US Gun Laws Not To Blame

[NeuroTypical]

there it is that right shall not be infringed PERIOD. end of story. shall not be infringed.

...

theres no reason a free man(even a felon that got out of jail is now a free man) cannot own guns.

How about currently-incarcerated violent felons? The amendment doesn't draw a distinction between free and imprisoned, so by your logic, taking guns from prisoners infringes their rights, right?

[Soulsearcher]

folks this can be solved simply and i dont understand how gun arguements evolve into what they always evolve into.

2nd amendment clearly states

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [5]

there it is that right shall not be infringed PERIOD. end of story. shall not be infringed. therefore all gun regulations infringe on this right ALL OF THEM. basic reading skills can allow one to reach this conclusion.

if you dont like the amendment seek for a new one that scratches this one out. the fact we have has many gun regulations in place ins alarming. google what the founders thought on gun laws the lump sum and i agree is only a tyrant wants gun regulation you cant enslave an armed people its simply not possible.

personally i like guns. i want to keep my guns. theres no reason a free man(even a felon that got out of jail is now a free man) cannot own guns.

all other arguements are void until the 2nd amendment is repealed. and anybody supporting that i question their sanity.

Only issue i have is the difference between allowing someone a 9mm hand gun and an AK-47, one to me makes sense as a weapon to own, the other really doesn't. Again it's one thing to own weapons for practical reasons. I don't see limiting the type of weapons as harmful to any one. A reminder that a militia back in the day were not usually carrying a weapon that could kill 30 people in a matter of seconds. Not sure the founding fathers would have been overly supportive of excessive weapons being in the hands of the people. Again, we have gun control here and while i no longer own any, my family has several pistols, shotguns, and rifles each. I do tend to wonder at why the insistence on having more and more of these weapons available to be stolen or resold. I'm not saying we don't have the odd automatic weapon end up in the hands of criminals here, but most are found to have been smuggled from countries where they are not prohibited due to no control laws.

[kayne]

Only issue i have is the difference between allowing someone a 9mm hand gun and an AK-47, one to me makes sense as a weapon to own, the other really doesn't. Again it's one thing to own weapons for practical reasons. I don't see limiting the type of weapons as harmful to any one. A reminder that a militia back in the day were not usually carrying a weapon that could kill 30 people in a matter of seconds. Not sure the founding fathers would have been overly supportive of excessive weapons being in the hands of the people. Again, we have gun control here and while i no longer own any, my family has several pistols, shotguns, and rifles each. I do tend to wonder at why the insistence on having more and more of these weapons available to be stolen or resold. I'm not saying we don't have the odd automatic weapon end up in the hands of criminals here, but most are found to have been smuggled from countries where they are not prohibited due to no control laws.

while you have a certain point. i dont think civilians need nukes for example. but times have changed. criminals have automatic weapons civilians shouldnt be barred from automatic weapons. strictly speaking guns of any kind shouldnt be limited. back in the 1800s a musket was amazing now its laughable so people need to carry a better gun dont put some kind of technology stop on what gun i can own.

while an invasion government would inheritly have a military advantage if guns in the hands of the common man are not limited at the very least the people stand a chance. but if they are limited to only pistols like a 9mm its really a futile fight going up against AK's and automatic weapons which im fairly certain the founders wouldnt mind trusting anyone with them either. just because they didnt exist then doesnt mean anything. weve been killing each other for thousands of years theres no reason to limit my self defense because it doesnt seem logical that i need an automatic weapon.

the point here is criminals dont care. a tyrannical government doesnt care(the real reason behind the second amendment). and gun bans have gotten out of hand. DC until recently had a pistol ban. chicago last i check you cant even buy a gun there only own on that is grandfathered to you and existed before the blantant gun ban. once you ok a banning of one gun the floodgate is really opened to every other gun. the amount of ridiculous gun restrictions are crazy. new york is a gun owners night mare. CA is another nightmare. many states can just ban you from owning a gun because one guy says no. in places like that you are literally a defenseless target.

let me buy what gun i want because again shall not be infringed implies and means just that very thing. the 9mm is easily outclassed by a 40mm and they look and feel the same(aside from the shock in your hand of firing it) yet one is far more lethal so again let me buy what gun i want. it doesnt hurt you.

if your free you should be able to do whatever you want unless it hurts another person at which point thats what jails are for and police are for. in the mean time you have guns in the hands of citizens to protect themselves.

and theres plenty of data that says places like chicago with a gun ban have extremely high criminal rates yet places that mandate you own a gun have literally no crime.

How about currently-incarcerated violent felons? The amendment doesn't draw a distinction between free and imprisoned, so by your logic, taking guns from prisoners infringes their rights, right?

sorry but when your in jail you inheritly lose some of your rights. the right to go freely as you please. the right to eat what you want. the right to free speech. the only rights you retain are the ones that make sure you get a fair trial and to make sure you dont get beaten or killed while in jail(admittely it can be hard to keep a prison full of crazy people in line but that is what prison guards have signed up to do)

if your free not in jail you retain all your rights. hence the term free man. a man in jail is hardly a free man.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

folks this can be solved simply and i dont understand how gun arguements evolve into what they always evolve into.

2nd amendment clearly states

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [5]

there it is that right shall not be infringed PERIOD. end of story. shall not be infringed. therefore all gun regulations infringe on this right ALL OF THEM. basic reading skills can allow one to reach this conclusion.

if you dont like the amendment seek for a new one that scratches this one out. the fact we have has many gun regulations in place ins alarming. google what the founders thought on gun laws the lump sum and i agree is only a tyrant wants gun regulation you cant enslave an armed people its simply not possible.

personally i like guns. i want to keep my guns. theres no reason a free man(even a felon that got out of jail is now a free man) cannot own guns.

all other arguements are void until the 2nd amendment is repealed. and anybody supporting that i question their sanity.

I agree with most of what you said here, but there is a strong legal precident for convicted felons to have only those rights granted by the government, their God-given rights having been revoked. Felons also cannot vote. They broke the social contract and I have no pity for them.

Only issue i have is the difference between allowing someone a 9mm hand gun and an AK-47, one to me makes sense as a weapon to own, the other really doesn't. Again it's one thing to own weapons for practical reasons. I don't see limiting the type of weapons as harmful to any one. A reminder that a militia back in the day were not usually carrying a weapon that could kill 30 people in a matter of seconds. Not sure the founding fathers would have been overly supportive of excessive weapons being in the hands of the people. Again, we have gun control here and while i no longer own any, my family has several pistols, shotguns, and rifles each. I do tend to wonder at why the insistence on having more and more of these weapons available to be stolen or resold. I'm not saying we don't have the odd automatic weapon end up in the hands of criminals here, but most are found to have been smuggled from countries where they are not prohibited due to no control laws.

It seems only the Left second guesses the intentions of our founders. Guns did the same thing back then that they do today..kill people. And while they didn't have repeating rifles to kill 30 people, they could gather a posse of 30 gunmen and accomplish the same thing. The founders supported a balance of power between the people and the government and as such, your theory that they would have wanted the people to have inferior armaments yields no merit.

[kayne]

I agree with most of what you said here, but there is a strong legal precident for convicted felons to have only those rights granted by the government, their God-given rights having been revoked. Felons also cannot vote. They broke the social contract and I have no pity for them.

It seems only the Left second guesses the intentions of our founders. Guns did the same thing back then that they do today..kill people. And while they didn't have repeating rifles to kill 30 people, they could gather a posse of 30 gunmen and accomplish the same thing. The founders supported a balance of power between the people and the government and as such, your theory that they would have wanted the people to have inferior armaments yields no merit.

true criminals broke that contract....however upon release from jail they paid their dues. served their time. and are now once again free men. an example....say i served 20 years for some hideous crime it matter not what it was. we'll say im 40 years old when i get out. i start over with my life ive learned my lesson i do no crime again i die at age 80 even have kids and a family. should i now a changed man that did his time and a free man be barred basic rights because i screwed up before? isnt the entire process of repentance a second chance? i did my time. i said i was sorry. i paid the price. im now a free man again. i shouldnt constantly be saddled down with past crimes.

sort of like how felons must put they are a former felon on a job application it basically means they are screwed from finding a job and having an chance of reintegrating into society. thats kind of my point if a felon gets out of jail we shouldnt abandon them and make it impossible to resume a normal functioning life cause thats really what leads them back to crime. they cant vote. they cant buy a gun. they wont be hired over a non felon 98% of the time. they are looked at as outcasts. what else is left? commit a crime go back to the gang life. hell i wouldnt be shocked if half of them recommit a crime just to go back to jail where its normal for them they have a home they are accepted. we basically release them and place a big sticker on them to avoid like a giant plague and that is just wrong it just drives them back to crime. even criminals just want to be accepted by someone.

i would argue you should have pity for them. they need our help too. a lot of them just did drugs unless you committed murder you do deserve a second chance. scriptures basically back this idea up murder is the unforgiveable sin. all others deserve a second chance. murder if the only one that really you dont deserved that second chance and simply because scriptures more or less say as much.

youd likely be amazed how many felons just fell into a bad crowd were never loved. were abandoned. you just need to restore order thats really all and they deserve that chance after they get out of jail. theres a lot of lessons to be learned from those that fall and fall hard. murder is really the only one that is impossible to fix. those poor souls are doomed all others deserve a second chance.

[Vort]

should i now a changed man that did his time and a free man be barred basic rights because i screwed up before?

Yes.

isnt the entire process of repentance a second chance?

Repentence is a religious concept, not a legal concept. There is nothing intrinsically unjust about a permanent (lifelong) punishment for transgression.

i shouldnt constantly be saddled down with past crimes.

Why not?

i would argue you should have pity for them. they need our help too.

Having pity for them is fine. Having compassion for them is fine. Neither of those means we need or ought to restore full societal rights to them.

a lot of them just did drugs unless you committed murder you do deserve a second chance.

This is not obvious. I don't see any compelling evidence that a rapist deserves "a second chance" by having his crime in effect forgotten.

scriptures basically back this idea up murder is the unforgiveable sin. all others deserve a second chance.

Scriptures say nothing about how society should punish its transgressors. That is left up to us.

[Dravin]

Scriptures say nothing about how society should punish its transgressors. That is left up to us.

It does, it's just an awful lot of that is built around the Law of Moses and the society that it was trying to build. Thing is we generally aren't trying to recreate the society the Law of Moses was trying to create (for multiple reasons) so they aren't particularly pertinent. But it's not quite accurate to say the scriptures say nothing about how society should punish its transgressors. That's a technicality though and I readily admit to it being such. That we can find in Leviticus the proscription that those committing bestiality should be put to death (for instance) isn't particularly pertinent to your point.

/removes his annoying pedant hat

[Vort]

It does, it's just an awful lot of that is built around the Law of Moses and the society that it was trying to build. Thing is we generally aren't trying to recreate the society the Law of Moses was trying to create (for multiple reasons) so they aren't particularly pertinent. But it's not quite accurate to say the scriptures say nothing about how society should punish its transgressors. That's a technicality though and I readily admit to it being such. That we can find in Leviticus the proscription that those committing bestiality should be put to death (for instance) isn't particularly pertinent to your point.

/removes his annoying pedant hat

Not annoying at all. Let me rephrase:

The scriptures say nothing about how our society should punish its transgressors.

[kayne]

Christ gives us all second chances....why should the law not try and emulate this? shouldnt we all be emulating Christ as best we can? He says bring your sins to him. let him bear the burden repent and forsake them and be made whole again. so why should the law inheritely be different? it shouldnt his law is perfect why not emulate it?

repentance while religious is no different from jail and pay for the crime. repentance invovles sorrow(often felt in jail), paying for the crime(jail time), and forsaking the sin(end of payment for the crime) and by being let free you promise not to screw up again.

the bottom line here is if theyve done the time. paid the price they should be forgiven. part of forgiving them is restoring normal societal rights. heck we should forgive them irregardless before they pay their dues in jail. there is only one that should judge them(admittely im not perfect and do judge people but still)

i really hope you NEVER screw up because if you do i assure you you will one day pray and hope your crimes wont haunt you for the rest of your days.

in D and C it spells out clearly how some things should be handled. quite clearly actually. in fact the whole part about going to the bishops council or whatever is spelled out in that D and C chapter. the scriptures very much give great insight to how government should be run on multiple occassions. i'd advice rereading them all closely if youve missed it. reighn of the judges and america was established by The Lord are just 2 prime examples.

[Dravin]

Kayne, are you aware that the Church will not allow a convicted sex offender (may require the sex offense to involve children, I'm not sure) to work with children? They annotate the file and the notation stays there even if the person has repented and is currently a member in good standing with the Church. I bring this up because not even the Church is entirely of the mind that in all cases once one has repented then the course of action is to behave as if something never happened.

the bottom line here is if theyve done the time. paid the price they should be forgiven. part of forgiving them is restoring normal societal rights. heck we should forgive them irregardless before they pay their dues in jail. there is only one that should judge them(admittely im not perfect and do judge people but still)

The idea that to forgive someone is to forget any past behavior, or the possibility of repeating past behavior is a common one, but it is false. If I have an abusive Uncle I am not require to let him watch my children for me because I have forgiven him for his past offenses to me.

Also do you realize the end results of some of your assertions? Namely these two:

1. We must forgive, repentant or not*.

2. To forgive is to restore all societal rights/privileged/allowances.

Leads to the conclusion that there should be no such thing as jails or prison? The restriction of just where one can go is one of the most basic restriction applied to those violating societal rules. You may be thinking, well, we let them out after they have paid their dues, made amends by having rights revoked. But to propose such is to propose we forgive them (restore those things to them) after they've 'repented', which is essentially implying we don't need to forgive until after they repent which clashes with us needing to forgive regardless of if they are repentant or not.

* I agree with this, thus my issue is with the second assertion.

Now, this is not to argue that convicted felons should not have their rights restored (I think with voting rights a great argument can be made that they should, and in some cases gun rights should be allowed to be restored), but is to disagree with some of the assertions you are making concerning the nature of forgiveness.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Dravin

[kayne]

well it is illegal to let sex offenders work with children period(not sure of specifics of the law). id imagine that weighs into that decision imagine the backlash with lawyers if the church tried to allow sex offenders near children. but your right thats probably not the only reason for it but id wager its the primary one.

well they are your children you can allow whoever you want to watch them.

i suppose what i said could be confused as to act like nothing ever happened. but more of we shouldnt cast some label on them that makes them stick out and unable to reintegrate into society(one of the huge problems of prison is reintegrating people back into society) but do recall it does say the Lord will forget your sins....so somewhere forgiveness does imply some kind of forgetting(not literally forgetting but you know what i mean) let by gones be by gones mentality.

i suppose i might be implying even if i didnt mean to that we dont need to forgive until the time is paid but we should forgive them irregardless. and i dont recall where i implied we dont need prisons we very much do you screw up bad enough enjoy your cell. actions have consquences.

obviously there probably are exceptions sex offenders being one that probably shouldnt have full access to children(maybe with police supervision? especially child sex offenders) but one problem is children are everywhere so if they are marked essentially they turn into some outcast even if they truely have gotten over there problem its a little unfair and i think we could handle the problem better.

and there may be others but my general rule is they should not be forced to wear some label that marks them as an outcast it serves as nothing but to turn them back to whatever got them jailed in the first place. and stripping them of rights and throwing them back into society kind casts that mark over them. one example used to work with a guy two people actually. they were fired? why? they were ex felons....irony is they were extremely hard workers but simply didnt put they had jail time on the application. given we got like 50 applications a week i can assure they would of never had the job otherwise but they were unfairly fired over this but were two of the hardest workers we had in the 3 weeks they were there and really were trying to get their life back but societal limits on basic rights was ruining that.

[Dravin]

i dont recall where i implied we dont need prisons we very much do you screw up bad enough enjoy your cell.

It's a logical conclusion of your assertions.

1. We need to forgive, repentant or not.

2. Forgiving means restoring rights/privileges/allowances.

Ergo we need to forgive people, and as long as they are locked up they aren't forgiven as they don't have the right/privilege/allowance of freedom. The end result is no jail or prisons (that we shouldn't have them) because they represent not forgiving someone (because prison represents having societal rights/privileges/allowances revoked, not restored) regardless of any repentance process they may be going through (such as having those rights revoked for X amount of time).

The thing is I don't think that's ultimately your claim even though you're using a groundwork that leads to it. I think ultimately your claim rests on X amount of years issue. That what society demands is unfairly steep. The thing is you're using an argument against not the steepness, but the application of any restriction of rights/privileges/allowances at all when you make those assertions.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Dravin

[kayne]

It's a logical conclusion of your assertions.

1. We need to forgive, repentant or not.

2. Forgiving means restoring rights/privileges/allowances.

Ergo we need to forgive people, and as long as they are locked up they aren't forgiven as they don't have the right/privilege/allowance of freedom. The end result is no jail or prisons (that we shouldn't have them) because they represent not forgiving someone (because prison represents having societal rights/privileges/allowances revoked, not restored) regardless of any repentance process they may be going through (such as having those rights revoked for X amount of time).

The thing is I don't think that's ultimately your claim even though you're using a groundwork that leads to it. I think ultimately your claim rests on X amount of years issue. That what society demands is unfairly steep. The thing is you're using an argument against not the steepness, but the application of any restriction of rights/privileges/allowances at all when you make those assertions.

i see. well forgiving means that yes. but repetance means serving X number of years. you can forgive even though they dont get punished but what i was trying to say and i guess missed was forgive them irregardless but then later part of that forgiveness is once they repent and pay their dues allow them back their basic rights as they repented which implies they have been forgiven or at least are seeking forgiveness. and thats part of the process. once repented you should be allowed your rights back.

[Dravin]

but repetance means serving X number of years.

Which is moot, as we need to forgive regardless of if someone has repented or not.

and thats part of the process. once repented you should be allowed your rights back.

But once again, we are supposed to forgive regardless of if someone has repented and you have tied forgiveness into the restoration of rights. You can claim we need to forgive someone (which entails restoring rights) once they've repented, and you can claim that we need to forgive someone (which entails restoring their rights) regardless of if they've repented but you can't claim both at the same time. Either that or what forgiveness entails, or the role of government in forgiving needs to be adjusted. Like I said, I think your getting caught in unintended consequences of your assertions.

For what it's worth I agree that people in society pay far longer for their crimes then the original sentence. And I agree that in some cases that should be curtailed by the restoration of some legal rights. For instance if your crime wasn't violent I can see an argument for restoring access to guns, and in almost all cases at some point I can see an argument for the restoration of voting rights. I think you'd get further by making a case that revoking rights and stigmas after the initial sentence is overly harsh and has negative consequences (such as the argument about making additional law breaking more appealing in some cases), but when you tried to make it an issue of forgiveness you kinda got sucked into a quagmire.

[kayne]

perhaps i should say then part of that forgiveness and restoration of rights comes after they serve their time. but in the mean time we need to forgive them anyway. but then part of proving it is restoring their rights after they have paid their dues. as its easy to say i forgive you but once you get out of jail if i refuse to even wave or say hi i probably never did forgive you did i?

perhaps that clarifies the point i was trying to make?

and good im glad we agree mostly.

[Dravin]

perhaps i should say then part of that forgiveness and restoration of rights comes after they serve their time. but in the mean time we need to forgive them anyway. but then part of proving it is restoring their rights after they have paid their dues. as its easy to say i forgive you but once you get out of jail if i refuse to even wave or say hi i probably never did forgive you did i?

perhaps that clarifies the point i was trying to make?

and good im glad we agree mostly.

Not really, because you're still arguing that we need to forgive someone regardless and that we should withhold a portion of forgiveness until someone does X. The two positions clash, one has to give way, the equating of restoration of rights with forgiveness, the requirement that we forgive regardless (though I agree with this statement), or I suppose the role of government in the forgiveness business needs to change. Either that or I'm guilty of a persistent misunderstanding of your position.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Dravin

[kayne]

maybe in my other posts i made that arguement and didnt intend to interwine it as much i did but this last post i was trying to be more specific about. perhaps it became unclear again? seems likely

part of payment of X is repentance. but irregardless we should forgive them. then later when repentance is done they are out of jail whatever we simply have to prove we forgive them and that can be as simple as saying hi or as was discussed restoring rights is part of proving ok i forgive you.

i guess restoring rights has more to do with proving i really forgive you not just speaking it but i cant prove that until youve fully repented because it is a two way street in some regards. if ive forgiven you ive regained your trust i guess it could be said but it requires work on both parties.

however if you never pay the price never goto jail i should still forgive you but my ability to fully do so is limited to an extent. your still guilty. you still need to pay for your crimes. and youve still done nothing to actually earn my trust back. but i still do forgive you.

i guess thinking about it the word forgive has more than 1 meaning. 1 in which i forgive you irregardless but another in which youve paid your repentance and earned my trust back and have your right back to be a normal citizen. so youve been forgiven to a larger degree by me and society.

heres a good way of looking at it. say you smoke pot. if i recall part of repentance is cant take sacrament. cant use the priesthood if your a male. the Lord is forgiving you as your doing that but he is still saying you have work to do to fully earn it. but your forgiven. your doing the right thing. but then once you complete the steps with the bishop youve earned The Lords trust again to take the sacrament and use the priesthood. both cases your forgiven just one restores trust and your rights once youve gone through the whole process.

i guess that there illustrates what im saying. your forgiven either way one just merits full forgiveness and trust the other doesnt. not sure how else to explain that but that more or less i think is what im trying to say here.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

true criminals broke that contract....however upon release from jail they paid their dues. served their time. and are now once again free men. an example....say i served 20 years for some hideous crime it matter not what it was. we'll say im 40 years old when i get out. i start over with my life ive learned my lesson i do no crime again i die at age 80 even have kids and a family.

If you served 20 years for a felonious crime, you fit the definition of a "true criminal" who broke the social contract. Your argument that someone who has served time should not be subject to any further consequence for their choices is categorically incorrect. Sex offenders have to register on a public roster for the rest of their lives, for instance. All throughout human history it has been possible for a man to cast a shadow on his entire life based on one youthful indiscretion and it's no different today. Youths need to be taught that some mistakes can affect the rest of their lives.

I suspect this isn't just theoretical to you. I've found that with rare exception, the only advocates for felons possessing firearms is ex-cons. Your pursuit of this argument leads me to believe you fall into that category.

should i now a changed man that did his time and a free man be barred basic rights because i screwed up before? isnt the entire process of repentance a second chance? i did my time. i said i was sorry. i paid the price. im now a free man again. i shouldnt constantly be saddled down with past crimes.

A Texas woman who had committed murder was sent to death row. During that time she gave her heart to Christ and became a believing Christian. She appealed to then Governor George Bush for a stay of execution. Bush, himself also an evangelical Christian, could not grant this and she was put to death. Though through the forgiveness of God through Jesus Christ she has been spared the eternal consequences of her sin, the temporal penalty remained to be carried out. God does not spare us the plenary consequences of our sin.

i would argue you should have pity for them. they need our help too. a lot of them just did drugs unless you committed murder you do deserve a second chance. scriptures basically back this idea up murder is the unforgiveable sin. all others deserve a second chance. murder if the only one that really you dont deserved that second chance and simply because scriptures more or less say as much.

I'm Catholic and do not believe murder to be unforgiveable, but the Mormon belief here does have some merit in that a murderer is far more removed from the mercy of God than a non murderer. King David committed an act of premeditated murder to acquire a man's wife. He was forgiven, but not before paying a terrible price for his crime.

However, if the theoretical person you proposed has not committed a crime since, and has a family, then that person reaps the rewards of the good choices he made. But some of the corollary effects of his bad decision will remain, to include forfeiting the right to own a gun. Such a person should count his blessings and look to the good things that resulted from good choices, and not dwell on what has been lost.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Kayne, one more point that needs to be emphasized.

You continue to make the argument for forgiveness by society which confuses the roles of a person with the role of the state. The state is law and justice. It cannot follow the teachings of Christ because it has a defined role to play. It cannot "turn the other cheek" when another state assaults it because it has a duty to protect its citizens. It will go to war with the other state. Scripture says that government does not bear the sword in vain.

Internally, the state must also execute justice against wrongdoers, justice that isn't confined to the time a man spends incarcerated, but can have continuing effects. The deterring effect of lifelong consequences serves as a warning to others not to follow the same path. Goverment does not forgive, nor is it mandated by Scripture to do so. All of Christ's teachings were directed at his followers and even then, adherence to those teachings is completely voluntary on a personal level; that is to say, Christ never calls for the mechinisms of government to compell obedience to his teachings.

I'm sorry for the choices you made in life and the penalties you continue to pay for them, but there is no injustice for the perpetuity of them. Those who used drugs fry their brain, or become disfigured, or have no professional skills or retirement nestegg because they wasted so much of their life. People who abuse their family eventually lose their family, never to be restored. Someone who overeats for years falls into danger of heart disease. A heavy drinker spends his liver. etc. etc. As you see, one doesn't even have to go to prison to ruin their entire lives based on poor decisions in their younger years.

[kayne]

If you served 20 years for a felonious crime, you fit the definition of a "true criminal" who broke the social contract. Your argument that someone who has served time should not be subject to any further consequence for their choices is categorically incorrect. Sex offenders have to register on a public roster for the rest of their lives, for instance. All throughout human history it has been possible for a man to cast a shadow on his entire life based on one youthful indiscretion and it's no different today. Youths need to be taught that some mistakes can affect the rest of their lives.

I suspect this isn't just theoretical to you. I've found that with rare exception, the only advocates for felons possessing firearms is ex-cons. Your pursuit of this argument leads me to believe you fall into that category.

congrats youve found a rare exception. im no felon im no ex con. my record is clean. to assume i am felon or ex con is in poor taste and shows a severe lack of reasoning and quick to judge and assume on your part. im advocating equal rights for all even those ex cons that are now free men. free men deserve equal rights. you can have a shadown cast on you but the way the current system works is you might as well wear a giant pink suit that reads in big black letters "EX CON RIGHT HERE" because they are denied the right to a gun(what if they have a family they cant protect themselves?, cant vote, sex offenders pretty much have to paint their house with the label which negates any hope they can re integrate into society,must put ex con on a job application) i mean really ex cons cant integrate back into society very well. its a pretty established fact most end up back in jail and part of that is they are never really allowed to fall straight back into society.

A Texas woman who had committed murder was sent to death row. During that time she gave her heart to Christ and became a believing Christian. She appealed to then Governor George Bush for a stay of execution. Bush, himself also an evangelical Christian, could not grant this and she was put to death. Though through the forgiveness of God through Jesus Christ she has been spared the eternal consequences of her sin, the temporal penalty remained to be carried out. God does not spare us the plenary consequences of our sin.

well you must pay for your sins. if that means going to death row so be it. my understanding of the scriptures points out yes murder may be unforgiveable but it doesnt merit a trip to hell for all eternity so you earn some degree of forgiveness but that degree is limited and you still suffer and pay for that sin. i never said Christ negates any punishment for your sin hence jail time.

I'm Catholic and do not believe murder to be unforgiveable, but the Mormon belief here does have some merit in that a murderer is far more removed from the mercy of God than a non murderer. King David committed an act of premeditated murder to acquire a man's wife. He was forgiven, but not before paying a terrible price for his crime.

However, if the theoretical person you proposed has not committed a crime since, and has a family, then that person reaps the rewards of the good choices he made. But some of the corollary effects of his bad decision will remain, to include forfeiting the right to own a gun. Such a person should count his blessings and look to the good things that resulted from good choices, and not dwell on what has been lost.

but he is a free man. why should his rights be denied to him? how can he protect his family from a break in? how can he defend himself if he is mugged? should he be a helpless child in the face of another criminal? the arguement is insane. if hes truely repentant he wont use that gun for evil. if he isnt hell find an illegal gun and do the crime. at the best youve prevented a repentant man that has had his heart changed and denied him the right to self defense. truely a horrible crime. and if he has a family youve jeopordized them as well. again a truely horrid crime.

and i see thats fine your catholic you dont see murder as quite unforgiveable but you still have to admit its probably the more serious of crimes out there and should at least be treated as such. but again if they pay their price and are now free let them have their rights back.

Kayne, one more point that needs to be emphasized.

You continue to make the argument for forgiveness by society which confuses the roles of a person with the role of the state. The state is law and justice. It cannot follow the teachings of Christ because it has a defined role to play. It cannot "turn the other cheek" when another state assaults it because it has a duty to protect its citizens. It will go to war with the other state. Scripture says that government does not bear the sword in vain.

Internally, the state must also execute justice against wrongdoers, justice that isn't confined to the time a man spends incarcerated, but can have continuing effects. The deterring effect of lifelong consequences serves as a warning to others not to follow the same path. Goverment does not forgive, nor is it mandated by Scripture to do so. All of Christ's teachings were directed at his followers and even then, adherence to those teachings is completely voluntary on a personal level; that is to say, Christ never calls for the mechinisms of government to compell obedience to his teachings.

I'm sorry for the choices you made in life and the penalties you continue to pay for them, but there is no injustice for the perpetuity of them. Those who used drugs fry their brain, or become disfigured, or have no professional skills or retirement nestegg because they wasted so much of their life. People who abuse their family eventually lose their family, never to be restored. Someone who overeats for years falls into danger of heart disease. A heavy drinker spends his liver. etc. etc. As you see, one doesn't even have to go to prison to ruin their entire lives based on poor decisions in their younger years.

i understand the state must function a bit differently. and no where have i said turn the other cheek to crimes. im in full support of self defense and pay the time for the crime mentality.

your right Christ never demands government be like him. but imagine if government was like him how must better it would be. further more the constitution is very much Christian in nature. and a lot what government does these days is wrong just because it mandates something does not make it right. slavery was legal but it wasnt right now was it?

your right jail isnt the only way of ruining ones life. but in those cases you mentioned there is a way out. you have far better of a chance to restore yourself than getting out jail which constantly puts a ball and chain around your neck. you can certainly chose to not even try. you also may never get caught doing drugs. and im not saying you can only ruin your life for prison. and your right i have done some pretty **** stupid things but im over it its all good. i refound the light. but i find your opinion one of a person that hasnt really tasted the dark side of life(which is a good thing) and so you dont really understand what it has been like to truely repetant in a full sense of the word. people that really have fallen into the dark side of the life dont need to be constantly shackled. they seek freedom from their past crimes and need to be able to attain otherwise it never really feels like they repented if they cant ever obtain a full freedom. after all full repentance is full freedom from past sins and denying people that is simply wrong. if a man has truely changed we should treat that man like that.

[LDSJewess]

I am very much anti gun control and here are the reasons why:

1. When law abiding citizens are denied their right to bear arms, then the only ones owning guns are those who are not law abiding, or the government. Criminals will obtain them on the black market, and commit the crimes anyway. As for the government owning guns but not the citizens not; this may seem fine in theory until some fanatical or evil leader emerges in government. I have to think that if citizens lawfully had guns in Europe in the first half of the 20th century, we may not have even had a holocaust.

2. The theory that guns can get into the hands of children who take them to school or commit suicide just doesn't hold water. When I grew up in the 50's and 60's in the Midwest, many children knew how to shoot guns and owned guns by around the age of ten. Opening day of deer hunting season was a school holiday, and kids went hunting and most by early teens belonged to shooting clubs for sport. I went to shcool in a very large city with a graduating class in the thousands, and I NEVER kn ew one kid throughout high school that shot anyone and none committed suicide. The reason was all these kids were taught gun safety, responsibility, and feared the repercussion of disobeying their parents when they were told they could only handle guns under adult supervision at the shooting range or when hunting.

Those were different times though. I have to wonder what kool aide the parents of the Colunbine shooters were drinking when interviewed they said "They had no idea their teenagers were building gunds and bombs in the garage." And They had not ever recalled seeing the 15 propane tanks in their garage. What???? Where do they park their cars? Didn't they ever enter their kids rooms? That crime and others like it were not the fault of guns.

3. The logic of denying a law abiding citizen the right to own a gun because "there are those who would abuse gun use" is about as silly as saying that if someone drives recklessly and kills someone with a car, we need to deny the law abiding citizens the right to own a car. And for the record, the leading cause of (non illness related deaths) is not guns it is cars. (Or should we say the miss use of cars).

[kayne]

I am very much anti gun control and here are the reasons why:

1. When law abiding citizens are denied their right to bear arms, then the only ones owning guns are those who are not law abiding, or the government. Criminals will obtain them on the black market, and commit the crimes anyway. As for the government owning guns but not the citizens not; this may seem fine in theory until some fanatical or evil leader emerges in government. I have to think that if citizens lawfully had guns in Europe in the first half of the 20th century, we may not have even had a holocaust.

2. The theory that guns can get into the hands of children who take them to school or commit suicide just doesn't hold water. When I grew up in the 50's and 60's in the Midwest, many children knew how to shoot guns and owned guns by around the age of ten. Opening day of deer hunting season was a school holiday, and kids went hunting and most by early teens belonged to shooting clubs for sport. I went to shcool in a very large city with a graduating class in the thousands, and I NEVER kn ew one kid throughout high school that shot anyone and none committed suicide. The reason was all these kids were taught gun safety, responsibility, and feared the repercussion of disobeying their parents when they were told they could only handle guns under adult supervision at the shooting range or when hunting.

Those were different times though. I have to wonder what kool aide the parents of the Colunbine shooters were drinking when interviewed they said "They had no idea their teenagers were building gunds and bombs in the garage." And They had not ever recalled seeing the 15 propane tanks in their garage. What???? Where do they park their cars? Didn't they ever enter their kids rooms? That crime and others like it were not the fault of guns.

3. The logic of denying a law abiding citizen the right to own a gun because "there are those who would abuse gun use" is about as silly as saying that if someone drives recklessly and kills someone with a car, we need to deny the law abiding citizens the right to own a car. And for the record, the leading cause of (non illness related deaths) is not guns it is cars. (Or should we say the miss use of cars).

im glad there are some people like you who see the light and at that understand the true intention of the second amendment. defense against a tyrannical dictator which most seem to not even think is possible in this day and age yet it seems more possible than ever before.

and ya LOL at those parents really.. LOL. its quite sad actually. i know kids are crafty but come on thats just blantantly stupid there.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

Last year there were 14,000 gun homicides.

Compare that to the whopping 250,000 deaths due to medical mistakes!

Time to ban hospitals?

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

congrats youve found a rare exception. im no felon im no ex con. my record is clean. to assume i am felon or ex con is in poor taste and shows a severe lack of reasoning and quick to judge and assume on your part.

Going with the laws of probability is never in poor taste.

im advocating equal rights for all even those ex cons that are now free men. free men deserve equal rights.

No. Felons do not deserve equal rights. They broke the social contract. Period.

sex offenders pretty much have to paint their house with the label which negates any hope they can re integrate into society,must put ex con on a job application) i mean really ex cons cant integrate back into society very well. its a pretty established fact most end up back in jail and part of that is they are never really allowed to fall straight back into society.

I'm trying to shed a tear for those poor sex offenders who have to let people know they might pose a danger to their children. I'm trying real hard.

but he is a free man. why should his rights be denied to him? how can he protect his family from a break in? how can he defend himself if he is mugged? should he be a helpless child in the face of another criminal? the arguement is insane. if hes truely repentant he wont use that gun for evil. if he isnt hell find an illegal gun and do the crime. at the best youve prevented a repentant man that has had his heart changed and denied him the right to self defense. truely a horrible crime. and if he has a family youve jeopordized them as well. again a truely horrid crime.

Kayne, why don't you spend some time studying the statistics of recividism among people released from prison (how often they fall back into crime) and then superimpose that on your argument that felons should be able to get guns. Does that paint a picture for you?

and i see thats fine your catholic you dont see murder as quite unforgiveable but you still have to admit its probably the more serious of crimes out there and should at least be treated as such. but again if they pay their price and are now free let them have their rights back.

I'm actually against murderers ever being set free. I think mandatory and irrevokable life sentences should be a close second in preference to the death penalty in response to murder. The ones who by some miscarriage of justice are free while their victim moulders in the ground I have no pity for. There is nothing so terrible that could happen to them that they don't richly deserve it.

your right Christ never demands government be like him. but imagine if government was like him how must better it would be. further more the constitution is very much Christian in nature. and a lot what government does these days is wrong just because it mandates something does not make it right. slavery was legal but it wasnt right now was it?

I don't want my government trying to be religious. At all.

[kayne]

Going with the laws of probability is never in poor taste.

the laws of probablity are based on math and science. math and science flunctuate constantly. math and science say the earth was formed 4.5 billion years ago. i say varying from concepts of math and science is hardly in poor taste. the entire concept of Faith goes directly against the laws of probablity as faith often says do the polar opposite of human logic. i mean part the red seas? probablity is im sure against that yet faith made it so. so dont tell me going with the laws of probablity is always a good thing. concerning faith and probably other things it is horribly bad.

No. Felons do not deserve equal rights. They broke the social contract. Period.

your right felons dont deserve equal rights....EXfelons however...notice the key word EX as in no longer a felon. as in out of jail. ya....just saying

I'm trying to shed a tear for those poor sex offenders who have to let people know they might pose a danger to their children. I'm trying real hard.

you know what? you should shed a tear? you should feel bad they hurt someone. you should feel bad they chose to ruin their lives. you should weep that those souls are lost. if you dont i'd suggest reevaluating a few things about yourself. me im saddened to know people ruined their lives like this. wheres it say in the bible the Lord took no pleasure in casting out Satan and weeps for him? ya if our maker can weep for the Devil being damned for all eternity i think we can all feel a little compassion for a sex offender that just screw themselves and others over.

I'm actually against murderers ever being set free. I think mandatory and irrevokable life sentences should be a close second in preference to the death penalty in response to murder. The ones who by some miscarriage of justice are free while their victim moulders in the ground I have no pity for. There is nothing so terrible that could happen to them that they don't richly deserve it.

i am against murders being set free personally but sometimes they get a life sentence sometimes they dont only stating if they are let free they paid their dues.

I don't want my government trying to be religious. At all.

perhaps you should study americas constitution and its founding. its a shock to the uninformed but its very much christian in nature. the document itsself holds a religious undertone and fully reconizes God is real. the only thing it never outright does is say they are reconizing Christ but its clear if one takes the time to understand it its christian in nature. besides this you never say the government would be worse off if it was run like Christ which was my point.

Kayne, why don't you spend some time studying the statistics of recividism among people released from prison (how often they fall back into crime) and then superimpose that on your argument that felons should be able to get guns. Does that paint a picture for you?

but they arent just denied guns are they? and why is it they fall back into crime? oh yes they can never full reintegrate into society because they as i said cant buy guns,cant vote,cant find a job and constantly marked with FELON on their forhead. and you still didnt even address the whole they cant defend themselves or their family comment? convient oversight or perhaps you realize you put innocents at risk but cant back off your position now can you?

youve still failed to address why a man out of jail should be an outcast from society. why a man out of jail shouldnt be able to defend himself or his/her family. and youve still failed to address if your truely repentant why you shouldnt be allowed full integration back into society after youve paid your dues. yet at the same time you ironically point out people out of jail are more likely to recommit crimes and ive very much given a reason for this and yet youve offered no plausible solution other than keep saddling them down. like you ironically pointed out lets ban hospitals(a joke i know funny i admit lol) which is the same concept as banning someone from owning a gun. it neither helps anyone nor stops the crime. people would still die irregardless. in fact gun free cities get more crime because of this.

if your a free man why be denied your rights? your not in jail? so what are you a free man or not? pick one theres no hybrid your either free or not. your not partly free the wording is illogical but yet it seems thats what they are only partly free which makes no sense at all given what the word free means.

it seems like you overlooked a lot of my post on freedom and repentance. please if your going to argue back reply to most of what i say not bits and pieces and then claim to have a counter point. im sure i do this sometimes but im human i screw up but seems like you overlooked ALOT.