Should KADMOS and LAGC own firearms?

[Paradox]

I didn't know this about mass murderers. Seems most of them are lefties.


http://youtu.be/FeTCkoXslsE

[Dr. Gonzo GED]

Well, LAGC has some kind of criminal history that might prevent him from owning them.

I'm pretty sure Kadmos is GTG as long as he doesn't shoot at dairy and beef in the same range session.

[N/A]

Should KADMOS and LAGC own firearms?

Yes. The little marxist as soon as his rights are restored. What we need to keep out of the little marxist hands is computers connected to the internet.

[rci2950]

Well, LAGC has some kind of criminal history that might prevent him from owning them.

I'm pretty sure Kadmos is GTG as long as he doesn't shoot at dairy and beef in the same range session.

whitty..

[AKTexas]

For being left wing? No, being a fucking felon? You can bet your ass they should not. For what I know Kadmos is not a felon but we do know LAGC is. In my book once a criminal always a criminal.

[was_peacemaker]

I am not sure what LAGC's convictions are, as it is non of my business. But I will say that non-violent felons should have their rights restored after they serve their time. Now murders, armed robbers, sexual predators and the like should be barred from owning firearms.

As far as Kadmos I don't see why not.

[alismith]

For being left wing? No, being a fucking felon? You can bet your ass they should not. For what I know Kadmos is not a felon but we do know LAGC is. In my book once a criminal always a criminal.


I am not sure what LAGC's convictions are, as it is non of my business. But I will say that non-violent felons should have their rights restored after they serve their time. Now murders, armed robbers, sexual predators and the like should be barred from owning firearms.
As far as Kadmos I don't see why not.


I disagree with both opinions and base my opinion on history. In the 1700's and 1800's, once a person was released from prison, regardless of the crime, all his rights were restored, including firearms possession. There was no thought about barring anyone from owning firearms, legally.

Now, once a person serves his time, and meets ALL the demands of his sentencing, when released, all of his rights should be restored.

Now, bear with me here before you go off;

1) IF he is still deemed likely to be a repeat offender, then he should not be released back into public.

2) IF he is still considered to be a danger, then he should not be released.

3) IF the time served is not considered to be payment enough for the crime committed, then change the law to include the appropriate amount of time served to make it appropriate.

4) IF the crime committed is worthy of the death penalty, then execute it in a timely fashion and think no more about it. (No stays of execution.)

5) NO criminal gets out for good behavior, nor is released on probation. He serves the full amount of time behind bars or is executed, depending on the crime.

6) "Innocent by reason of insanity" should be changed to, "Guilty by reason of insanity," and if found to be insane, then either put behind bars forever, or executed. Insanity should be seen as never being fit to successfully function in society.

Concerning probation boards today: Those who sit on the probation board must be willing to have the criminal live with them and their families for the duration of the probationary period. IF they don't want this criminal to live with them, then they don't give him probation and he stays behind bars.

So, once all the time is served, I see no problem with restoring to a criminal all the rights he had prior to committing the crime...but the punishment has to be fully served and be appropriate for the crime.

Under the justice system we have today, I would tend to side with those who say they should be denied the right to own firearms upon release. Our justice system is far too lenient on criminals. Justice 100-300 years ago, was more punitive than the slap-on-the-wrist justice system we have operating today.

[Kadmos]

I can honestly say I have never been convicted of a felony

Nor ever actually accused of one.

I might have committed one that I don't know about...too many damn laws to know for sure ;)


I thought about making some self deprecating joke, like that I shouldn't be trusted with a dull butter knife or something...but honestly I take gun ownership very seriously, and gun safety even more seriously, so it's not something I really want to joke about.

But if you all want to, I have no problem with that ;)

[Broondog]

I can honestly say I have never been convicted of a felony

Nor ever actually accused of one.

I might have committed one that I don't know about...too many damn laws to know for sure ;)


I thought about making some self deprecating joke, like that I shouldn't be trusted with a dull butter knife or something...but honestly I take gun ownership very seriously, and gun safety even more seriously, so it's not something I really want to joke about.

But if you all want to, I have no problem with that ;)

i saw you at a gunshow once trying to get one of them loophole guns. i bet you's a criminal.

besides, you looked like the serial killer type.

:lool:

[Kadmos]

besides, you looked like the serial killer type.

:lool:

Says the man who's arms are covered in tattoos ;)


By the way I filled out the forms for that little piece of crap and ended up returning it to the shop 4 days later because the damn thing didn't work!

Sad thing is I kinda want another. Something about those little derringers I really do like the look of. Trigger was awful, bottom barrel wouldn't fire, couldn't find a comfortable grip to hold it, kicked like a small mule, but I still keep looking at them at gunshows.

[Focused Gunfire]

Kad has spoken, see above. LAGC is about to get fuck when it comes to guns. To my understanding he is about to finally regain his rights as a freeman of the United States. Smack dab in the middle of the biggest second amendment crises since the first AWB. He served his time so he can vote to determine the fate of the country, but he can’t own a simple tool.

[Broondog]

Says the man who's arms are covered in tattoos ;)




oh shit, i've been stereotyped! i must be a mad dog killer type. add in my guns and.....well hell, look out world, here i come.

:crazy:

[l921428x]

Hell yes. Nuttin bigger than a .22 though. use them to shoot down helicopters. Air support......

[Kadmos]

oh shit, i've been stereotyped! i must be a mad dog killer type. add in my guns and.....well hell, look out world, here i come.

:crazy:

Oh yeah.

Tattooed gun owning white guy living in a cabin in rural Missouri...how is the meth business these days?

:lool:

j/k

[Broondog]

Oh yeah.

Tattooed gun owning white guy living in a cabin in rural Missouri...how is the meth business these days?

:lool:

j/k

i don't live in Jefferson County so i wouldn't know. :-)

[5.56NATO]

I am guessing kad would join the regime in treason against fellow Americans in any given crisis, I doubt if lagc would.

[Kadmos]

i don't live in Jefferson County so i wouldn't know. :-)

Jeff Co? I'm not really up on the specifics of the meth trade these days....but good information to know. Small cabins in Jeff Co, more likely to be booby-trapped, that's useful info ;)


I am guessing kad would join the regime in treason against fellow Americans in any given crisis, I doubt if lagc would.

Eh, not really a "joiner", kinda do my own thing.

On a side note, did you know Benedict Arnold has a monument to his wounded foot at Saratoga? It's called the "Boot monument", and describes him as the "most brilliant soldier". History is a strange strange thing.

[Krupski]

Should KADMOS and LAGC own firearms?

Should PARADOX mind his own fucking business concerning other members?

[Broondog]

Jeff Co? I'm not really up on the specifics of the meth trade these days....but good information to know. Small cabins in Jeff Co, more likely to be booby-trapped, that's useful info ;)





Jeff Co, MO was once touted as the meth capitol of the country. i think it was Discovery Channel that did a show on meth heads and they filmed most of it in Jeff Co.

i work and shop in Jeff Co but don't live there.

[AKTexas]

Should PARADOX mind his own fucking business concerning other members?

Should krupski lighten the fuck up? Really dude, he is just starting a discussion. No harm no foul. It is not like he called them shaved apes or something...

[Kadmos]

It is not like he called them shaved apes or something...

Good point, but I don't shave.

It's all good by me Roger, just having a bit of fun.

It is a bit of an oddity though, why so many liberals/democrat/lefties. Obviously I don't subscribe to the liberalism is a mental illness idea. But this is sort of an odd trend. On the other hand, if you drop the Fort Hood shooter from the list, I'm pretty sure they are all white, which makes another statistical anomaly.

[LAGC]

Kad has spoken, see above. LAGC is about to get fuck when it comes to guns. To my understanding he is about to finally regain his rights as a freeman of the United States. Smack dab in the middle of the biggest second amendment crises since the first AWB. He served his time so he can vote to determine the fate of the country, but he can’t own a simple tool.

I'm kind of hoping that by this time next year, things will have cooled down some, barring many more crazy folks going bonkers between now and then. My 5-year "waiting period" is up March 27, 2014. I've had no new arrests, only a couple speeding tickets, so I'm cautiously optimistic that I'll be successful in getting my last civil right restored.

I'll be shopping around for attorneys around this time next year, researching to find out which ones have the best track record of being successful in court on gun rights restoration petitions, then putting in my application through him/her first thing on March 28. :o

I'm hoping the gun and ammo scare is over by then as well, so there should be some great deals as inventory floods the market, all these panic-buyers realizing the government isn't going to confiscate after all.

I mean, really, if the Sandy Hook tragedy can't get serious gun control done in this country on a national level, nothing will.

[Krupski]

Should krupski lighten the fuck up? Really dude, he is just starting a discussion. No harm no foul. It is not like he called them shaved apes or something...
Check your PM.

[Krupski]

I mean, really, if the Sandy Hook tragedy can't get serious gun control done in this country on a national level, nothing will.

WTF kind of statement is that? No amount of "gun control" would have prevented that tragedy.

However, maybe a little more access to MENTAL HEALTH CARE and/or ELIMINATION OF GUN FREE VICTIM ZONES could have prevented it.

We already have "serious gun control". "Serious" to the point of being unconstitutional.

[LAGC]

Of course. You know it, and I know it.

But such sensational tragedies play well to the emotions and knee-jerk laws. Such a massacre was all it took to ban guns in Australia.

All I'm saying is that, come a few months from now when this whole thing blows completely over with no new appreciable gun controls on the books, it will just go to show that even the worst possible tragedy isn't enough to override Americans' respect for the Constitution.

If the gun-controllers fail this time, its all over for them. They've shot their load and came back with nothing.

The march of continued relaxation of gun laws will continue, unabated.

[Krupski]

Of course. You know it, and I know it.

But such sensational tragedies play well to the emotions and knee-jerk laws. Such a massacre was all it took to ban guns in Australia.

All I'm saying is that, come a few months from now when this whole thing blows completely over with no new appreciable gun controls on the books, it will just go to show that even the worst possible tragedy isn't enough to override Americans' respect for the Constitution.

If the gun-controllers fail this time, its all over for them. They've shot their load and came back with nothing.

The march of continued relaxation of gun laws will continue, unabated.

Honestly, I don't believe ANYTHING happened other than a "Grade B" movie production with lousy actors and a transparent story line.

It's all part of Obama's master plan to disarm the Country.

Take one FEMA drill. Stir in a few smiling actors, show a few blurry pictures of one gun, put up donation pages on Facebook before the "tragedy date" (oops! that was supposed to be AFTER!) then when everyone is crying and screaming "gun control", bring on the legislation.

Yes, the gun grabbers have shot a load, but it's not their last. If this one fails, they will next turn to ACTUALLY killing kids so it looks more realistic on YouTube.

Ever read "Unintended Consequences"? The shit going on today is right out of that book... albeit with a false flag "school shooting" instead of a "stadium massacre". Killing kids always works better than killing adults. Everyone loves kids (except gun grabbers).

All the facts are there... video in full color on YouTube... exposing the hoax. Why doesn't anyone care?

[Paradox]

Should PARADOX mind his own fucking business concerning other members?

Roger, I did put a little smilie facey thing next to my post.

[Krupski]

Roger, I did put a little smilie facey thing next to my post.

Hey... let me apologize to you for my post. I was in a really shitty mood and when I saw your post it sent me over the top.

I've seen a lot of "Should so-and-so be banned" or "Should so-and-so be sent to the Roadhouse" or "Should something be done with so-and-so because we don't like them" posts and threads and all of those pissed me off a little... I saw it as people not minding their own business and wanting to screw others....... but I never said anything about it before.

I was in a bad mood and the tiny extra from your post set me off.

I was out of line - I apologize and I hope no hard feelings?

-- Roger

[Paradox]

Hey... let me apologize to you for my post. I was in a really shitty mood and when I saw your post it sent me over the top.

I've seen a lot of "Should so-and-so be banned" or "Should so-and-so be sent to the Roadhouse" or "Should something be done with so-and-so because we don't like them" posts and threads and all of those pissed me off a little... I saw it as people not minding their own business and wanting to screw others....... but I never said anything about it before.

I was in a bad mood and the tiny extra from your post set me off.

I was out of line - I apologize and I hope no hard feelings?

-- Roger

No hard feelings. :anim_beer-1:

[Krupski]

No hard feelings. :anim_beer-1::thumbsup: Thanks.

[Warthogg]

Should KADMOS and LAGC own firearms?


Yup


Wart

[mrkalashnikov]

I'm all for law-abiding legal citizens of the USA owning firearms.

Criminals, Islamists, border jumping illegal aliens, deranged psycopaths, woman/child-beaters, TSA agents, or other anti-American scumbags....no.

[N/A]

I'm all for law-abiding legal citizens of the USA owning firearms.

Criminals, Islamists, border jumping illegal aliens, deranged psycopaths, woman/child-beaters, TSA agents, or other anti-American scumbags....no.


I remember on here just before the last assault weapon ban took effect, that the prevailing opinion on here was that all Americans had the right to own firearms...that included felons who once they paid their debt to society needed their rights restored. Now the pervailing opinion is that felons shold just be shot...odd how when our rights are threatened this time around many change their mind on things and are ready to throw some groups under the bus to protect their own rights.


ETA: Of course, I could be comfortable with throwing the TSA agents under the rear duals.

[mrkalashnikov]

I actually don't have a problem w/ ex-felons having their 2nd rights "returned" to them... after they've been released and demonstrated they will be law-abiding (non-criminal) citizens. As long as they weren't involved in violent felony crimes, such as murder, attempted murder, rape, kiddy-buggering, etc..in which case they should be executed by the state immediately after conviction. My 2 cents.

[AKTexas]

Now that the fox has keys to the hen house and is now armed. He will take your chickens and shoot the cow because it is a witness.

I've been around enough ex-cons to form my opinion that once a criminal always a criminal.

AKTX

[LAGC]

I've been around enough ex-cons to form my opinion that once a criminal always a criminal.

I can certainly understand why a lot of folks think that way. According to various studies, within 3 years, over 50% of released prisoners end up back in prison.

Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates are robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).

Surprisingly, sex offenders and murderers have the lowest recidivism rates, with only 2.5% of released rapists being arrested for another rape, and only 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide being arrested for another homicide.

And, of course, the fact that only 6% of all criminals commit over HALF of all crimes. (Mostly gang-bangers.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism#Recidivism_rates

I fall in two of the highest risk categories, yet here I am: 4 years later with no new arrests. I figure I'm bucking the odds something fierce.

I'm not sure why thieves have such high recidivism rates, other than the fact that kleptomania is a form of addiction and can be hard to break free from unless you are seriously willing to change your thinking. Cognitive therapy programs while in prison can be quite effective, but only if the prisoner is open to change. No program will work if the desire to better oneself isn't there.

I do think diversion programs like drug courts, mental health courts, veterans courts, etc. that try intensive supervision and rigorous programming intervention are much better at preventing recidivism than just throwing people in prison for years and years where many of them learn how to be even better, faster, smarter criminals.

Europe has much lower recidivism rates than we do, and they treat their prisoners a lot better as well. Clearly getting "tough on crime" and locking people up for long periods of time, causing prison over-crowding and hostile conditions isn't conducive to reforming criminals. We need a new approach. (Of course, it would help if we ended the War on Drugs and kept all the non-serious/non-violent criminals out of there to begin with.)

[1 Patriot-of-many]

I am guessing kad would join the regime in treason against fellow Americans in any given crisis, I doubt if lagc would. I agree.

[Krupski]

Now that the fox has keys to the hen house and is now armed. He will take your chickens and shoot the cow because it is a witness.

I've been around enough ex-cons to form my opinion that once a criminal always a criminal.

AKTX

People can be charged with and convicted of "felonies" for spitting crosswise. A "felony" is simply a "crime" that has a sentence of one year or more (one year and one day actually since the first time it happened, the defendant successfully argued that a year has 365.25 days and therefore a 365 day sentence could not be a felony).

NON-VIOLENT "felons", after their release from prison, have paid their debt. Since they are "paid up", everything should go back to normal (including firearms rights).

To deny firearm rights implies that the person is still "guilty" or still "owes some debt". In that case, they should still be in prison.

When the sentence is over, the debt is paid in full and ALL rights should be restored.

If a "violent" felon is denied firearms (which I agree with), then this implies that society assumes he will be "violent" again. And THIS implies that he should still be in prison.

It doesn't make sense to return a "violent" person to society in order to be "violent" again.

Lastly, if felons are to be denied firearms, then we should start with the BATFE. I would assume that gun running (especially gun running that results in murders) could be called "felonies".

[AKTexas]

I fall in two of the highest risk categories, yet here I am: 4 years later with no new arrests. I figure I'm bucking the odds something fierce.



If you get your rights back and I hope you prove me wrong.

[AKTexas]

People can be charged with and convicted of "felonies" for spitting crosswise. A "felony" is simply a "crime" that has a sentence of one year or more (one year and one day actually since the first time it happened, the defendant successfully argued that a year has 365.25 days and therefore a 365 day sentence could not be a felony).

NON-VIOLENT "felons", after their release from prison, have paid their debt. Since they are "paid up", everything should go back to normal (including firearms rights).

To deny firearm rights implies that the person is still "guilty" or still "owes some debt". In that case, they should still be in prison.

When the sentence is over, the debt is paid in full and ALL rights should be restored.

In a perfect world that would be fine, but I know better than to believe that the criminal has reformed. I know first hand a few white collar criminals that go right back out and pick up where they left off but this time armed with more knowledge on how to be a better criminal.


If a "violent" felon is denied firearms (which I agree with), then this implies that society assumes he will be "violent" again. And THIS implies that he should still be in prison.

It doesn't make sense to return a "violent" person to society in order to be "violent" again.

Lastly, if felons are to be denied firearms, then we should start with the BATFE. I would assume that gun running (especially gun running that results in murders) could be called "felonies".

Happens all the time. I can tell how many times I've read the news and find criminals that commited crimes of violent nature released due to over crowding and yet the next time they are busted for even a more serious crime.

[Krupski]

In a perfect world that would be fine, but I know better than to believe that the criminal has reformed. I know first hand a few white collar criminals that go right back out and pick up where they left off but this time armed with more knowledge on how to be a better criminal.


You have to distinguish between "real" crime and bogus crime. There are a zillion little, minor, penny-ante things that are a "crime".

If someone is arrested and convicted of, say, eating an ice cream cone while walking under a full moon because in 1897 it was a crime in Bumfuck, Illinois, and still on the books, should we consider that person to be a "hardened criminal" who is "not reformed"?

I know my example is a bit crazy, but hopefully you get the point. (see http://www.dumblaws.com )

And, as far as "white collar" criminals, if some guy commits some "white collar" crime like doctoring company books to avoid taxes or to embezzle money, is that person VIOLENT?

Sure, the act was illegal and maybe even immoral if it financially hurts someone else, and the person should pay for the crime (prison or whatever), but that person should not be denied his God given right to self defense.

The ONLY people who should be denied firearms are VIOLENT people, not merely a blanket label of "felon" or "criminal"... IMHO. :)

[AKTexas]

You have to distinguish between "real" crime and bogus crime. There are a zillion little, minor, penny-ante things that are a "crime".

If someone is arrested and convicted of, say, eating an ice cream cone while walking under a full moon because in 1897 it was a crime in Bumfuck, Illinois, and still on the books, should we consider that person to be a "hardened criminal" who is "not reformed"?

I know my example is a bit crazy, but hopefully you get the point. (see http://www.dumblaws.com )

Irrelevant red herring just like saying nukes on the subject of gun control. This is about here and now in the modern times. Stupid laws are just that and probably wont hold water.


And, as far as "white collar" criminals, if some guy commits some "white collar" crime like doctoring company books to avoid taxes or to embezzle money, is that person VIOLENT?

Sure, the act was illegal and maybe even immoral if it financially hurts someone else, and the person should pay for the crime (prison or whatever), but that person should not be denied his God given right to self defense.

The ONLY people who should be denied firearms are VIOLENT people, not merely a blanket label of "felon" or "criminal"... IMHO. :)

It seems these days anyone can become violent at the drop of a hat. Lets say a guy commits a B&E to steal someones hard earned property to buy some crack then gets caught in the act by the homeowner with a gun but is allowed to walk free because, well maybe he learned his lesson? Yeah he learned his lesson. He won't B&E unarmed the next time. I'm not willing to be soft on crime, you can do it all you want.