And herein lies the problem..... In principle, you’re absolutely correct. It is NOT likely that having a gun makes a person into a criminal. The issue is really whether or not the person IS a criminal.....who also has a gun. And as a libertarian leaning person, I am inclined to agree with the idea that a person’s punishment and loss of rights shouldn’t continue beyond the fulfillment of their sentence. It is NOT justice to hold someone’s past over their head forever, if they demonstrate a reformed character and turn their lives around. But the problem is that we don’t live in a world where the courts hand out appropriately long sentences, no matter what the law says.....and that cuts both ways. Some people are over-penalized, and others are under-penalized. It’s a flawed system because it depends on judges and juries who have different opinions of what the penalties ought to be.....or in some cases, if the accused is even guilty - OJ Simpson, for instance, for whom the evidence of guilt seemed overwhelming, but counsel for the defense successfully turned it into an issue of race, and the jury had a chance to “stick it to the man” by acquitting OJ. In such an environment, it matters little whether or not the law calls for specific penalties for certain crimes.O.F.Fascist wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 12:21 pmMy thoughts are that a person who has shown they are a continuing threat to society should be given an appropriately lengthy sentence. It is not logical to think that guns can be kept out of the hands of any individual who chooses to own one.The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 10:42 am I agree with that last statement, but I think that there should be some limitations on that. For instance, if the felon has been convicted of a crime of violence, or use of a firearm in commission of a crime, or is a recidivist with more than one conviction and sentencing, then maybe they’ve demonstrated that they continue to be a threat to their community even after release, and can never again be trusted with a firearm.
So in principle, yes, if a persona has fulfilled their debt to society, then their rights should be restored; but if they continue to incur debts to society, then they become like a borrower with a history of defaulting on loans. At some point, they can’t borrow any more money because society knows they’re not good for repayment.
In theory I'm fine with making no-guns a condition of parole for a violent crime that involved a gun, but once that person has completed the parole they should get those rights back. It is not like having a gun makes a person turn into a criminal.
I realize that there are no guarantees in life, and also that liberty does not come without risks. But, the law-abiding population does have some reasonable expectation that the legislative, legal, and criminal justice systems will So where is the balance between ensuring that the criminal justice system appropriately sentences convicts, which it often does not today, and simultaneously ensuring that people who have fulfilled their correctional obligations are able to be returned to society as fully participating members?