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: 27
57
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by spqrenki
 


Since you edited your post, I'll reply further...


Originally posted by spqrenki
SEE I MENTIONED GOD SO IT MEANS IM A RELIGIOUS NUT AND THAT DISCREDITS MY ENTIRE STATEMENT

See how straw man works? Simple minded folk with no argument choose a word or phrase and harp on it. Your stupid smileys don't make you happy or cute by the way. You know very well what I'm talking about and what I want you to respond to.


Where do I claim you're a religious nut? I merely responded to your characterization that his "inalienable God given rights" were taken away. I merely challenged the view that secular voting and firearm ownership are "inalienable God given rights".

Re the smileys....


Deal with it.




posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by DrumJunkie
 


And this is just what this is about. It doesn't matter how long these people serve in prison. If you're a felon in this country, you can literally rot on the street as much as most people care. Now I'm not a felon. The most I've ever spent in jail was overnight for being stupid drunk. But it's simply not right to treat people this way AFTER they've paid their debt to society. People screw up in life. GET OVER IT!



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


The wording in the Constitution is clear when it comes to the 2nd amendment. "Shall not be infringed". It doesn't say that if you're a felon you can't own a gun. It says "shall not be infringed". Now if you have a problem with the Constitution, take it up with those that wrote it and signed it... which you can do by amending it. If you're not going to try to amend the document, then it's the law of the land above even the Federal Government. Don't like it and don't want to amend it? Move to another country.

You know very well what you were trying to do. You didn't want to argue my point but saw the word GOD and just had to reply. Okay so you can sit there and play dumb all day but I'm not buying it.
edit on 19-2-2013 by spqrenki because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by spqrenki
 



Originally posted by spqrenki
You know very well what you were trying to do. You didn't want to argue my point but saw the word GOD and just had to reply. Okay so you can sit there and play dumb all day but I'm not buying it.


Dude, take some blood pressure medicine...or go for a walk or something.

I merely responded to your post and disagreed with your characterization.


Originally posted by spqrenki
The wording in the Constitution is clear when it comes to the 2nd amendment. "Shall not be infringed". It doesn't say that if you're a felon you can't own a gun. It says "shall not be infringed". Now if you have a problem with the Constitution, take it up with those that wrote it and signed it... which you can do by amending it. If you're not going to try to amend the document, then it's the law of the land above even the Federal Government. Don't like it and don't want to amend it? Move to another country.


I see that you are new, so I'll try this another way.

Review my posting history on these boards. I think you will find I'm very pro Constitution-- including the right to bear arms.

But I have little sympathy for the violent offender that comes on these boards whining about how burdensome it is that he can't legally own a firearm or vote. It's as simple as that.

His issue is not the same as the Gun Rights issue.

Two completely different universes, imo.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I'm just gonna spit this out and leave the topic alone. OP...I know nothing about you and your situation, so this may not apply to you at all.

Punishment is for the purpose of deterring the re-occurrence of a crime and to establish a "fear" in many who may consider committing the same crime. There isn't, or at least shouldn't be a "fine" for a violent crime (rape, murder, etc.). The punishment should escalate for individuals who commit the same crime multiple times and the punishment should match the severity of the crime. There can not be a "5 years for rape" applied to every rape regardless or you set a "price" for which rape is valued. A person shouldn't be able to say "I'll do 20 years to kill that jerk". OP...if you lost your rights, which I don't really see that you did, either the court screwed up or you have a longer history than you have divulged here.

At some point, you may loose everything...like your life. In the mean time, your punishment will grow and if you feel that "price" was loosing your rights, maybe that is a justifiable punishment so next time you consider not going for the needle.
edit on 2/19/2013 by WeAreAWAKE because: Mistake



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 


Pro gun here.....only difference is I actually passed my background check. To break that down a little bit for you, I never got drunk and sucker punched someone who was in an altercation with someone else. If thats even how he ended up serving time which I highly doubt.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 05:36 PM
link   
OK. Let's pretend. Let's pretend OP actually pays attention to some of the suggestions posted here, petitions the governor, and gets his "rights" restored. Now he can own a gun. He can vote. He can serve on a jury. Anything else need to be restored? Well, let's make sure that happens, too.

So, from this sentence forward, he has all his rights restored.

Everybody happy now? OP happy? You did the crime, did your time, and your rights are restored. You paid, but it's over. It's history. So all you people who say, "He should not be punished for the rest of his life." now get your way. His rights are the same as yours and mine.

So what has changed?

It's history, but it's recorded history. His rights are completely restored, but his conviction is not erased from the history books. It's still there. I still have the right to know what happened. I also have the right to react to him based on my knowledge. I have the right to NOT hire him. I have the right to NOT associate with him. There's no law that says I can't do those things. There's no law that insists I hire him. There's no moral code that suggests such either. It's not about his skin color; it's about something he did. I have the right to discriminate against him.

You see, I think a lot of you folks are misinterpreting the word "rights". It does not mean what you think it means. For half the people here his "rights" are theoretical. You have no wish to own a gun. You don't vote anyway, and you don't want to serve on a jury. If those rights were taken away from you, you wouldn't even notice they were gone.

This "punishment for life" has nothing to do with his rights and everything to do with my rights to know what he did, which, by virtue of the web and computers, is easy for me to find out, and my right to react as I see fit. Are you saying I do not have these rights?



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
OK. Let's pretend. Let's pretend OP actually pays attention to some of the suggestions posted here, petitions the governor, and gets his "rights" restored. Now he can own a gun. He can vote. He can serve on a jury. Anything else need to be restored? Well, let's make sure that happens, too.

So, from this sentence forward, he has all his rights restored.

Everybody happy now? OP happy? You did the crime, did your time, and your rights are restored. You paid, but it's over. It's history. So all you people who say, "He should not be punished for the rest of his life." now get your way. His rights are the same as yours and mine.

So what has changed?

It's history, but it's recorded history. His rights are completely restored, but his conviction is not erased from the history books. It's still there. I still have the right to know what happened. I also have the right to react to him based on my knowledge. I have the right to NOT hire him. I have the right to NOT associate with him. There's no law that says I can't do those things. There's no law that insists I hire him. There's no moral code that suggests such either. It's not about his skin color; it's about something he did. I have the right to discriminate against him.

You see, I think a lot of you folks are misinterpreting the word "rights". It does not mean what you think it means. For half the people here his "rights" are theoretical. You have no wish to own a gun. You don't vote anyway, and you don't want to serve on a jury. If those rights were taken away from you, you wouldn't even notice they were gone.

This "punishment for life" has nothing to do with his rights and everything to do with my rights to know what he did, which, by virtue of the web and computers, is easy for me to find out, and my right to react as I see fit. Are you saying I do not have these rights?



I am an executive in the hospitality industry. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to hire a felon. It isn't my choice, but the choice of our insurers. See, a felon is seen as a risk. Nevermind that the felony was a hot check for $1200. Because of the risk to us in court should someone get assaulted....we are not allowed to hire a felon.

While none of us have a right to a job, we all have a right to work. But if you are a felon....your right is amended.

My issue is two fold:

- That we brand felons for life, ignoring what their crime actually was.

- That we have made so many things illegal that becoming a felon is fairly easy to do for someone executing bad judgement (even if only temporarily).

We reduce a persons value to a label: felon. It is no more right to do that than to not hire overweight people because of the risk associated with them. And don't kid yourself....95% of overweight people are that way due to a choice. Take it from a formerly fat person.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE
I'm just gonna spit this out and leave the topic alone. OP...I know nothing about you and your situation, so this may not apply to you at all.

Punishment is for the purpose of deterring the re-occurrence of a crime and to establish a "fear" in many who may consider committing the same crime. There isn't, or at least shouldn't be a "fine" for a violent crime (rape, murder, etc.). The punishment should escalate for individuals who commit the same crime multiple times and the punishment should match the severity of the crime. There can not be a "5 years for rape" applied to every rape regardless or you set a "price" for which rape is valued. A person shouldn't be able to say "I'll do 20 years to kill that jerk". OP...if you lost your rights, which I don't really see that you did, either the court screwed up or you have a longer history than you have divulged here.

At some point, you may loose everything...like your life. In the mean time, your punishment will grow and if you feel that "price" was loosing your rights, maybe that is a justifiable punishment so next time you consider not going for the needle.
edit on 2/19/2013 by WeAreAWAKE because: Mistake


If by "going for the needle" you are referring to drug convictions, you are ignoring the way drug addiction works. It isn't behavioral, it is physiological.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Fascinating thread, a subject that truly merits serious discussion.


Consequently I've got some reading to catch up on before I chuck my tuppenyworth into the pot.

For what it's worth, here is how we go about it in the UK:

www.justice.gov.uk...
edit on 19-2-2013 by squarehead666 because: various



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


Well you stated immediately that your a violent offender, have accepted it, and then you seem to back track and act like a lot was put on you but not necessarily the others involved. You claim this was a one punch deal but to me that seems a bit cliche and easy to go about saying. You also claim to have been on a list for being a professional fighter... How old were you when this happened? Also what type of fighting? How old are you now? What type of lifestyle did you lead after prison? Did you immediately rehabilitate or did you like your new bad boy persona? A accurate description of what happened is needed so that means a step by step outline of the crime from getting to the bar to leaving in a police car. I feel you've dodged quite a bit, not to be rude, but I'm not a believer of anything and like many here am extremely skeptical of ones motives.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by NoJoker13
 


If you want a snapshot of my personality you can get one from reading my profile. I have been on ATS for a few years, almost the entire time i was going through this ordeal. From a lot of my posts and threads you may get a sense of my state of mind as well as the evolution of such.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 06:54 PM
link   
From what I can see the US needs a statute similar to the UK's Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.....It's available as a .PDF at the link I posted.

You could download a copy and forward it to your local representative/lawmaker?
edit on 19-2-2013 by squarehead666 because: s&p



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by squarehead666
 


Im going to check that out for sure and good idea. Thanks for info.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I am an executive in the hospitality industry. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to hire a felon. It isn't my choice, but the choice of our insurers. See, a felon is seen as a risk. Nevermind that the felony was a hot check for $1200. Because of the risk to us in court should someone get assaulted....we are not allowed to hire a felon.


That's right. He's a risk. That's your insurer's call. Frankly, kiting a check for $1200, to me, is worse than getting into a fight. This is not an accidental bar fight. That person has shown himself a thief. That's a character flaw. I wouldn't hire him, though I might hire the OP. The risk to you in court is not just assault, it's larceny, embezzlement, etc. The distinction here isn't valid. It isn't an either/or situation. A few million dollars embezzled could ruin your whole day.


While none of us have a right to a job, we all have a right to work. But if you are a felon....your right is amended.


We've been talking about Constitutional rights. Where in the Constitution is there a "right" to work? It isn't there. You made up that right. Nobody owes you a job and you can work for yourself.


My issue is two fold:

- That we brand felons for life, ignoring what their crime actually was.

- That we have made so many things illegal that becoming a felon is fairly easy to do for someone executing bad judgement (even if only temporarily).


Yes, WE do. We have the right to judge character and make decisions accordingly. We have the right to assess risk and act accordingly. Your insurer has the right to protect itself against your poor decisions by holding your feet to the fire and forcing you to not hire felons. If you did and your hire committed a crime against your customer, you could get sued and your insurance agency would have to pay the claim, which would be a lot more if it came out that you knew ahead of time that you hired a felon. You have the right to find different insurance, too. And you have the right to lobby your insurer to allow you to hire only the right kind of felon. You don't have to remain passive here.

The point is that I am allowed to make a judgement. I'm allowed to assess character to protect myself or my company. That YOU don't agree with my decision doesn't matter to me because you are not the one taking the risk. I am. If the worse happens, it makes no never mind to you, but I am at substantial risk. If you want to get yourself into a position where you must assess risk to you, your company, and your fellow employees whereby if you make the wrong call, you are liable, and you still want desperately to hire felons, I have no problem with that. But if the worst happens, and you are the one who made the decision, it's you I'm coming after.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by AnonyWarp
 

I think the argument is he said he wants his rights back over a fight. Most young people will be in a fight but to SLAP a felony charge on it is pretty bad. If you are in a bar and a fight breaks out, you will either hide, try to get out but most of us will protect ourselves if possible. If he was a killer, rapist or someone that is known to have done great damage to another human being intentionally then it would be another argument. So yes, I think he should have his rights back. I would see a lawyer and try and have it expunged or reduced to a misdemeanor where it should have been in the first place.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


Well for one, I never thought someone on this site would tell anyone to "quit harping on their rights"....

You get a chance to explain your situation if you make it to the interview. Unfortunately with this current economy employers don't have time for that. A person with a felon or even a misdemeanor will be disqualified BEFORE this step.



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by DZAG Wright
 



Originally posted by DZAG Wright
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


EEOC Enforcement Guidance


Originally posted by DZAG Wright
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.


Quoting this because it pretty much says all I need to know about you.

:shk:

Rather ironic that's your advice to the victim and not the perpetrator.

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




Yes I'm aware of that regulation as are employers, yet it isn't helping people with things on their record. In many states an employer doesn't have to give a reason for not hiring or firing someone.

Yes, the people have become too punk. So what you got your arse whipped once, we've all had that (well actually reading this thread I can see not ALL of us) I've had my arse whipped. Was fighting two guys and got whipped on...sore for days. I'm not running round here all victim out, mentally scarred LOL!

Do you complain about people wanting the nanny government to take care of them
?



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by loam
 


The Right to protect yourself is a God given...



posted on Feb, 19 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by spqrenki
 




Originally posted by spqrenki
The wording in the Constitution is clear when it comes to the 2nd amendment. "Shall not be infringed". It doesn't say that if you're a felon you can't own a gun. It says "shall not be infringed". Now if you have a problem with the Constitution, take it up with those that wrote it and signed it... which you can do by amending it. If you're not going to try to amend the document, then it's the law of the land above even the Federal Government. Don't like it and don't want to amend it? Move to another country.


I see that you are new, so I'll try this another way.

Review my posting history on these boards. I think you will find I'm very pro Constitution-- including the right to bear arms.

But I have little sympathy for the violent offender that comes on these boards whining about how burdensome it is that he can't legally own a firearm or vote. It's as simple as that.

His issue is not the same as the Gun Rights issue.

Two completely different universes, imo.




So are you Pro-Constitution or not? Or are you only Pro-Constitution when it suits you?

Does the Constitution state that everyone BUT felons have the Right? Do you have the intellect to put aside your OWN feelings, realize they aren't infallible and admit felons Constitutional Rights are being violated?

If so, can we conclude that you are in favor in certain instances of someones Constitutional Rights being violated?

Now I expect either a non answer or a deflection because it will be too uncomfortable to realize that you aren't as Pro-Constitution as you viewed yourself. You are no different than the people (I'm assuming) you bash pretty regularly for trouncing all over the constitution?



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join