your point, well I do, but I disagree with it. Why shouldn't 'even' Burger King do background checks? BK are outlets in a time pressured team environment facing off to the general public. They are entitled to know if potential employees will have issues with such an environment based on any previous convictions. If they didn't check and something happened.... they would be the ones who are sued.

However, I think you purposefully post the worst case scenario. If you are upfront that you have committed a crime in the past and can provide evidence of what you have done to change behaviour, then the potential employer should balance that out to see if you are worth taking a chance on - remember, the risk is on them, not you.

This though is all moot. The OP wants a gun, that is the gist of his thread, not if he can get a job.

Before I respond let me reinterate that i work in employment...

You state that a employer "should"...I'm sorry but that has stopped being the case now.

WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE SUPPOSED TO DO!!! I guarantee you can't answer that, and because by the grace of God you aren't in the situation you will either turn your head or say "well he SHOULDN'T HAVE".

Concerning the gun issue, unless he has shot someone, I don't see any reason why he can't have a gun. Just because someone has the heart to punch someone (as most people do) doesn't mean they have the mentality to shoot someone.

No, you judge me wrongly. I think if someone applies for a job all factors need to be considered and that includes any previous convictions - they should all be taken into the mix. All moot for this thread, although people do seem to be missing the actual point.

As for the gun side (the actual thread), it's part of the rules in many states, if you don't agree, start a petition.