Where does an ex-con fit into the gun control campaign???

[DJMc]

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/...nity_members_say_theres_a_role_for_ex-felons/

There are a number of reasons this screams out to be published. First, there is a paroled con seeking to campaign for gun control. The comments I've seen allege he was in for a violent offense, not sure about that, but ....

The stats that the gun control advocate produced were shocking. The article quotes Ron Pinciaro the Executive Director of "Connecticut Against Gun Violence." A study conducted by this group revelead that "91 percent of the guns used in crimes were in the possession of persons not legally allowed to own them, including felons, minors, those involuntarily committed to mental institutions or those under protective or restraining orders."

So what help are the gun control laws? The guns used in crimes are possessed in violation of the gun control laws, or in other words, the criminals break the law to get the guns, while the law abiders don't. Does this just prove that point?

 

[Airman1030]

Gun control nuts take all shapes.
They think that if lawful gun owners can't have guns then criminals won't be able to get them either. We all know this is false but I think that's how they feel. Have any of you seen the show 30 days? There was a gun control activist on. You should watch it if you haven't already.

PARTICIPANT - Pia Lalli, 39
RESIDES - Brockton, MA
OCCUPATION - Aerobics Instructor
AIRDATE - Tuesday, July 1, 2008
After Pia learned that her friend had been killed by a schizophrenic man wielding a gun in 1996, she became a gun control advocate who has fought to pass stricter gun laws in the U.S. Pia believes that the world would be free from gun violence only by prohibiting the sale of guns to anyone outside of law enforcement and armed services.

For 30 Days, Pia will live in the heart of gun culture in the rural town of Leesburg, Ohio with gun enthusiast Ken Ekermeyer, 39, and his 15-year-old son Zach. Ken is an avid gun collector and rarely leaves home without his gun strapped to his side. Ken believes carrying a gun is his right guaranteed to every American by the Second Amendment. As Pia struggles to understand the Ekermeyer's beliefs and somewhat isolated way of life, she will work at a local gun store and experience what it is like to carry a gun in public, learn to handle and fire weapons and will introduce Ken to other gun control activists who have lost loved ones to gun violence.

I love how it ended.

 

[Pilgrim]

So making guns illegal would mean that 100% of crimes with a gun were done by people who couldn't legally own a gun.

That makes their stats better, how?

 

[Admin]

After Pia learned that her friend had been killed by a schizophrenic man wielding a gun in 1996, she became a gun control advocate who has fought to pass stricter gun laws in the U.S. Pia believes that the world would be free from gun violence only by prohibiting the sale of guns to anyone outside of law enforcement and armed services.

Idiot

 

[Pete85]

Gun control nuts take all shapes.
They think that if lawful gun owners can't have guns then criminals won't be able to get them either. We all know this is false but I think that's how they feel. Have any of you seen the show 30 days? There was a gun control activist on. You should watch it if you haven't already.


I love how it ended.

Yeah, it basically ended with her saying "Well, I see that I'm wrong, but I'm not going to change my opinion."

 

[Airman1030]

Yeah, it basically ended with her saying "Well, I see that I'm wrong, but I'm not going to change my opinion."

Well she atleast saw the faults in her aguement and started to admit she's wrong. All jurneys start with a single step. She just took a baby step though. I loved her reaction when she shot the shotgun.

 

[sbhaven]

Hanton was also quoted in a New Haven Register article from last Sunday posted to this thread:
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/116143-CT-Anti-gun-advocates-cite-NRA-law-loopholes-for-rising-violence-in-New-Haven

James Hanton lamented he can’t yet vote and spur change because he’s still on parole.

Image that, a parolee who doesn't want people armed. I'm shocked.

 

[clinotus]

The firearm contribution of this article is really just a MacGuffin for a thinly veiled 'rights' story.

Conservatively a lot of us put out there that if someone was tried, convicted, and served out a sentence, as in obligation to the state/people, then upon release from the penal system they should be able to have their rights restored. It is easy to hold that argument on paper when its not your wife or daughter raped, sister or son murdered. Its an issue that has had rigorous debate over hundreds of years and due to the complexity and social obligations its likely not going to be resolved, ever. Ct at least allows those convicted of felonies to vote which is a step ahead of some states regarding the issue, Mr. Hanton needs to be patient and allow the terms of his re-enfranchisement to come into effect where he can become a process bearer to or champion the cause. It seems as though he is asking for too much change in consideration of the admitted rates and trends in recidivism.

 

[clinotus]

Hanton was also quoted in a New Haven Register article from last Sunday posted to this thread:
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/116143-CT-Anti-gun-advocates-cite-NRA-law-loopholes-for-rising-violence-in-New-Haven


Image that, a parolee who doesn't want people armed. I'm shocked.

You're taking his viewpoint out of context for a quick pat on the back from your fellow gun owners. Hanton is coming from a different direction regarding the effect of firearms on his community.

 

[pernox]

The firearm contribution of this article is really just a MacGuffin for a thinly veiled 'rights' story.

Conservatively a lot of us put out there that if someone was tried, convicted, and served out a sentence, as in obligation to the state/people, then upon release from the penal system they should be able to have their rights restored. It is easy to hold that argument on paper when its not your wife or daughter raped, sister or son murdered. Its an issue that has had rigorous debate over hundreds of years and due to the complexity and social obligations its likely not going to be resolved, ever. Ct at least allows those convicted of felonies to vote which is a step ahead of some states regarding the issue, Mr. Hanton needs to be patient and allow the terms of his re-enfranchisement to come into effect where he can become a process bearer to or champion the cause. It seems as though he is asking for too much change in consideration of the admitted rates and trends in recidivism.

I'd just like to take this opportunity to say thanks for returning to us with your insight, clinotus. I don't think I'm alone in holding your well-considered posts in high regard.

On topic, I think restoring 100% of a person's rights once they've served their appointed sentence is the only Constitutionally proper thing to do. I'd like to see the change effected immediately so that the populace can see that stronger sentencing needs to become the rule for violent offenders, who will very frequently offend again. By allowing someone to leave prison, but not enjoy protected rights, the implication is that the sentence has not worked; it hasn't "cured" the criminal, and it's expected that he'll re-offend. Hence the restriction of rights; "Well, we're going to let you out, but we're not sure that you're all the way fixed yet... So, no guns for you!"

In that case, let's start having the punishment fit the crime and see a whole lot more heavy-handedness when doling out a sentence. Does anyone honestly think a child molester is going to stop being a child molester because of some piddly 5yr prison term? How about a guy who's been out beating old folks to steal their pension checks? Hanging in the town common needs to make a comeback.

 

[pbearperry]

Sometimes I wish that these anti gunners would get their wish with the stipulation that if their beliefs are proven wrong the whole gun control farce would be put to rest.There is no doubt that if whackos and career criminals knew that most everybody was disarmed, crime would soar.Criminals would be empowered and become more bold.It is a known fact that career criminals fear armed citizens much more than cops and the Courts.Many of the criminals I asked told me so.

 

[depicts]

So making guns illegal would mean that 100% of crimes with a gun were done by people who couldn't legally own a gun.

That makes their stats better, how?

It could be worse. Wouldn't that mean if only police and military owned guns, all crime would be committed by Licensed gun owners. *S* Nah, couldn't happen here.

 

[clinotus]

I'd just like to take this opportunity to say thanks for returning to us with your insight, clinotus. I don't think I'm alone in holding your well-considered posts in high regard.

Why thank you sir, its nice to have been missed. I as well appreciate your very kind words.

On topic, I think restoring 100% of a person's rights once they've served their appointed sentence is the only Constitutionally proper thing to do. I'd like to see the change effected immediately so that the populace can see that stronger sentencing needs to become the rule for violent offenders, who will very frequently offend again. By allowing someone to leave prison, but not enjoy protected rights, the implication is that the sentence has not worked; it hasn't "cured" the criminal, and it's expected that he'll re-offend. Hence the restriction of rights; "Well, we're going to let you out, but we're not sure that you're all the way fixed yet... So, no guns for you!"

Excellent points, coupled with the blackmarks that they face with the return to society, to filling out even marginal employment applications...the prospects for reintegration dwindle without a strong spirit, while the chances of returning to the means of the incarceration rise since they are essentially locked out of the 'being productive' system.

 

[drgrant]

Maybe he's whining about guns because he's an idiot that believes that "the gun got him in trouble and if it didn't exist he wouldn't have gone to prison" or some BS like that... either that, or as a violent criminal, he doesn't like the fact that others are armed.

-Mike

 

[groundscrapers]

Gun control nuts take all shapes.
They think that if lawful gun owners can't have guns then criminals won't be able to get them either. We all know this is false but I think that's how they feel. Have any of you seen the show 30 days? There was a gun control activist on. You should watch it if you haven't already.





I love how it ended.

http://splodetv.com/video/30-days-gun-nation-episode

just incase someone hasn't seen it.

 

[drgrant]

Conservatively a lot of us put out there that if someone was tried, convicted, and served out a sentence, as in obligation to the state/people, then upon release from the penal system they should be able to have their rights restored. It is easy to hold that argument on paper when its not your wife or daughter raped, sister or son murdered. Its an issue that has had rigorous debate over hundreds of years and due to the complexity and social obligations its likely not going to be resolved, ever.

Outside of places like NES, I don't think restoration of rights is taken with any grain of seriousness or discussion whatsoever. Look at the federal firearms relief from disabilities program, for example. The feds have a program where federally prohibited persons could theoretically at least earn their gun rights back by another form of due process. Congress won't even fund it, which basically sends the message that they haven't even considered it to be a relevant issue, leaving us with a system where those considered worthy of release are now more or less branded for life with a form of infinite probation. The irony of the whole thing is that "prohibited person" ultimately only punishes the individuals who are interested in staying on the right side of the law. Violent criminals, as you're well aware, simply ignore any and all such laws.

I've always taken the stance that if a person is deemed "unfit" by society to legally own a gun, then they probably shouldn't be walking around free anyways. The current system is basically a band aid that's been put in place so everyone can avoid talking about the elephants in the room that are "what is the role of incarceration? Is it to reform or punish, or both? " Saying "felons can't own guns when they get out of prison" is obviously nothing more than a "feel good" measure.

-Mike

 

[Airman1030]

http://splodetv.com/video/30-days-gun-nation-episode

just incase someone hasn't seen it.

I'm glad you were able to find that video. I couldn't.

 

[cekim]

I've always taken the stance that if a person is deemed "unfit" by society to legally own a gun, then they probably shouldn't be walking around free anyways. The current system is basically a band aid that's been put in place so everyone can avoid talking about the elephants in the room that are "what is the role of incarceration? Is it to reform or punish, or both? " Saying "felons can't own guns when they get out of prison" is obviously nothing more than a "feel good" measure.

This...

We need a wholesale re-think of how we punish crime - our current approach is just providing training camp and incentive for more violent and capable criminals...

The objective, first and foremost should be to keep bad people out of circulation until they have demonstrated they are no longer a threat.

 

[Cato]

Although I agree that anyone who is not in prison should have all rights, the bigger problem in my eyes is the method used to restrict felons from firearm possession and the complete disregard for due process.

Currently, felons are prevented from possessing firearms under the supposed regulatory authority granted under the commerce clause. So somehow having felons without firearms makes interstate commerce flow more efficiently?

In a free country rights can be disabled only after due process. In order prevent felons from possessing firearms while still satisfying the right of due process, lawmakers would need to add this restriction as part of a punishment to each law that they saw fit. Then if the executive branch charges someone with violating a law the judiciary branch, along with a jury of one's peers, would decide on guilt. Then a judge could pass sentence, and if written in to the law, disable a right. Losing gun rights would only happen in a court room after due process and not as part of a regulatory scheme.

Again, I do not feel that anyone who is not in prison should have any rights disabled. But if individual rights are to be restricted then it should only be done after due process.