So do any of guys agree that disarming felons is evil?

Depends on the felony

>>31463612
Yes. If we are going to let them live and let them free, saying their debt to society is paid, there is no reason to disarm them. If they must be disarmed for the safety of those around them, they should be locked up for the safety of those around them. If they deserve their freedom, they deserve weapons access.

>>31463638
What about "shall not be infringed" don't you understand you commie faggot?

Disarming them while they're in prison sure. After they've released their debt is supposed to have been paid.

>>31463612
Yes, I do. A man released from prison should be treated no different from anyone else.

>>31463655
>if they deserve freedom, they deserve weapons access.
A man whose wanted by the federal government (i.e. Does not deserve to be free) walks into a gun store. Should he be able to buy a gun?

>>31463725
No you fucking moron

>>31463725
Innocent until proven guilty. There's plenty of people who have been arrested by the federal government without just cause, and in some cases the government's charges are completely thrown out due to being obvious retaliation for not obeying powerful bureaucrats. Here's a few, for instance: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/22/how-pentagon-punished-nsa-whistleblowers

>>31463725
That should be up to the shop owner.

Mandated background checks are deplorable for a multitude of reasons, but I'll summarize by calling them, "un-American."

No.

If they're at risk of re-offending then we should probably look at the correctional process as to why

>>31463725
No, but once he's done his time he should be allowed every right he had before committing the offense.

Of course, it goes without saying that prisons should be designed to discourage recidivism, not cause it.

>>31463725
>A man whose wanted by the federal government (i.e. Does not deserve to be free)
But what did he actually do

Just because he's wanted by the feds doesn't mean he doesn't deserve to be free, they arrest the wrong guy all the time and let him go later

Are we talking moral standards here or legal

>>31463725
>>31463758
>>31463778
>>31463776
It doesn't fucking matter. If you are suspected of a crime, especially at the Federal level you should not be allowed free access to firearms.

>>31463816
Because you might kill...80 people out of 300,000,000?

Why do you value security over freedom so much? Is it maybe that you're a selfish person?

>>31463816
>https://duckduckgo.com/l/?kh=-1&uddg=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FThree-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent%2Fdp%2F1594035229

See above, the average person commits 3 felonies a day. Some of them might even be federal felonies! And most of it is bullshit variety like putting clear plastic wrap instead of translucent on lobster serving packages shipped internationally.

Banning people from their rights on suspicion of crime is insanity.

>>31463684
Are you aware there are other parts of the constitution?

>>31463844
>you might kill...80 people out of 300,000,000?
literally plebian worldview
enjoy your shadowcave

>>31463844
Holy shit you dumb, keep reaching for straws

>>31463908
Could you decrypt your statement for me, I wouldn't mind knowing what's being said about me. So far I see that you think I'm a farmer in a cave...something about Plato?

Nah, you gotta help me out, yo.

>>31463771
If it's up to the owner, then if a shopowner sells firearms without background checking an individual who happens to commit unjustified killings with the purchased weapon the shopowner should be held liable to a certain extent.

Otherwise just mandate background checks across the board

>>31463930
He's talking about the parable of the cave.

He's calling you an ignorant ass because you love freedom and don't believe the government should be able to strip people of rights for being suspected of a crime.

It bears no surprise to me, there's a lot of people who hate freedom on /k/

>>31463940
He probably took babby's first freshman philosophy course and thinks he knows everything about the world now.

>>31463930
it's a going thing people like you are too lazy to vote

>>31463974
>going thing
It's a good thing people like you aren't intelligent enough to fill out a voting form correctly.

>>31463940
>>31463961
Holy shit you guys are retarded. You really think someone awaiting trial on a federal crime should be allowed access to guns?

File: typo.jpg (95KB, 704x514px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 704x514px

>>31463980

>>31463612
"Disarming." They've still got their mitts and their wits. They can use machetes to betray the people of the civilization that tolerates them (only because it does not have the heart to execute them).

>>31463655
This. It is a right to self defense that free men are being unlawfully prevented from exercising.

File: 1463071459369.png (40KB, 825x635px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 825x635px

>>31463991
That only works if you actually had found a flaw in my argument to begin with. All I did was point out that you are an illiterate.

>>31463981
>government says you might have done something
>better strip you of all your rights!
>hey you don't need this annoying 5th amendment right either
>or the 1st
>or any of these really
>because you are suspected of doing something

>>31463725
Why should a gun store be compelled to do the job of police forces without being paid to?

Salespeople are not paid to enforce federal, state, or local laws or ordinances. They are paid to sell goods and sevices.

Should a car dealership have to check to see if a customer wanting to buy a car is wanted? An ice cream parlor?

They aren't cops.

>>31464009
>That only works if you actually had found a flaw in my argument to begin with. All I did was point out that you are an illiterate.

I'm a different guy retard, just pointing out that being a grammar nazi is a horrible strategy if you are in a debate with someone else

>>31464039
You're not wrong. But we're not in a debate. We're solidly in the name-calling phase since the little statist antigunner hasn't actually presented anything resembling an argument in some time.

>>31463981

Which crime? Income tax evasion? Disturbing the peace? Murder or rape? Perjury?

It's pretty stupid to not distinguish between various crimes, and stupider still not to wait until they've been found guilty.

>>31464039
So you admit to not finding a flaw in his argument, just that he made a typo? Solid logic lad

>>31463816
Why should an ice cream parlor be required to screen their customers to see if they have warrants? It's an onerous burden that no one should have to bear absent compensation.

The power to investigate persons should be limited, and requiring businesses to be responsible to weild that power is Orwellian.

>>31464057
If someone is wanted or awaiting trial for a violent crime they should not be allowed free access to weapons. Especially the ability to purchase new ones. Let me guess, you think suspected murderers shouldn't be held without bail? You do know Judges judge cases on a case by case basis and make these rulings depending on the strength of the evidence right?

>>31463931
If I drown somebody in ice cream I buy from you, why should you bear any responsibility for my crime?

File: 1432102421622.png (75KB, 219x186px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 219x186px

>>31464076
>Why should an ice cream parlor be required to screen their customers to see if they have warrants?

You must be a midget because you are really reaching with that one

File: image.jpg (17KB, 450x297px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 450x297px

If your a violent felon with multiple convictions for said violence then you should not have guns. Even after you do your time.

However someone convicted of a drug offence or gta should get the right to own guns again.

>>31463655
Recidivism rates suggest that prison doesn't work. Repeat violent felons should be executed.

>>31463981
You're putting words in people's mouths. No one said awaiting trial. The question was if they were wanted, which means they have not been arrested, or formally and lawfully accused of a crime.

>>31464098
>If your a violent felon with multiple convictions for said violence then you should not have guns. Even after you do your time.
If you are a violent felon who is not able to be rehabilitated by the system then you should never be released into general society, there should be no "you have done your time".

If you have done your time and are fit to be released then all rights should be restored.

>>31464103
I *did* say:
>if we are going to let them live

I'm on your level, anon.

>>31464057
It is outrageous that you think merely accusing someone of something should be sufficient reason to strip them of their rights.

Let me show you how that works in real life.

Example:. The poster I am responding to is a cannibal that rapes babbys to death and eats them.

There. Now do you agree you should be stripped of your rights?

>>31464076
How is that a reach? Please explain to me.

>>31464098
If you are no longer subject to sanctions, such as prison or post-prison supervision, you are free.

If you are still considered a danger to society such that your inherent rights must be infringed for the safety of the public, then you should not be free of either prison, or supervision.

File: clvrgrl.jpg (10KB, 548x451px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 548x451px

>>31464145
You do know that this isn't just some he said she said buttshit right? If a DA finds enough evidence to formally charge an individual that he/she is denied access to their rights

>>31464182
Nah, like parole or probation, felons can be in society without being free. More freedom than jail, but not full freedom. They lost that right when they infringed upon others.

Now, you could argue that some felonys should not be felonys, but thats another issue entirely, we are talking about the felon system itself (which is directly constitutional, btw).

>>31464145
The issue with your thoughts is the DA or judges can only issue warrents, and you are essentially not free when one is made, you just have not made it to jail yet.

If a judge finds your arguement compelling, yes, you can make that poster lose his rights. This is, again, entirely constitutional btw.

>>31463612
Yes, being locked in a cage is usually your penalty for committing a felony, you can't have guns while stuck in the cage. Repeat felons often get killed for waving around an illegal gun despite the fact that they are supposedly not allowed to have them. They get their hands on a gun anyways if they really want one, or they use a knife or a hammer or something else to kill people they really want to kill, or steal from people for money they really want. It's true that our recidivism rate is obscenely high, but that's because we run our prisons like absolute shit. Those prisoners who get out and never again commit a crime should not be punished because some authoritarian faggot thinks they deserve to be punished even after spending time locked in a cage like an animal, as if making these people's lives harder and even more miserable is somehow going to drive them to better behavior. Hint hint, 76+% recidivism would indicate that it doesn't.

>>31464203
Not necessarily. If it were, then why bother having juries and trials?

Are you unaware of the abuses of their power regularly committed by employees of governments?

Framing is a thing. DNA evidence has proved that up to a quarter of death row inmates are not guilty. This is after being convicted, not merely accused.

Merely being suspected is not a valid reason to strip a person of the rights people possess.

>>31464217
The problem with your logic is twofold.

You assume its the system is the sole reason that drives people to commit crimes. Thats false due to the fact that you have to commit a crime to get there

The second reason is you assume we have a perfect way to see who will go out and commit crimes, and who wont after prision. There is no way, so its apart of everyones punishment. Felonys have lifetime consequences.

>>31464236
>Merely being suspected is not a valid reason to strip a person of the rights people possess.

Constitutionally, it is. If a judge decides to put a warrent out on you, your rights are stripped.

Abuses and mistakes will occur no matter what. Its apart of the human condition.

>>31464239
No, you don't have to commit a crime to be accused. Neither do you have to have committed a crime to be convicted.

Over 95% of convictions do not result from trial, but from a plea agreement.

The whole point is not that violent felons should be armed, but that a person deemed to have been sanctioned to the extent the law allows/demands should no longer be not free.

Either they are still being deprived of their rights, not to punih, but to keep people they might harm safe, or they are free.

>>31464239
There is also no way to determine if any person might commit a crime, and this is the exact argument used to support depriving law abiding citizens of their right to have weapons by the gun contro crowd.

Don't start sliding down into that rabbit hole, at all.

>>31464273
>No, you don't have to commit a crime to be accused. Neither do you have to have committed a crime to be convicted.

Yes, mistakes and malfeasance do happen in every legal system. Its impossible to prevent. It has no bearing on the legitmatcy of the logic behind the system.

>Over 95% of convictions do not result from trial, but from a plea agreement.

Which has both partys comeing to an agreement.

>but that a person deemed to have been sanctioned to the extent the law allows/demands should no longer be not free.

Felons are not free until the felony is exponged.

>Either they are still being deprived of their rights, not to punish.

The felony itself, and all that comes with it, IS the punishment anon. Public safety is a factor, but the loss of rights is arguably more of a punishment than the prision time.

Felons are not free, just like those on parole or probation.

>>31464294
>There is also no way to determine if any person might commit a crime,

If they have before, its within reasonable doubt that they will again. Look at recidivism rates.

Your logic is now that free people, the vast majority, who has not committed a felony and never will should be subject to the same restrictions. That is well outside reasonable doubt.

>>31464251
While the judge might issue a warrant, it isn't rightfully the job of business owners to either weild the authority to enforce it by investigating their potential customers, nor should it be their responsibility and burden.

>>31463684
Criminals use to be hung new friend.

>>31464315
It depends how onerous the burden is.

Currently, its a simple phonecall, or online. That is more than reasonable.

>>31464297
After a felon has completed their sentence, including post-prison supervision, they are free.

Just as free as you.

That is, unless they are convicted of certain crimes, like sex offences, in which case they are treated like niggers after the civil war, and have to register their address with law enforcement, and deprived of weapons.

Just like niggers. That's not lawful. It's persecution.

>>31464346
>Just as free as you.

No anon, they are not.

They cant vote, they cant own firearms, federal jury service, depending on the state; all jury service, the right to free travel, certian government benefits, parental custody, etc.

You are fundamentally mistaken anon.

>>31464321
No, it doesn't depend on how easy it is. It depends on whether it is just.

People put up with a great many injustices because it's easier than standing for principle. That doesn't make it lawful.

So reads the Declaration of Independence. It's not your right to investigate someone because they are a potential customer, nor is it something you should have to endure to be a customer.

Stores aren't cops, and customers shouldn't be treated like criminals.

Yes

Fighting the government is a felony. Anybody following their constitutional right to abolish their government are felons

What, you thought killing cops and feds are parking tickets?

>>31464376
>It depends on whether it is just.

Legally, it is correct.

Morally, (like all morals, argueable), i also find it just. Those who proved they cannot be trusted as a US citizen should not enjoy the benefits.

>>31463612
No, they have violated the law, meaning they have disobeyed the state and are no longer deserving of the privileges it entitles.

>>31464375
They do vote, and each state determines how restricted they are. Expungement is supposed to utterly remove all those restrictions, and exists for that reason.

The GAO estimates that more than 90% of citizens commit jailable offences. The arguments you are using regarding recidivsm rates can be, and are being, used by gun control assholes to go after all of us.

That's why this issue is important. It's a slope, and you're arguing we should slide down it some.

We should not, on principle, because those rights are absolute, and just because it's easier to deprive some folks we don't like of those rights doesn't mean we should.

>>31464423
Privileges...

Rights. The state does not grant you rights. You are human, and those rights are inherent in being human.

Humans grant privileges to the state, and thereby, to their peers, and themselves.

They cannot grant rights. They can through force, prevent people from exercising those rights, and sometimes even do so lawfully.

No one can be deprived of rights. They can only be prevented from using them.

>>31463612

The question of whether it's evil can only be determined on a case by case basis.

However, the question of whether violent felons should lose their gun rights is obvious.
Yes, violent felons should lose their gun rights.

>but, the second amendment!
The Constitution provides that a person can be deprived of liberties by due process of law.
Besides, violent felons used to be hung when the 2nd amendment was made. There was no "restoring your rights" after that.

>>31464441

The Constitution specifically says that you can be deprived of rights by due process of law.

>>31464425
>each state determines how restricted they are.

As it should be, they will never serve on a federal grand jury, along with other federal benefits, and no guns.

>expungement

Removes your felon status, and takes years of effort and good behavior to accomplish, as it should be.

>The GAO estimates that more than 90% of citizens commit jailable offences.

Not all jailable offenses are felonys. Not even the majority are. A speeding ticket can be a jailable offense.

>The arguments you are using regarding recidivsm rates can be, and are being, used by gun control assholes to go after all of us.

No, the difference between my arguement and the gungrabbers are felons are convicted of a felony, and thus, are proved to not be able to enjoy the full freedoms of a US citizen. Gungrabbers say those who have not shown they are felons should be subject to felony restrictions.

In short...

My arguement, proof of ineligiblity.

Theirs, no proof.

>It's a slope, and you're arguing we should slide down it some.

Slippery slope is one of the most basic fallacies one can commit.

>We should not, on principle, because those rights are absolute

Unless you prove you are unable to abide by the laws inframed.

With your argument, we should not incarcerate at all because even if you commit a crime, you should not be stripped of your rights.

>>31463612
I've met quite a few felons in volunteering with my church and a few other social groups I've found myself in. Almost all of them fucked up bad one time committing a victimless crime and are now model citizens. Seeing them stripped of their right to vote and bear arms gets me pretty heated.
More so with the guys who hunted all their life and were caught with drugs one time, or tax evasion.
Everybody fucks up once or twice and some people get caught.
Luckily in my state a "forgiveness" letter from the office of the governor alleviates these restrictions, but that letter is hard to get.
Like all laws in our country we need some heavy reforms. But a blanket forgiveness for felons to reinstate their rights is not the answer.

Nonviolent felons yes. Violent felons can get fucked and will never "pay their debt to society"

Shouldn't have got caught fagtron

>>31464476
>>31464477

Now we are getting into "what should be a felony, and what not", and that debate does hold merit.

But thats not the arguement at hand.

>>31464499
With the current laws in place, I think that disarming felons is wrong. There should be a court that judges on a case to case basis but our courts are already so clogged due to a long hard arm of the law attitude we won't ever see that.

>>31464574
I disagree, i think felons should stay disarmed and certion felonys get retroactively moved to misdemeanors.

It could be done congressionally. Keep the sentences the same to prevent a clusterfuck in the prisions though.

>>31463725
If a wanted man enters my store, regardless the product I'm selling, I'm calling the police. "Allowed" is the wrong question to be asking in that case.

>>31463612
Gun control is totally pointless in this age.

>>31463901
None of which allow the government to strip freedoms.

>>31465739
You mean the fifth amendment was just some delusion?

>>31463612
non-violent felonies that did not involve a firearm?
they can keep their gun rights once they finish parole
I don't care if Madoff has a gun, I'd be far more worried if he had a bank account

if the felony is violent or involved a gun, then gun rights should be withheld until they are earned back
I don't know how, maybe just leave it up to judges to assign community service or what have you
if a guy robs a liquor store when he's 19 because he's a crackhead, but kicks it while in prison, gets out, doesn't commit crimes, and starts a family, then he should probably be allowed to own a gun again

>>31463612
Non-violent felons can have their rights uninfringed. Otherwise, no guns for you.

>>31465780
No part of the Bill of Rights grants the government any new powers. The 9th Amendment even says so.