Father Facing Felony Charges After Shooting Two Men Attempting to Kidnap His Son - Page 4
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 87
Like Tree140Likes

Thread: Father Facing Felony Charges After Shooting Two Men Attempting to Kidnap His Son

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Member #
    15068
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky
    Posts
    14,323
    Liked
    25175 times
    Quote Originally Posted by Peacemakr40 View Post
    What I see when I read your accounting of the situation is a misperception of what really happened to the father. Societies have laws. those laws have various punishments. In the case of the father, he received a felony conviction. Did the state force him to commit the crime or merely convicted him of committing it? If the state forced him, he has a 1st amendment recourse under redress of grievances. I do not feel that this was the case. what probably played out was he committed a felony crime, got caught, tried and convicted of the crime. The penalty of a felony conviction is you can no longer own, possess or use firearms. The father didn't have his right to keep and bear arms taken away from him by the gov't. He willfully gave up that right by committing the crime. By being part of society, you enter into a contract to follow the rules of that society. Should you violate that trust, there are prescribed punishments. It's much like drinking and driving. If I choose to drink, I give up my ability to drive. Make sense?
    There are very few crimes that deserve a lifelong punishment.

    If you truly think Martha Stewart should not have a right to possess a firearm, I don't even know what to say.

    It is sad that otherwise Freedom loving people have such a hard time recognizing how this has nothing to do with whether or not the man was dangerous and everything to do with state control over the peasants.
    BangBang likes this.

    MOLON LABE
    "Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." ~James Madison

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Member #
    15068
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky
    Posts
    14,323
    Liked
    25175 times
    Quote Originally Posted by BigBlue View Post
    I find it hard to trust anyone once they've proven themselves to be untrustworthy. This man committed a felony and therefor has proven that he cannot be trusted to live in our society with all of his rights intact. Time served is not the only penalty, the loss of other rights also comes with the conviction. The gun he had, with numbers removed, was most likely a stolen gun. Maybe it wasn't stolen by him, but the fact remains that he had it in his possession. The fact that he committed a legal act in protecting his child from being abducted doesn't negate the fact that he committed a felony in possessing the illegal weapon. I also find it hard to believe that there isn't more to this story in regards to why his child was chosen for abduction.
    You do realize that there are many crimes that are felonies that have nothing to do with whether or not anyone would trust someone?

    Our government, in its quest for neverending power, reclassified all sorts of misdemeanors in to felonies over the last 50 years. Crimes that are not violent and can be nothing more than not checking the right box on some form can be a felony. Find a feather on a trail and want to know what sort of bird it belonged to? Better leave it lay. If it is a bird of prey, you could get a felony for merely picking it up.

    Simply because a crime is a felony means very little.
    BangBang and WoodyUSSLUCE like this.

    MOLON LABE
    "Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." ~James Madison

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Member #
    15068
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky
    Posts
    14,323
    Liked
    25175 times
    Quote Originally Posted by 230JHP View Post
    When recidivism rates get low, I might start listening to the, ‘poor felons deserve to get their rights back,’ plea.

    But since recidivism rates are over 80%, I don’t have time for that.
    Wouldn't you think that recidivism is high because instead of letting a criminal serve his sentence and then be released as a true free person we instead brand them for life and force them to work menial jobs and have no rights?

    Prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968, felons got all of their rights back after completion of their sentence and recidivism was far lower than what it is now. They could go back to school, get a real job, and basically start over. Now, they are not able to do that due to the forever felon label.
    Last edited by RScottie; 11-09-2019 at 06:26 PM.
    MoKen likes this.

    MOLON LABE
    "Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." ~James Madison

  4. Remove Advertisements
    TaurusArmed.net
    Advertisements
     

  5. #34
    Senior Member
    Member #
    15068
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky
    Posts
    14,323
    Liked
    25175 times
    Quote Originally Posted by BangBang View Post
    It seems to me, if you follow this forum for a period of time, you can't help but notice a bit of hypocrisy especially when some people think one way but speak another. How many times have I heard on this forum that the right to protect yourself and your family is a natural right and therefore can not be given or taken away by an individual or a government.

    I have read the 2nd amendment and nowhere in it have I seen a list of people who have the right to keep and bear arms except for a couple about the reasons that individuals place as important enough to remove the right. In other words, it does not say people have the right to keep and bear arms except for people that are felons or have been convicted of a crime and served their time but they are still considered Felons.

    If a person believes that the right to protection of one self and family is a natural right and cannot be given or taken away by individuals or governments then I think I'm just gonna follow this argument and see who changes their thoughts on that when trying to justify taking the natural right away from someone they decide is not worthy.

    Don
    According to our Constitution, the only way to take away someones rights is to convict them of a crime in a court of law with a jury of their peers and the accused having an attorney. Upon conviction, they only lose their rights while incarcerated. Once freed, all rights are restored.

    That is how it was for the entirety of our nation until Bobby Kennedy got shot and they passed the GCA of 1968. That law is not Constitutional.
    MoKen and BangBang like this.

    MOLON LABE
    "Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace." ~James Madison

  6. #35
    Senior Member
    Member #
    50953
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    At My Computer
    Posts
    16,048
    Liked
    23005 times
    All laws are constitutional...........until I disagree with one. Then not so much.
    Remember:
    Life is short.
    Make sure you spend as much time as possible
    on the internet arguing with strangers about politics.






  7. #36
    Super Moderator

    Member #
    7985
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    17,726
    Liked
    21281 times
    If it somehow had been me to have to make that decision, I would gladly trade a prison sentence for my child’s life.
    NRA Lifetime Benefactor Member

    The Declaration of Independence states that the sole purpose of government is to secure the inalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. And, if it fails, the people are justified in getting rid of government, not the rights. - Judge Jeanine Pirro

    The first lesson in economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson in politics is to forget the first lesson in economics. - Thomas Sowell

  8. #37
    Senior Member
    Member #
    50809
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    3,780
    Liked
    7315 times
    Originally Posted by 230JHP
    When recidivism rates get low, I might start listening to the, ‘poor felons deserve to get their rights back,’ plea.

    But since recidivism rates are over 80%, I don’t have time for that.






    Quote Originally Posted by RScottie View Post
    Wouldn't you think that recidivism is high because instead of letting a criminal serve his sentence and then be released as a true free person we instead brand them for life and force them to work menial jobs and have no rights?

    Prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968, felons got all of their rights back after completion of their sentence and recidivism was far lower than what it is now. They could go back to school, get a real job, and basically start over. Now, they are not able to do that due to the forever felon label.

    It's easy to cherry-pick examples to suit your case.

    Okay, it makes no sense that Martha Stewart can't own a gun. But Clyde Barrow's mother had secured his release from prison, where he was serving time for a non-violent offense. And his brother Buck was pardoned and released from prison. Good thing there were no restrictions on those two getting guns, right?

    Escalation is a real thing. Many 'non-violent felonies' were non-violent only because no one chanced to catch the criminal in the act or tried to intercede in the crime.

    There are plenty of felons who go straight, get jobs, behave themselves. Let there be a case-by-case basis for restoration of the rights that were lawfully taken from them when they demonstrated their contempt for our society. That 17% who aren't re-arrested should have their opportunity.

    Wouldn't you think that recidivism is high because the people who choose to break the law once don't consider the chances of getting caught or the punishment they received as being sufficient to deter them from committing another crime? Would easing the restriction of their rights after their release enhance their commitment to being good citizens, or further erode the deterrence of their punishment?

    ETA: Your, 'they're only committing a crime because they have no opportunity,' rationale sounds amazingly similar to, 'he was only robbing the store to get formula and diapers for his baby.'

    As far as the issue of people being convicted for bogus crimes go -- the problem to fix is the bogus crime, not to weaken the overall deterrence to committing a crime.
    Last edited by 230JHP; 11-10-2019 at 05:02 AM.
    Most stereotypes come from how you treated the last person who didn't know you.

    "The greater part of mankind . . . walk blindfolded in this glorious theater." John Calvin

  9. #38
    Supporting Member

    Member #
    10444
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lehigh Valley, PA
    Posts
    11,319
    Liked
    27689 times
    Quote Originally Posted by RScottie View Post
    You do realize that there are many crimes that are felonies that have nothing to do with whether or not anyone would trust someone?

    Our government, in its quest for neverending power, reclassified all sorts of misdemeanors in to felonies over the last 50 years. Crimes that are not violent and can be nothing more than not checking the right box on some form can be a felony. Find a feather on a trail and want to know what sort of bird it belonged to? Better leave it lay. If it is a bird of prey, you could get a felony for merely picking it up.

    Simply because a crime is a felony means very little.
    A guy that is illegally carrying a stolen gun doesn't sound like a victim to me. I'd bet this guy's rap sheet doesn't include feathers or unchecked boxes.
    NRA-Patriot Endowment Life Member-Benefactor Level
    GOA-Life Member
    SAF-Member
    Deplorable-Life Member
    DADDD Member-Dads Against Daughters Dating Democrats

    "Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't." -- Ben Franklin

    “Better to fight for something than live for nothing."-- George S. Patton

    “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” — George Orwell

  10. #39
    Senior Member
    Member #
    42701
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Brooker Fl
    Posts
    5,122
    Liked
    4863 times
    On my work squad I have a guy that retired as a major from the army with 23 years. He got into a drunken fight after his son was killed in a motorcycle crash with his girlfriend's ex. The fight was purely physical, no weapons, he got 7 years in prison because the guy he fought hit his head on the door frame and got stitches, he's labeled a violent felon. I have a second guy with 16 convictions for grand theft auto, along with a whole host of other drug and theft related charges, he is locked up for his 8th trip in state prison, he got 3 years.

    Florida's new felon voting law the first guy can't vote because he's a violent offender, the second guy can vote because he's not. My point is there has to be a case by case analysis.

  11. #40
    Supporting Member

    Member #
    73271
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Kansas, U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,585
    Liked
    3074 times
    Maybe recidivism rates are high, because we're letting people out who shouldn't be out.

    One thing is true, character does not change in the absence of an epiphany.
    230JHP likes this.

 

 
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Home | Forum | Active Topics | What's New | Subscribed Threads | My Threads | My Posts

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •