this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue at stake imo

You don't only have to demonstrate a statistical deviance... You have to demonstrate a direct casual link that justifies suspending rights for the sake of public health

E.G. black people are much more likely, statistically speaking, to commit a gun crime. Banning them owning guns would be an obvious infringement on their civil rights. Males ages 20-40 are also statically much more likely to commit a gun crime than other demographics. Same story.

Again that's an argument against the 2nd amendment not against removing the rights of felons.

But as long as you're here, you can also lead a good and active life without voting. A gun is actually more useful than voting is for vast swaths of Americans

Yes, this is the truth. Although I'd replace "vast swaths of" with "almost all".

I'd like to add to frown's reply to this with the following consideration (edit: yikes to this sentence, you'll have to forgive me, it's still early):
Giving people different rights based on statistics is a very dangerous slippery slope that easily leads to discrimination. As far as I know, statistically back people in America are more likely to be felons than white people. Should black people not have access to guns? And men are definitely statistically more likely to be involved in violent crimes. Should men not be allowed to own guns? Where do you draw the line?

1. Second-Class Citizenship.
This is a very broad definition of "second-class citizen" isn't it? I'd argue that it takes more than just one specific restriction to turn you into a second class citizen. Here are some rights that most of us have, though they also come with restrictions. Is everyone who is excluded a second-class citizens?

Freedom of expression: most people have this, but how about the guys banned from using twitter -or our very own booboo- are they second-class citizens?
The right to drive: blind guys don't get to exercise this right. Are they second-class citizens?
__________________________________________________ _________________

2. Slippery-slope Statistics

I accept this point that Frownland, Marie and jwb make: that restrictions based on statistics are a slippery slope that could lead, for example, to racially biased laws. I hope you all know that I am not supporting that.

( Strictly speaking, on your bolded question, Marie, isn't the European answer, "That's correct. They shouldn't be allowed guns - unless they are hunters or farmers who are willing to submit to unannounced home inspections to check that they are maintaining their gun-security cabinets.)
__________________________________________________ ______________________

3. My revised position.

Upon mature reflection, as they say, I would like to revise my earlier position. It's not fair to make a blanket restriction about gun rights and apply it to anyone convicted of a felony.

As jwb, above (and elph, I think) have also hinted at or suggested, I would support instead a system like this:
Case-by-case examinations: felons with only one conviction would not face a gun ban, but felons with repeated convictions, and especially of gun-related crimes, are banned from having guns if judged best for public safety. As such, they'd pretty much join the ranks of other people who carry life restrictions, the pedofiles, etc:

I’m sure they’ll happily oblige.

:laughing:

It's a broad definition since it's a broad category, much like felons.

There are alternative platforms that they can use, very different from having rights restricted by their government. It also makes it difficult to immigrate to a country where you feel you'll be treated right. It's also not like you can assume a new identity to evade legal restrictions like you can with an online platform (not that this applies to boo boo or anything...:shycouch:)

Though you can say that Twitter's rising (maybe?) social role is approaching government level. That fold makes it an interesting question sort of along the same vein of whether or not internet should be a human right given how central it is to modern success.

If the government that restricted them does not provide an alternative for them to lead an otherwise normal life, then yes.

I can get down with the case by case approach but think that refining gun laws to exclude people with a history of inciting violence (felon or no) or something along those lines would be a better measure. Getting people to recognize that the gun fetish is a form of cowardice would be a good extralegal approach.

Maybe mine and others' stances might seem extreme but the disconnect might be cultural. None of the below is about your stance, it's just what's influenced mine.

In the US, taking away gun rights isn't just one thing that felons have to deal with, it's one of thousands. To begin with, most of our laws are made to protect the upper class from the lower class since the upper class makes the laws. As a result, many acts of desperation create felons who struggle with their criminal status for life while widereaching upper class crimes such as embezzlement or the longterm violence of illegally poor working conditions are often punished with fines that the perpetrators can afford.

Our probation system is designed to punish slip ups typically not even related to the crime in question, which extends what could be a two year prison sentence to decades of struggling just to get to "normal". Felons face obstacles when looking for work that often resigns them to lower class positions that create desperation. They can't rent from many places on the assumption that they're violent. They (non-pedos!) can't be involved with their children's schools. They're required to be ready to explain themselves to get people to accept that they won't be violent where others are given the benefit of the doubt until they act like they're going to be violent.

I went into it before because it's a huge element of it, but the psychological toll of being told that you're inferior because you can't be trusted not to be violent in so many ways creates more criminals than it deters. It's similar to abused children being told that they're nothing or evil by their abusers' violence or words. They start to believe it and they act accordingly.

Lastly, Europeans think we're obsessed with race, but I think if you asked americans what a felon looks like it would be pretty telling. Our civil rights laws simply widened the pool to impact more poor people on top of the black people that were already being oppressed by our justice system.

If we had a functional legal system I'd probably be closer to your stance but I've seen it **** up too many lives and our repeat offense/probation violation statistics reflect that anecdotal evidence.

Of course they make sure those fees and fines are almost impossible to get paid off

That looks like yet one more example of the GOP's blatant policy of voter repression to me.

Thanks for fleshing out a bit of much-needed context about what it means to be have a criminal record in the USA. :thumb:

It is but it’s still a part of the same racist capitalist structure.

I think you’re looking at a micro section of the oppression and a lot of the response you’re getting is how it applies to the big picture. It might be unfair because it may seem like I and maybe we are kind of associating your opinion with the overall structure of oppression that we know you oppose. It’s hard for me to see it piecemeal because it’s like this hurricane force of virulent ultra toxic oppression. At this point I’m just done with the whole ****ing thing.

Thanks for that comment, OH. You make a very good point.

Of course I only have an outsider's perspective on life in the US, and have rather slipped into a partisan, good guys/bad guys mindset - that all will be well again with Dems back in power. I haven't been pushed to the point of rejecting the whole set up, perhaps because I've never seen the inequalities up close as you have, but also because our characters are very different - as I'm sure you will have noticed by now. ;)

I don’t really feel that way. We have a lot in common.

Yeah sure.

Yes, OH, that's true. We're often posting together in the same threads and if I had to draw up a list of friends on MB, you'd be right near the top.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it Batloooooloolololololololooooooord

Apparently your being alike amounts to posting in the same threads.

... plus we joined in the same year.

@OH:

https://image.spreadshirtmedia.com/i...ns-t-shirt.jpg

Church

Aww... you two make a cute couple.

lol

I'm a 3 time felon. Should I own a gun?

Hell yeah. In fact you should have to own a gun as well as one of those t-shirt cannons they have at hockey games.

One of these too

https://media1.tenor.com/images/817a...itemid=7536625

:laughing: this is low key the funniest post I've seen here in months

Yes but only with guns that can shoot one bullet at a time

like a old 1834 musket ball rifle

"3 time felon" really tells us nothing tbh

But out of principle yes

It tells you the same amount of information as the title of this thread.

Should felons be allowed to own guns?

Well, that depends. Are they non-violent crimes? Has the person reintegrated into society favorably? Does that person have a history of violence?

It's such a blanket statement for each case to case basis. In my case, they were all non-violent crimes, I have no history of violence, and I've reintegrated into society favorably.

Should I be able to own a gun legally as a convicted felon? Yes.

Do I want to own a gun as a convicted felon? No.

What were the 3 felonie

I already addressed this as best I can. Yes °felon" is a blanket term that is over inclusive. That's a problem with this sort of law, but beyond that I'm saying that no matter the felony there's no reason to assume they pose an extra risk with a legal gun except for maybe crimes where a legal gun is used, such as domestic shootings. In that case maybe I could see restrictions. But not just any violent or gun crime because most of them don't involve legal guns anyway.

So you would say that if a felon committed a violent crime with a gun, they do their time and are released, they should lose their right to own a firearm (in certain circumstances)?

If so, what circumstances would you say necessitate that? A school shooting? A church shooting?

Like I said if we were going to go case by case the only plausible scenario I can think of is cases like domestic murder or abuse. That's the only kind of crime that typically involves a legal gun that isn't severe enough to warrant life/the death penalty. To me, mass shooters should never see the light of day, so they aren't relevant.

Interesting. I don't know if I agree with you. Generally my take has been that if a criminal has done their time and is released, their rights should be fully restored. They will have enough issues with finding employment with their felony record. That said, I'm not a hardliner on the issue, I could be swayed.

Are you a supporter of the death penalty, out of curiosity?

I mean I'm actually making a concession to say on a case he case basis maybe some people should be restricted. My initial impulse is like you say to just restore felons their full rights.

I support the death penalty in theory but not in practice. Some people do deserve to die but the state can't be trusted to selectively yet efficiently mete out death.

Fair enough, I agree with your perspective here.

If we could know, 100% of the time, whether someone is or isn't culpable for a crime, I would support the death penalty. But I've heard too many stories of people on death row who get exonerated, often with DNA evidence. My other issue is that I just can't square the circle that it's not okay for a citizen to kill someone but it is okay for the state to kill someone.

I tend to agree with Blackstone's Principle: It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

what if the only thing gun shops will sell felons is red rifle bb guns

i think thats a good idea ...???

They'll put their ey- oh my god I can't even finish that I hate that movie so much.

I was thinking with all the PC remakes of classic movies, they could make A Christmas Story where instead of a bb gun the kid wants a transgender Barbie doll.

That way it's different enough to be modern yet they can still keep the tagline "you'll put your eye out, kid."

Yeah sure, Sargon.

Are you comparing jwb to Sargon of Cuck-ad?

jwb is better than that - and if you're honest, you'd agree, even if you disagree with some of his takes on things.

The should give the kid an AR-15 and the running gag line can be “you’ll kill the whole school with that” then when he actually does it it’ll be so funny and ironic.

What 'kid'?

Fred Savage