Wouldn't that fall under "taxation without representation"?lowing wrote:
gotta disagree, I do not want felons having a voice in the course of our nation. and as I said, doing time does not magically make you responsible.Turquoise wrote:
Time served is time served. If a person commits a felony and completes their sentence and is deemed mentally stable enough to not pose a threat to society, then they should not be denied their voting or gun rights.lowing wrote:
with all due respect Turquoise, you are high.
actually you are wrong. when you commit a crime you have lost several of your rights for the duration of your incarceration, and some of them forever.DrunkFace wrote:
With privileges comes responsibility. A "right" is something you will always have and can never be taken away. And is precisely why gun "rights" is absolutely absurd.lowing wrote:
with freedom and rights comes responsibility. could not disagree with you more.DrunkFace wrote:
You don't have to be responsible to have "rights".
Last edited by lowing (2011-01-13 13:06:17)
Nope, since most felons are disqualified from getting a job.Turquoise wrote:
Wouldn't that fall under "taxation without representation"?lowing wrote:
gotta disagree, I do not want felons having a voice in the course of our nation. and as I said, doing time does not magically make you responsible.Turquoise wrote:
Time served is time served. If a person commits a felony and completes their sentence and is deemed mentally stable enough to not pose a threat to society, then they should not be denied their voting or gun rights.
Shame the stats for that are so very unreliable.lowing wrote:
you should be more concerned for stats on how many people prevented themselves from becoming victims not how many crackheads shot their dealers.Bertster7 wrote:
Whether you care about them or not is completely and utterly irrelevant.lowing wrote:
and when you are spouting off about murder rates you are not accounting for criminal on criminal drug deals gone bad gang violence etc....which if you haven;t guess,ed I don't care how many criminals off each other.
It's subjective, not objective.
I tend to agree, but it really depends on the crime. Child molesters reallllly piss me off. That should be life mandatory imo.Turquoise wrote:
Only recidivism and mental instability should prove irresponsibility beyond serving your sentence.lowing wrote:
because you have PROVEN yourself irresponsible, just because you got caught and did time, does not magically make you a responsible person.SenorToenails wrote:
Once you've paid your debt, why should you be forced to continue paying for the rest of your life?
By continuing to punish someone beyond their sentence, that negates the point of releasing someone from prison.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Need has nothing to do with it.presidentsheep wrote:
no, the average citizen doesn't shoot anyone.Pug wrote:
Hey, sheep. Since you're posting....Pug wrote:
And does the average law abiding citizen shoot a congresswoman?
Therefore the average citizen does not need a gun. That's pretty much what i've been trying to say over the last however many pages.
Why do we need an army then?
That's either untrue, or a retarded system which will inevitably lead to high repeat offending rates.lowing wrote:
Nope, since most felons are disqualified from getting a job.Turquoise wrote:
Wouldn't that fall under "taxation without representation"?lowing wrote:
gotta disagree, I do not want felons having a voice in the course of our nation. and as I said, doing time does not magically make you responsible.
sure as hell is... Don't become a criminal if you want to make a case about how fuckin responsible you are.SenorToenails wrote:
People don't change, right? An 18 year old who gets convicted of assault for a bar fight wouldn't be able to hunt when he's 50 because he can't legally own a rifle. That's justice for sure!Macbeth wrote:
A violent felon shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. A nonviolent felon should be.
They should both be allowed to vote though.
People, emotions, and the brain all work the same way, we just DON'T UNDERSTAND IT YET. Just like 200 years ago they didn't understand that atoms were made from electrons, neutrons and protons and they were made from quarks and that quarks were made from....JohnG@lt wrote:
Certain things within science, things that are governed, by laws, are about as concrete as you get. Are there variations and deviations? Yes. Almost all can be accounted for. I'm not talking about bleeding edge Quantum Mechanics here, I'm talking about things where there is enough empirical evidence that has been repeated enough times that it passes for fact. If I drop an object in a vacuum on earth it will fall at a rate of 9.81 m/s. If I mix a certain number of moles of one substance with another, I expect to get a certain result. Again, I'm not talking theoretical physics here. None of that stuff is constant because most of it is still unknown.presidentsheep wrote:
Yet you still believe science is concrete?JohnG@lt wrote:
Guess you missed where I listed my bio previously. I am in the last semester of my electrical engineering degree.
Last edited by DrunkFace (2011-01-13 13:11:10)
That's pretty fair.SenorToenails wrote:
People don't change, right? An 18 year old who gets convicted of assault for a bar fight wouldn't be able to hunt when he's 50 because he can't legally own a rifle. That's justice for sure!Macbeth wrote:
A violent felon shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. A nonviolent felon should be.
They should both be allowed to vote though.
Most people manage to never assault someone after a few drinks. If your part of the few that have proven unable to not assault someone after a few drinks then you're not responsible enough to own a gun. Don't commit violent crimes and you won't have your right to weapons taken away. It's simple.
untrue? ok well there is a reason they ask if you are a convicted felon on applications, and they do a criminal back ground check.Bertster7 wrote:
That's either untrue, or a retarded system which will inevitably lead to high repeat offending rates.lowing wrote:
Nope, since most felons are disqualified from getting a job.Turquoise wrote:
Wouldn't that fall under "taxation without representation"?
The variations and deviations surely mean its not concrete, as well as the fact that they can't all be accounted for. Bleeding edge quantum mechanics falls into science to. I get what you mean it just seems that concrete is entirely the wrong word to describe anything scientific, it should always be subject to changes and improvements.JohnG@lt wrote:
Certain things within science, things that are governed, by laws, are about as concrete as you get. Are there variations and deviations? Yes. Almost all can be accounted for. I'm not talking about bleeding edge Quantum Mechanics here, I'm talking about things where there is enough empirical evidence that has been repeated enough times that it passes for fact. If I drop an object in a vacuum on earth it will fall at a rate of 9.81 m/s. If I mix a certain number of moles of one substance with another, I expect to get a certain result. Again, I'm not talking theoretical physics here. None of that stuff is constant because most of it is still unknown.presidentsheep wrote:
Yet you still believe science is concrete?JohnG@lt wrote:
Guess you missed where I listed my bio previously. I am in the last semester of my electrical engineering degree.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Computer tresspass is a Class E felony, which can potentially remove your ability to purchase and own firearms for the rest of your life. An 18 year old hacker kid could hack a system 'just for the fun of it', get caught, do the time, and then be punished for the rest of their life because all felons are permanently evil, donchaknow.lowing wrote:
ummm no, bad things do happen to good people. However good people do not shoot the bank teller when trying to rob a bank.SenorToenails wrote:
Oh? Bad things only happen to bad people I guess. I sure am glad that all those non-violent, white-collar felons are denied their constitutionally guaranteed rights because people like you are too quick to pass judgement on them.lowing wrote:
because you have PROVEN yourself irresponsible, just because you got caught and did time, does not magically make you a responsible person.
Good I am glad as well, because all of those non violent white collar felons probably stole the money from honest hard working people forcing them to work even harder to make ends meet.
Employers decide for themselves whether they will hire someone. Just because you lack a job doesn't mean you can't vote.lowing wrote:
Nope, since most felons are disqualified from getting a job.Turquoise wrote:
Wouldn't that fall under "taxation without representation"?lowing wrote:
gotta disagree, I do not want felons having a voice in the course of our nation. and as I said, doing time does not magically make you responsible.
Then they're not really rights then are they?lowing wrote:
actually you are wrong. when you commit a crime you have lost several of your rights for the duration of your incarceration, and some of them forever.DrunkFace wrote:
With privileges comes responsibility. A "right" is something you will always have and can never be taken away. And is precisely why gun "rights" is absolutely absurd.lowing wrote:
with freedom and rights comes responsibility. could not disagree with you more.
They're universal conditional privileges.
Because other countries have armies surely? What if no other country had an army, would you think having one was necessary then?Pug wrote:
Need has nothing to do with it.presidentsheep wrote:
no, the average citizen doesn't shoot anyone.Pug wrote:
Hey, sheep. Since you're posting....
Therefore the average citizen does not need a gun. That's pretty much what i've been trying to say over the last however many pages.
Why do we need an army then?
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Yup and I love it. as I said, do not try and plead your case of personal responsibility by showing me your criminal history.SenorToenails wrote:
Computer tresspass is a Class E felony, which can potentially remove your ability to purchase and own firearms for the rest of your life. An 18 year old hacker kid could hack a system 'just for the fun of it', get caught, do the time, and then be punished for the rest of their life because all felons are permanently evil, donchaknow.lowing wrote:
ummm no, bad things do happen to good people. However good people do not shoot the bank teller when trying to rob a bank.SenorToenails wrote:
Oh? Bad things only happen to bad people I guess. I sure am glad that all those non-violent, white-collar felons are denied their constitutionally guaranteed rights because people like you are too quick to pass judgement on them.
Good I am glad as well, because all of those non violent white collar felons probably stole the money from honest hard working people forcing them to work even harder to make ends meet.
In some cases, I agree. The problem is that, once someone is released from prison, they are considered to no longer be a threat... except for sex offenders. Sex offenders are about the only case where it would be consistent to deny them certain rights, since the registry is an indication that the system still deems them a possible threat.DBBrinson1 wrote:
I tend to agree, but it really depends on the crime. Child molesters reallllly piss me off. That should be life mandatory imo.Turquoise wrote:
Only recidivism and mental instability should prove irresponsibility beyond serving your sentence.lowing wrote:
because you have PROVEN yourself irresponsible, just because you got caught and did time, does not magically make you a responsible person.
By continuing to punish someone beyond their sentence, that negates the point of releasing someone from prison.
This still wouldn't justify removing their voting rights, however.
I give up. You win. You are obviously as stubborn as lowing on every subject you butt your nose into. Grats.presidentsheep wrote:
The variations and deviations surely mean its not concrete, as well as the fact that they can't all be accounted for. Bleeding edge quantum mechanics falls into science to. I get what you mean it just seems that concrete is entirely the wrong word to describe anything scientific, it should always be subject to changes and improvements.JohnG@lt wrote:
Certain things within science, things that are governed, by laws, are about as concrete as you get. Are there variations and deviations? Yes. Almost all can be accounted for. I'm not talking about bleeding edge Quantum Mechanics here, I'm talking about things where there is enough empirical evidence that has been repeated enough times that it passes for fact. If I drop an object in a vacuum on earth it will fall at a rate of 9.81 m/s. If I mix a certain number of moles of one substance with another, I expect to get a certain result. Again, I'm not talking theoretical physics here. None of that stuff is constant because most of it is still unknown.presidentsheep wrote:
Yet you still believe science is concrete?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Obviously it will bar you from some jobs.lowing wrote:
untrue? ok well there is a reason they ask if you are a convicted felon on applications, and they do a criminal back ground check.Bertster7 wrote:
That's either untrue, or a retarded system which will inevitably lead to high repeat offending rates.lowing wrote:
Nope, since most felons are disqualified from getting a job.
I've never seen anything on a job application which asks if I'm a convicted felon, though I've had to have a criminal record check done when I worked with some schools for a while. I don't think you'd be allowed to ask if someone had a criminal record on an application form over here, unless it was specifically relevant to the job.
Your previous assertion was that no one in the US who has ever committed a crime has a job. I reckon that's bullshit.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2011-01-13 13:16:59)
whatever you wanna call them. I am content in the knowledge that I have all of my "universal conditional privileges" intact.DrunkFace wrote:
Then they're not really rights then are they?lowing wrote:
actually you are wrong. when you commit a crime you have lost several of your rights for the duration of your incarceration, and some of them forever.DrunkFace wrote:
With privileges comes responsibility. A "right" is something you will always have and can never be taken away. And is precisely why gun "rights" is absolutely absurd.
They're universal conditional privileges.
Its basically on all US job applications nowadays.Bertster7 wrote:
Obviously it will bar you from some jobs.lowing wrote:
untrue? ok well there is a reason they ask if you are a convicted felon on applications, and they do a criminal back ground check.Bertster7 wrote:
That's either untrue, or a retarded system which will inevitably lead to high repeat offending rates.
I've never seen anything on a job application which asks if I'm a convicted felon, though I've had to have a criminal record check done when I worked with some schools for a while. I don't think you'd be allowed to ask if someone had a criminal record on an application form over here, unless it was specifically relevant to the job.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
voting is not a right TurquoiseTurquoise wrote:
Employers decide for themselves whether they will hire someone. Just because you lack a job doesn't mean you can't vote.lowing wrote:
Nope, since most felons are disqualified from getting a job.Turquoise wrote:
Wouldn't that fall under "taxation without representation"?
Um... yes it is. Once you reach adulthood, it becomes a right.lowing wrote:
voting is not a right TurquoiseTurquoise wrote:
Employers decide for themselves whether they will hire someone. Just because you lack a job doesn't mean you can't vote.lowing wrote:
Nope, since most felons are disqualified from getting a job.
uhhhlowing wrote:
voting is not a right TurquoiseTurquoise wrote:
Employers decide for themselves whether they will hire someone. Just because you lack a job doesn't mean you can't vote.lowing wrote:
Nope, since most felons are disqualified from getting a job.
Yeah it kinda is.