When We're All Convicted Felons

reply to post by qualm91


What I was suggesting is that instead of actually conspiring to add more felonious laws to keep more people from owning weapons, a lot of dumb felonies (stealing pineapples, for instance) could be a natural product of corporate influence in our nation's capitol.
In the example I provided, pineapple plantation lobbyists throwing money at it hoping for harsher punishment against the dreaded pineapple thief.

Or most likely a combination of both.

reply to post by qualm91



OP, you should highlight the text copied from the original archive by using the "ex-text" button in the edit dialogue.

For example "[ ex ] blah blah blah [ /ex ]" (without spaces of course)

becomes

blah blah blah

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
reply to post by qualm91

 

OP, you should highlight the text copied from the original archive by using the "ex-text" button in the edit dialogue.

For example "[ ex ] blah blah blah [ /ex ]" (without spaces of course)

becomes

blah blah blah

Okay, thank you for the tip!

I'm very curious as to why so many here are getting stuck on the "Source" and "Copyright" and T&C issues?

This is a thread of common sense and just outright truth if you stop and think, look around and take stock of what many know is happening. It seems that there are a few attempting to derail the thread and discredit the OP.

The info provided here really doesn't even need a source if we look at reality. The source is all of us and the proof is all around us everyday.

Good job OP and well written.

Peace

reply to post by jude11


No, but it is apparent in the first couple of replies in this thread that people are mistaking the OP's post as original work/research, and that is not the case.

I'm not trying to derail the thread at all, I am an avid supporter of the 2nd amendment. I do, however, agree that violent criminals should not be allowed to purchase or own a firearm.

The issue with not sourcing your material is that it creates legal issues for ATS. That is why it is clearly stated in the T&C than any external text should be very clearly demonstrated as such.

For example:

Good job OP and well written.

The OP didn't write it!

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
reply to post by jude11

 

No, but it is apparent in the first couple of replies in this thread that people are mistaking the OP's post as original work/research, and that is not the case.

I'm not trying to derail the thread at all, I am an avid supporter of the 2nd amendment. I do, however, agree that violent criminals should not be allowed to purchase or own a firearm.

The issue with not sourcing your material is that it creates legal issues for ATS. That is why it is clearly stated in the T&C than any external text should be very clearly demonstrated as such.

For example:

Good job OP and well written.

The OP didn't write it!

edit on 12-5-2013 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

No, people, I didn't write it! I'm fixing the confusion now. Can we move on from that? Just read the article (which I did not write, I simply wanted to share) and tell me your opinions. Good lord.

reply to post by qualm91

Some laws need to be in place to prevent chaos; however, aside from that, you make a very good point, and the system is certainly taking advantage of us, and making a fortune to boot.

They make the laws so complicated with legalese, that only trained lawyers can understand it. Then they tell us that ignorance of the law is no excuse. We don't stand a chance, and they like it that way.

Originally posted by StarsInDust
reply to post by qualm91

 

Some laws need to be in place to prevent chaos; however, aside from that, you make a very good point, and the system is certainly taking advantage of us, and making a fortune to boot.

They make the laws so complicated with legalese, that only trained lawyers can understand it. Then they tell us that ignorance of the law is no excuse. We don't stand a chance, and they like it that way.

Yes, I've been reading up on many somewhat pointless laws lately. Fun fact: Did you know that an undercover cop vehicle or a canine unit cannot initiate a traffic stop if their windows are tinted? I am not sure if this is just in the state of West Virginia (I found this in the West Virginia law book so I know that it is legit at least for this state) or if it applies to any state, but I found that very interesting.

Fun fact: Did you know that an undercover cop vehicle or a canine unit cannot initiate a traffic stop if their windows are tinted? I am not sure if this is just in the state of West Virginia (I found this in the West Virginia law book so I know that it is legit at least for this state) or if it applies to any state, but I found that very interesting.

reply to post by qualm91


No, I never heard of that one, but at least that particular restriction is on undercover cops and canine units. So much of the time the ridiculous stuff is just implemented on us poor civilians.

Originally posted by benrl
Fortunately for now atleast, we live under a system of laws that currently allow for felons to get the felony reduced and expunged at a later date.

It involved showing a history of not offending any more, so if you are convicted and are not a "Career" criminal it can be rather easy to remove a felony conviction by reducing it to a misdemeanor after the terms of the sentencing has been finished.

This is the best post on the thread.

This is what all of us 'felons' (latin for evil ones or some such) should be aspiring towards right now.

reply to post by jude11


Who is derailing? Maybe I shouldn't have said anything, but I was just helping a friend out with her first thread on ATS.

reply to post by runetang


Actual expungement as described is only available in a small handful of states. For most -- felonies may be set-aside, but never expunged, which means, for all practical purposes -- a felons rights will never be restored, no matter how trivial or non-violent the crime, and no matter how much time has passed since their conviction without incident or record.

This is by design I think. We talk a lot about second chances in the country, but it is mostly hot air.What we really want is a permanent underclass of obedient tools.

Just goes to show that gun rights are really just privelages that can be taken away.

reply to post by links234


Many of our "rights" are simply privileges these days. Which is unfortunate to say, but is very obviously true. I do agree that violent offenders or those who have been institutionalized for being mentally ill in the past should not be allowed to own guns, just for the simple fact that they would be the most obvious people whom could become violent, even deadly. But even if one is a felon, I don't believe that if it is a non-violent crime, gun rights or voting rights should be taken away. Why should someone, just for an example, who is a drug addict and gets caught with drugs get their voting rights taken away? Does the fact that they got caught with drugs mean that their opinion just automatically doesn't count?

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by runetang

 

Actual expungement as described is only available in a small handful of states. For most -- felonies may be set-aside, but never expunged, which means, for all practical purposes -- a felons rights will never be restored, no matter how trivial or non-violent the crime, and no matter how much time has passed since their conviction without incident or record.

This is by design I think. We talk a lot about second chances in the country, but it is mostly hot air.What we really want is a permanent underclass of obedient tools.

The boyfriend that I kept mentioning throughout this thread has something to add to this. Now you can hear it in his own words, his own experience :

I am a convicted felon for a drug charge and a DWI. I am from Arkansas, where when you receive a felony for these types of crimes, you are offered a more extensive version of probation or drug court, where at the completion of either program, your felonies will be expunged. They even allow you to do prison time at a facility for addicts (usually 9 months). Now the problem I face is that my felonies were received in the great state of West Virginia, which gives you felonies and absolutely no program to help you get rid of them or, in my case, a plea agreement which states if I EVER try to get it expunged, they will re-introduce my charges and fines and send me to prison, even after the completion of my probation. Also, my girlfriend, who also received they same initial charge, was plead down to a misdemeanor, but they put a stipulation in her plea agreement that under no circumstances will she be able to discharge this from her record.

What I'm getting at here is that very few states, or even circuit courts do these kinds of things to "help out" non-violent offenders anymore. My gun and voting rights have been stripped but will most likely be given back to me later on. The irony of that, though, is when I move back to Arkansas, I will not be allowed to vote or own a gun. My rights that the courts have given back to me are only able to be exercised in their jurisdiction, i.e., West Virginia.

I guess it all depends where you get caught, if you're a convicted felon. I believe that Federal law needs to be reformed to allow certain people to regain their rights, but that's just not the case in this day and age.

5 or 6 years ago I stated to write a song I called "Everybody's a Felon". It seemed like everyone I knew had a felony.

Some of the lyrics went like this . . .

Everybody's a Felon. They fill your rap sheet as you're walking down the street.

Everybody's a Felon. Look up and wave hi at the eye up in the sky.

When you're driving around they know where you are found.

"What about our bill of rights? Shut Your Mouth! Turn off all the lights!

reply to post by qualm91


It is a shame that the fed trumps State's Rights at all. Not only on this issue, but on a host of them. Drug laws come to mind.

reply to post by qualm91


You've caught me in a quandry. I do believe in voting rights but I don't believe in gun rights. I don't think felons should be denied the right to vote. However, I do believe that violent felons should be denied the privelage to own a gun.

There's been a breakdown in the justice system for the last 200 years. This idea that punishment is suitable more than rehabilitation is. It's kind of the 'grounded' policy of law. If you misbehave you'll have your rights and privelages taken away, much like a child today loses their video games or whatnot. For some kids it works just fine, for many others though it does little to prevent it from happening again.

This thread should be less about a single "right" being taken away and more about the failure of the justice system as it is.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by qualm91

 

You've caught me in a quandry. I do believe in voting rights but I don't believe in gun rights. I don't think felons should be denied the right to vote. However, I do believe that violent felons should be denied the privelage to own a gun.

There's been a breakdown in the justice system for the last 200 years. This idea that punishment is suitable more than rehabilitation is. It's kind of the 'grounded' policy of law. If you misbehave you'll have your rights and privelages taken away, much like a child today loses their video games or whatnot. For some kids it works just fine, for many others though it does little to prevent it from happening again.

This thread should be less about a single "right" being taken away and more about the failure of the justice system as it is.

That is mostly what I was getting at when I posted this. How many different seemingly ridiculous felonies can lead to losing your rights. I believe the reason why there are such severe penalties for minor infractions is because they want to remind us that we are, in fact, under their control. They never want us to forget this, because then we might actually open our eyes and try to do something about the injustice in this country. Some criminals should have their "videogames taken away", as you said. But others should not. Others need help, not punishment, and the court system is rarely capable of distinguishing the two.

To me this is the agenda going in regard to felons.

The agenda is that you make so many things a felony that there are high chances that many different types of people will become felons. You send these "dangerous" felons to prison, release them after a few years and rape them financially for the rest of their lives through probation. They will be unable to better their lives or find suitable employment because of their record. If you're lucky they will even get arrested again and the process will start over. If you're REALLY lucky they will get caught three times and sent to prison for the rest of their lives under the three strike rule. This will pad your buddies pockets and keep that man from ever having a life. Also by doing this you will make a large percentage of the population unable to vote so that even that small voice they once had is snuffed out.

My opinion is that if someone is too dangerous to own a firearm they should be in prison. If a person is released from behind bars they should be allowed to own weapon and vote. They are paying taxes and being assimilated back into society. If they are a real threat to society then create strong jail sentences and convict only those that are a real threat to society. Obviously the agenda speaks otherwise.