Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

Interesting news story on this exact topic

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011 ... 011/613549

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Yarddawg wrote:Garret, please do not misunderstand me. I never stated that I agreed with these assumptions. I was merely responding to your question of how these things may have originated.

You are 100% correct that my warm fuzzy should not affect your rights. In fact, your suggestions concerning drunk driving punishments are spot on!

Having said that, are there some people that I would not feel comfortable being around knowing that they are armed? Unequivocally, YES! Should my comfort level restrict their ability to do so? NO WAY!

IMO, there is a lot of truth is the saying "Don't do the crime, if you can't do the crime." This philosophy is very similar to that which I stated earlier; "stupid is supposed to be painful".

Like you, I believe that we, as a nation, have not performed due diligence in effectively punishing those that choose to ignore the laws of the land.

Please don't take offense. I argue forcefully, but if we were in person it would be a more conversational tone. Allow me to complete your argument.

If you push the argument for removing the legal rights of felons the argument eventually boils down to utility for society. Felons are disarmed for the benefit of protecting society in exactly the same manor as why people under 21 can not get a CHP. Society doesn't "trust" them with the firearm anymore or not yet. Several lines of thinking about this utility are:

1. (Yours from a previous post) Their right to SD isn't restricted, it's just that the tools are more limited. However, consider what the line of reasoning means for you and I. The 2nd doesn't just protect firearms, it protects arms. The founders knew that arms development would continue to advance and expected the people to continue to have access to them. The 2nd protects swords, knives, firearms, machineguns, batons, tasers, mace, etc. Literally anything which doesn't kill indiscriminately like nukes, biological agents, chemical weapons, is protected. To each his own on what is the best for their needs.

If the government can reasonably claim that the right to life is not encumbered by limiting your options to SD they can literally ban all firearms for anyone and make the 2nd only apply to mace if they wanted too. If they have that power for a felon then they have it for you too. Remember that a felon is just a legal status, it's a definition just as you being a citizen or resident are. The government has and will continue to expand that definition until crazy things are considered a felony...they've done exactly that too. The battle was lost when we gave them the power to remove the rights of some people.

The right to life requires the right to SD which requires access to means to do it, anything else is arbitrary. I.e. My right to SD means I can protect myself...there are not arbitrary qualification such as as long as it is a handgun, or isn't a machine gun, or holds less than 10 rounds, or is less than 9mm (nice jingle to remember that one buy: 9 is fine, but .45s a crime!). The only reasonable qualification is that the arm in question be useful for directed self defense...and that only is true because of how the right to arms is decomposed from the right to life.

2. A felon did something awful. That is a true statement. However, is what the felon did so awful as to be unforgivable? That's really what a felon is...a legal definition of a person who has done something so bad that it can not be forgiven by society. A felon can never reenter society and participate in it like you and I. If they can not participate in society again, why are they on the loose? If they are a threat, why are they free?

Ultimately, it boils down to a false sense of security too. People say we can't have felons who have served their time running around armed with guns! Oddly enough, these same people on this board correctly point out that the infringements on their right to keep and bear arms doesn't do jack diddle for keeping firearms out of the hands of a criminal. Just a bit inconsistent, eh? A potential criminal can work around the background check by buying a gun on the street or a strawman purchase, but only if the law in question applies to us non-felons. If it applies to felons, it must work!

No, no, no. The original argument was right. Laws restricting the access to arms for anyone don't do anything. If a future felon can get an illegal gun, so can an existing felon. If they want to be armed and go on a killing/raping spree no additional law saying they can't possess a firearm is going to stop that! Just like the infringements on you and I, they only stop law abiding people! The only felon who isn't going to have a gun is one who is trying to reintegrate with society and we've made that a near impossibility.

Garret, no offense taken. Like you, I enjoy a good discussion. My problem is, and always has been, communicating my thoughts in a clear and coherent manner. Because of this, my responses tend to be on the shorter side which does not help with the clear and coherent part!

I do appreciate you prodding me to finish my thoughts, that does indeed help.

Yarddawg wrote:Garret, no offense taken. Like you, I enjoy a good discussion. My problem is, and always has been, communicating my thoughts in a clear and coherent manner. Because of this, my responses tend to be on the shorter side which does not help with the clear and coherent part!

Writing did not come easily to me either. Communication skills are something I have to continually work at even today.

Yarddawg wrote:I do appreciate you prodding me to finish my thoughts, that does indeed help.

That's the intent, get us both thinking. I've had to change some of my views as they've been challenged and I realized I could not defend them except I didn't like it. 10 years ago I would have been on the other side of this argument.

gunderwood wrote:

GS78 wrote:

Diomed wrote:Sorry, cyras21, you're not going to find many libertarians on this board.

Personally I see no reason why all rights should not be restored upon release. If they're not in prison, they should be treated like everyone else. If they're dangerous, what are they doing out of prison?

Of course, the modern prison-industrial complex makes sure that they have a steady supply of new and returning clients, by making trivial offenses into felonies and making serious offenses carry trivial punishments, and making sure that once the convict gets out he's got little in the way of options except more crime. The tax evader gets as much time as the armed robber, and the rapist and murderer get out instead of being sent to the gallows as in ye olden dayes.

I suggest that before getting all high-'n'-mighty and jail-'em-all, let-God-sort-'em-out, you spend some time reading the laws we have in place now. There are so many there's no way to know them all (but ignorance of the law is no excuse!). It's virtually impossible to live in our society and not be an unconvicted felon. Ruling is much easier, after all, when anyone and everyone can be imprisoned as the state desires.

Virtually impossible? really? Then I and my kids must be exceptional Americans since we are not "unconvicted" felons. A libertarian would be someone who believes Charlie Sheen has every right to kill himself with drugs..AS LONG AS, he is not endangering anyone else in the process, it is NOT someone who thinks a three year manslaughter sentence is sufficient recompense for a human life. Just for the record, I am one of those Let-God-Sort'em out, right after the conviction..

So by that logic, there is no such thing as enough punishment. There is no way to ever pay for what you have done. If you throw a baseball through my window (on purpose or otherwise), there is no way to ever take that back as to my knowledge we have no time machine. You can pay to fix the window, but I still have the memory of a ball and glass shards flying around my face as I sat typing up a post on VOGF. The window could not be replaced immediately either, so I had to live with the consequences of the broken window even though you fixed it later.

Thus, since there is no way for me not to remember or to remove the consequences I had to live with, there is no way for you to ever pay for the crime. No amount of punishment will ever be enough. 1 year in jail? Not good enough. Felony status? Nope, still not good enough. Capital punishment? Nope, not even that can remove my memories or take back the consequences of your actions. What you have done is setup a standard which no violation can ever accomplish. IMHO, it is either a way to rationalize something which is very hard to do well (felony) or simply a misunderstanding of what punishment and restoration are all about. Personally, I'm really glad I was able to pay for my previous mistakes and move on with life. I've never been convicted of any crime other than speeding and I got that wiped off with a drivers ed/court fees (or even charged for that matter), but my parents sure had good reason to spank me on occasion.

It's just pride that you think you and your family have never committed a felony and not got caught for it. Or you just have no idea what constitutes as a felony these days. I've never intended to commit a felony, but given how vast the law is I can't claim that I never actually have. How's this for a stupid felony? http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/26/ohi ... er-school/

I could overload VGOF with such posts and likely not repeat any single felony classification!

Edit: Please note that there is a difference between claiming what that mom did was right and suggesting she deserves a felony and jail time for it. Clearly lying is wrong, but you'd be hard pressed to prove it's worth capital punishment...

I don't understand your "baseball" analogy at all. I posted a reply about restoration of 2nd ammendment rights to a convicted felon. Last time I checked(which I admit was a really long time ago) throwing a baseball through a neighbors window either by accident or on purpose was not a felony. I think the premise is ridiculous. I understand that certain crimes do not meet YOUR criteria for felony status. I admit there are most likely very stupid examples of people who were convicted of a felony for any number of reasons. Primarily when I think of a felon, I think of someone who has done the unthinkable, killing, raping, kidnapping, etc, with malice and violence. Those types of people in my mind are nothing more than savages and need to be exterminated . Funny you didn't make any mention of my Charlie Sheen example,I must have hit that one on the head.....

GS78 wrote:

gunderwood wrote:So by that logic, there is no such thing as enough punishment. There is no way to ever pay for what you have done. If you throw a baseball through my window (on purpose or otherwise), there is no way to ever take that back as to my knowledge we have no time machine. You can pay to fix the window, but I still have the memory of a ball and glass shards flying around my face as I sat typing up a post on VOGF. The window could not be replaced immediately either, so I had to live with the consequences of the broken window even though you fixed it later.

Thus, since there is no way for me not to remember or to remove the consequences I had to live with, there is no way for you to ever pay for the crime. No amount of punishment will ever be enough. 1 year in jail? Not good enough. Felony status? Nope, still not good enough. Capital punishment? Nope, not even that can remove my memories or take back the consequences of your actions. What you have done is setup a standard which no violation can ever accomplish. IMHO, it is either a way to rationalize something which is very hard to do well (felony) or simply a misunderstanding of what punishment and restoration are all about. Personally, I'm really glad I was able to pay for my previous mistakes and move on with life. I've never been convicted of any crime other than speeding and I got that wiped off with a drivers ed/court fees (or even charged for that matter), but my parents sure had good reason to spank me on occasion.

It's just pride that you think you and your family have never committed a felony and not got caught for it. Or you just have no idea what constitutes as a felony these days. I've never intended to commit a felony, but given how vast the law is I can't claim that I never actually have. How's this for a stupid felony? http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/26/ohi ... er-school/

I could overload VGOF with such posts and likely not repeat any single felony classification!

Edit: Please note that there is a difference between claiming what that mom did was right and suggesting she deserves a felony and jail time for it. Clearly lying is wrong, but you'd be hard pressed to prove it's worth capital punishment...

I don't understand your "baseball" analogy at all. I posted a reply about restoration of 2nd ammendment rights to a convicted felon. Last time I checked(which I admit was a really long time ago) throwing a baseball through a neighbors window either by accident or on purpose was not a felony. I think the premise is ridiculous. I understand that certain crimes do not meet YOUR criteria for felony status. I admit there are most likely very stupid examples of people who were convicted of a felony for any number of reasons. Primarily when I think of a felon, I think of someone who has done the unthinkable, killing, raping, kidnapping, etc, with malice and violence. Those types of people in my mind are nothing more than savages and need to be exterminated . Funny you didn't make any mention of my Charlie Sheen example,I must have hit that one on the head.....

The baseball analogy had to do with the question of "What does it take to repay a debt to society?" Or more importantly, "What does it take to correct the pain and suffering that has been inflicted upon the victim?"

The baseball analogy outlines the fact that although the window was fixed, and the criminal was punished, what does all of that really do for the victim, who was inconvenienced by the crime and will never forget the fact that their window was broken in that manner...for the rest of their life.

Now, take the words broken window and replace them with raped, murdered, tortured, kidnapped, etc.

So since each and every person is different and we all "cope" in our own way - why not let the victim/victim's family/some legally entitled plaintiff/claimant - decide whether the debt has been repaid?

CCFan wrote:So since each and every person is different and we all "cope" in our own way - why not let the victim/victim's family/some legally entitled plaintiff/claimant - decide whether the debt has been repaid?

Because next thing you know you have a victim being lobbied on what to decide and reliving the crime in their head.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

allingeneral wrote:

GS78 wrote:

gunderwood wrote:So by that logic, there is no such thing as enough punishment. There is no way to ever pay for what you have done. If you throw a baseball through my window (on purpose or otherwise), there is no way to ever take that back as to my knowledge we have no time machine. You can pay to fix the window, but I still have the memory of a ball and glass shards flying around my face as I sat typing up a post on VOGF. The window could not be replaced immediately either, so I had to live with the consequences of the broken window even though you fixed it later.

Thus, since there is no way for me not to remember or to remove the consequences I had to live with, there is no way for you to ever pay for the crime. No amount of punishment will ever be enough. 1 year in jail? Not good enough. Felony status? Nope, still not good enough. Capital punishment? Nope, not even that can remove my memories or take back the consequences of your actions. What you have done is setup a standard which no violation can ever accomplish. IMHO, it is either a way to rationalize something which is very hard to do well (felony) or simply a misunderstanding of what punishment and restoration are all about. Personally, I'm really glad I was able to pay for my previous mistakes and move on with life. I've never been convicted of any crime other than speeding and I got that wiped off with a drivers ed/court fees (or even charged for that matter), but my parents sure had good reason to spank me on occasion.

It's just pride that you think you and your family have never committed a felony and not got caught for it. Or you just have no idea what constitutes as a felony these days. I've never intended to commit a felony, but given how vast the law is I can't claim that I never actually have. How's this for a stupid felony? http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/01/26/ohi ... er-school/

I could overload VGOF with such posts and likely not repeat any single felony classification!

Edit: Please note that there is a difference between claiming what that mom did was right and suggesting she deserves a felony and jail time for it. Clearly lying is wrong, but you'd be hard pressed to prove it's worth capital punishment...

I don't understand your "baseball" analogy at all. I posted a reply about restoration of 2nd ammendment rights to a convicted felon. Last time I checked(which I admit was a really long time ago) throwing a baseball through a neighbors window either by accident or on purpose was not a felony. I think the premise is ridiculous. I understand that certain crimes do not meet YOUR criteria for felony status. I admit there are most likely very stupid examples of people who were convicted of a felony for any number of reasons. Primarily when I think of a felon, I think of someone who has done the unthinkable, killing, raping, kidnapping, etc, with malice and violence. Those types of people in my mind are nothing more than savages and need to be exterminated . Funny you didn't make any mention of my Charlie Sheen example,I must have hit that one on the head.....

The baseball analogy had to do with the question of "What does it take to repay a debt to society?" Or more importantly, "What does it take to correct the pain and suffering that has been inflicted upon the victim?"

The baseball analogy outlines the fact that although the window was fixed, and the criminal was punished, what does all of that really do for the victim, who was inconvenienced by the crime and will never forget the fact that their window was broken in that manner...for the rest of their life.

Now, take the words broken window and replace them with raped, murdered, tortured, kidnapped, etc.

Exactly. It was purposefully a "mild" example so as not to get hung up on technicalities. It asks an important question though.

CCFan wrote:So since each and every person is different and we all "cope" in our own way - why not let the victim/victim's family/some legally entitled plaintiff/claimant - decide whether the debt has been repaid?

Victims often want revenge rather than restitution. That's the historical context of what was going on in Jewish society (not exactly implemented like that though) which was restricted be the "eye for an eye" concept. Even simple disagreements are helped considerably with an ombudsman.

GS78 wrote:Funny you didn't make any mention of my Charlie Sheen example,I must have hit that one on the head.....

Charlie Sheen is an idiot and I don't give one hoot what he does or doesn't do and it isn't news. Hollywood celebrities doing drugs...like that's never happened before. Why do you care what he does?

WRW wrote:So, yer sayin' it ain't in the Old Testament? And that the Code of Hammurabi was the more widely read document by the early European settlers and their forefathers?

I'm saying that the Hammurabian Code predated the Torah by centuries and was almost certainly the basis for what the Israelites came up with (the Code had certainly reached that area).

We all stand upon the shoulders of giants, many long forgotten.

gunderwood wrote:We're on the same side...until next time.

Oh, we usually are.

Diomed wrote:

WRW wrote:So, yer sayin' it ain't in the Old Testament? And that the Code of Hammurabi was the more widely read document by the early European settlers and their forefathers?

I'm saying that the Hammurabian Code predated the Torah by centuries and was almost certainly the basis for what the Israelites came up with (the Code had certainly reached that area).

We all stand upon the shoulders of giants, many long forgotten.

I understand that aspect of it. I merely made the comment that the bible was a basis for punishment in our system...not that the bible had no sources. That the story of Gilgamesh predates Noah does not mean that Noah is not a Biblical story.

gunderwood wrote: If you push the argument for removing the legal rights of felons the argument eventually boils down to utility for society.

You don't think that the felon may have relinquished their own rights by their actions? Given that this action causes that to happen and this action is a willful action?

WRW wrote:

gunderwood wrote: If you push the argument for removing the legal rights of felons the argument eventually boils down to utility for society.

You don't think that the felon may have relinquished their own rights by their actions? Given that this action causes that to happen and this action is a willful action?

That is just a rephrasing of the question at hand. Please re-read everything I have posted and you will see I've already addressed that. If you have a further comment, disagreement or question on those points I'd be happy to address it.

gunderwood wrote:
It is a statement of fact that a felony "forfeits" certain legal rights, but that does not make it right or justice. Stating it is stating the obvious, so what. The debate is not if the statement is true or false, the debate is over if it is right or wrong. Why is it right or wrong?

I'm just trying to figure where you put the onus for the loss of right.

Trust in members of society is not an on/off proposition. Throughout our lives we establish a reputation of levels of trustworthiness (similar to levels of security clearance). Some can be trusted with the lives of passengers, others cannot. Hence the stringent CDL requierments and the loss of CDL for failure to meet those requirements. One having lost his CDL may drive the roads with a passenger, but not a bus. This is not dissimilar to what we have been discussing. One may be freed from jail and still not be considered "trustworthy". He may then attempt to reestablish himself as a person of trust within the community and, having done so, request that rights relinquished be returned... or he may continue on in the same manner that established his loss of trust.

Jakeiscrazy wrote:

CCFan wrote:So since each and every person is different and we all "cope" in our own way - why not let the victim/victim's family/some legally entitled plaintiff/claimant - decide whether the debt has been repaid?

Because next thing you know you have a victim being lobbied on what to decide and reliving the crime in their head.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

And that's different from how the media (and to a lesser extent, you and i) treats things currently how, exactly?

gunderwood wrote:

CCFan wrote:So since each and every person is different and we all "cope" in our own way - why not let the victim/victim's family/some legally entitled plaintiff/claimant - decide whether the debt has been repaid?

Victims often want revenge rather than restitution. That's the historical context of what was going on in Jewish society (not exactly implemented like that though) which was restricted be the "eye for an eye" concept. Even simple disagreements are helped considerably with an ombudsman.

I didn't say let the victim decide the punishment, I said decide whether the debt had been repaid. The ombudsman wouldn't cease to exist.

To one person, a broken window via the baseball is a broken window. To another, it's the night of freezing temperatures where their children were inconvenienced and had to stay in another room, thereby inconveniencing their visiting relatives from out of town, etc., etc... - each and every "crime" is unique to the victim. The one-size-fits-all punishment is just a best-guess stab in the dark, and does nothing to provide restitution to the victim in most cases.

WRW wrote:

gunderwood wrote:
It is a statement of fact that a felony "forfeits" certain legal rights, but that does not make it right or justice. Stating it is stating the obvious, so what. The debate is not if the statement is true or false, the debate is over if it is right or wrong. Why is it right or wrong?

I'm just trying to figure where you put the onus for the loss of right.

Trust in members of society is not an on/off proposition. Throughout our lives we establish a reputation of levels of trustworthiness (similar to levels of security clearance). Some can be trusted with the lives of passengers, others cannot. Hence the stringent CDL requierments and the loss of CDL for failure to meet those requirements. One having lost his CDL may drive the roads with a passenger, but not a bus. This is not dissimilar to what we have been discussing. One may be freed from jail and still not be considered "trustworthy". He may then attempt to reestablish himself as a person of trust within the community and, having done so, request that rights relinquished be returned... or he may continue on in the same manner that established his loss of trust.

Yes, there are different levels of trust for privileges. Rights are different...trust shouldn't enter into that equation.

CCFan wrote:

gunderwood wrote:

CCFan wrote:So since each and every person is different and we all "cope" in our own way - why not let the victim/victim's family/some legally entitled plaintiff/claimant - decide whether the debt has been repaid?

Victims often want revenge rather than restitution. That's the historical context of what was going on in Jewish society (not exactly implemented like that though) which was restricted be the "eye for an eye" concept. Even simple disagreements are helped considerably with an ombudsman.

I didn't say let the victim decide the punishment, I said decide whether the debt had been repaid. The ombudsman wouldn't cease to exist.

To one person, a broken window via the baseball is a broken window. To another, it's the night of freezing temperatures where their children were inconvenienced and had to stay in another room, thereby inconveniencing their visiting relatives from out of town, etc., etc... - each and every "crime" is unique to the victim. The one-size-fits-all punishment is just a best-guess stab in the dark, and does nothing to provide restitution to the victim in most cases.

Point still stands. I want my window replaced with a top of the line model...

You are right that one size doesn't fit all, but victims always want more.