I think Andrew makes a good point. Once you've served your time, you've paid your debt to society. Even felons aren't permanent second-class citizens. And why would you have a correctional system that doesn't correct its inmates? Maybe Virginia is wrong. If only I knew somebody who could tell me how it's done in Kentucky....
Man, Joe, today you're really trashing that dream of sleeping with Nancy Pelosi. What would she think if she heard you disparaging and railing against the civil liberties of the nation's criminals? And again, HOW THE HELL DID I BECOME THE MOST LIBERAL ONE IN THIS THREAD?
Are felons not allowed to vote? I was not aware. Or maybe you were making a joke. If not, are they taxed? Are they taxed without representation?
It depends on the sentence and whether you're talking about probation or parole. I wouldn't be able to give you a general answer.
What is the difference?
A judge can grant probation at sentencing and (s)he has broad discretion to craft the terms of probation. The judge can grant shock probation from thirty to one hundred eighty days after sentencing if the judge finds the defendant should serve. The probation will normally be the remainder of the term for which the defendant was sentenced. Parole is decided by the parole board after the defendant has served a portion (usually substantial - anywhere from 25% to 85%) of their time.
Are felons not allowed to vote? I was not aware. Or maybe you were making a joke. If not, are they taxed? Are they taxed without representation?
No, they can't vote. Yes, they are taxed. I don't make up these rules, but it's easy to understand their origin.
Are felons not allowed to vote? I was not aware. Or maybe you were making a joke. If not, are they taxed? Are they taxed without representation?
As I said before, one of the consequences of having a judge issue a DVO is that the respondent loses the right to purchase or own firearms. The standard of proof is very low (preponderance of the evidence), and it's a civil sanction, so judges are very liberal about issuing them. You'll often see some guy who didn't get an attorney try to prove he didn't do whatever the petitioner says he did, have the judge find against him, and then get REAL MAD when the judge tells him he's gotta give up his guns.
Apparently the Bill of Rights is alienable. I think I've found a new cause to fight. Felons serving their sentences surely, according to the 14th amendment, may not be allowed to vote. But once that sentence has been served, apparently a felon's writ of habeas corpus remains suspended? This is a travesty.Disenfranchisement must end.
" Posted By: bodtchboyAnd about Virginia, think if every student in the university had a concealed weapons permit and was carrying Perhaps the guy wouldn't have dared to do anything. And if he did, it would have been 120 students against 1 instead of 1 man picking off 120 students.
Quote:
So it would have been safer to have a shootout involving 121 students? Okay, I'm sure you'll say that you feel like if you were there you would have been rational and heroic and concentrated your fire on the bad guy. What about the other people? Thaye might not be as rational. They might have started shooting at anyone. They might have shot you, mistakenly thinking you were the bad guy. How could law enforcement then identify the bad guy? "Halt! All good guys stop shooting!"?"
Safe? Who knows?!? I'm talking about defense. If you were in that situation, someone came and started shooting people around you are you going to think: "phew, good thing I don't have a gun. This way, I'm considered helpless and no one can interpret me as possibly committing a crime against a criminal. Uh oh, he's pointing his gun at me...."
As for the rest of your post, I hadn't realised our gun laws were that strict. Thanks for making me happier again about where I live.
I disagree - I'm happy enough with Stricter gun laws - but I would rather extend them, so that they are both strict, but allow freedom - for example, expand the licence classess, and the testing for them, and allow the unrestricted sale of airsoft weapons - or at the least, allow the full range of airsoft weapons to be sold even if only out of gun stores and to class A licence holders.
As for the rest of your post, I hadn't realised our gun laws were that strict. Thanks for making me happier again about where I live.
I disagree - I'm happy enough with Stricter gun laws - but I would rather extend them, so that they are both strict, but allow freedom - for example, expand the licence classess, and the testing for them, and allow the unrestricted sale of airsoft weapons - or at the least, allow the full range of airsoft weapons to be sold even if only out of gun stores and to class A licence holders.
Personally, when it comes to airsoft, I agree that freedom-wise they should be able to be sold to non-minors without restriction. However, I personally don't see why it is necessary to make them black like real guns. Sure, freedom-wise, they should be able to look exactly like real guns, who cares. But seriously, that only causes trouble for a sport that would otherwise be no trouble. Only the gun-otaku care if the guns are more precise replicas of real guns. I say make airsoft guns that work and handle really well, but make them entire neon green and look nothing like real guns. You're only asking for trouble.
I say make airsoft guns that work and handle really well, but make them entire neon green and look nothing like real guns.
Hell, I'd be more than happy to buy them if they were Neon green and orange - I frankly don't care what colour they are, or even if they come out in models that don't look like real guns - but the freedom to purchase and own is the important thing.
The reason I find it so stupid is that the Australian Government Deems it perfectly allowable to own a 30.08 lever action rifle, multiple revolvers, and a 30.08 Target rifle that I could kill someone from a kilometre distant - but I'm not allowed to own a Replica weapon that fires Plastic 6MM BBs at under 400 Feet per second - Despite the fact that I'm allowed to own a BB gun firing metal Ball Bearings at a much higher velocity.
Safe? Who knows?!? I'm talking about defense. If you were in that situation, someone came and started shooting people around you are you going to think: "phew, good thing I don't have a gun. This way, I'm considered helpless and no one can interpret me as possibly committing a crime against a criminal. Uh oh, he's pointing his gun at me...."
Yeah, really good thing I don't have a gun. That way there won't be another gun in the situation that someone might be able to take away from me, someone else won't shoot me thinking I'm the bad guy, the bad guy himself won't be specifically attracted to me and I might be able to hide, and law enforcement won't shoot me thinking I'm another bad guy.
I guess I could add my voice to the crazy right wing chorus this way: "I'm so tough that if I had been there, I could have killed him with a stern look. Huah."
Please. Some people are beginning to have a real problem distinguishing reality from an action movie. Gunfights in real life are not choreographed like The Matrix. The guy had two handguns. I think that most people who are honest with themselves will admit that, even if they had a gun, their first thought would be to hide. If other people had started shooting, there would be confusion and dismay resulting in many more deaths.
As long as we're thinking that real life is just like the movies, I have to ask: Where were the superheroes? Why didn't Spiderman save them? Where were those damn mutants?
Dealing with nuts is one of the biggest problems in this country. We seem to be really good at making nuts, and not so good at un-making them.
Do you believe that people taking antidepressants are tracked in government databases? I know that KY keeps a prescription drug database because I had two clients that had been charged with doctor shopping for painkillers. They were caught by checking to see whether precription periods in the database overlapped.
Do you believe that people taking antidepressants are tracked in governmentdatabases?I know that KY keeps a prescription drug database because I had two clients that had been charged with doctor shopping for painkillers. They were caught by checking to see whether precription periods in the database overlapped.
Do I believe they are? I'm not sure because I've never researched it before.
Do I believe they should be? No, I don't necessarily think that we need the government to keep a database. It is sufficient to require doctors to keep records. Then if some issue comes up in court, you can just demand the doctors hand over the relevant files. This would of course be much easier if doctors took advantage of got-damn technology. *grumble*
Also, there are some people who have a problem, and they need to take psychiatric medication of some sort. Some of those people pose a danger to themselves and others in the event that they do not take that medication. It should be a crime for them to not take their medication. Some people pose a danger to themselves and others even if they do take their medication. Those people need to be put in a safe place where they can receive healing without posing a threat to society.
That's the problem. I see a horrible chain of events where we'll attempt to legislate so that "this can never happen again." But that's not realistic. There will always be chinks in the armor, especially in high-density population centers like college campuses. No matter how many guns you take away, it won't make people less violent, and it won't make a mentally deranged individual any less deadly. They will always find a means to exercise their sickness if they are truly committed to it.
The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 already prohibits persons who've been involuntarily committed from purchasing firearms. The problem is that Cho wasn't caught by a search that should have shown that he was ineligible to purchase his guns.
The problem is also that anyone can purchase anything they want -- including weapons -- anytime, and making guns illegal only stops law-abiding citizens from obtaining them. Criminals don't care about breaking the laws.
I posted this on the Movies You Should See forum in response to someone from Albion who claimed that America's gun-related fatalities were approximately 30,000 per year:
The number of annual U.S. gun fatalities is half what you reported. Yet despite a 16% reduction in handguns in the U.K., gun crime there was up 55% in 2004, according to your home office. In Switzerland, 14% of homes have automatic weapons, but the crime rate is far lower than in Britain. The 1994 Brady Bill banned many automatic weapons in the U.S., but there has been no reduction in their use in gun crimes. The U.S. Department of Justice says non-fatal gun crimes are close to an all-time low, and that less than 10% of non-fatal crimes involve a gun. About 57% of all gun deaths are suicides, which would occur regardless of whether a gun is involved. In fact, of the homicides in the U.S., only 49% involve guns - which means the majority of murders occur without them. Guns in the U.S. are used 2 million times each year for self-defense (against aggressors and wild animals), and private ownership is estimated to prevent 450,000 annual burglaries, according to the most conservative of nine international studies. In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." Passage of the Right-to-Carry law in Florida resulted in a 36% reduction in homicides. Firearms account for only 1.5% of fatal accidents in the U.S. (1,400 deaths). Motor vehicles account for 43,900 deaths.
I linked the relevant text to sources, which didn't copy over. To see the sources, visit the MYSS thread. At any rate, nobody cared, saying statistics are irrelevant.
1) 2nd Amendment was written to allow the people to protect themselves from the tyranny of the government. By having an armed populace you protect your borders (first line of defense) and you keep the government in check.
2) There should be no laws in regards to gun ownership.
3) If a criminal is released from jail (and not on probation) they should not have their rights restricted in any way shape or form. If they are still a danger to society they should not be free.
4) If the other students were allowed to have guns on campus (or if the no guns on campus rule was strictly enforced) this tragedy would not have claimed as many lives as it did.
5) If someone started shooting people near me and I was armed I would seek cover and then return fire (if able) otherwise I would simply drop prone and return fire. I come from a family where gun ownership is a way of life. I had a rifle long before I ever learned how to drive. Yes, I still have that rifle.
At any rate, nobody cared, saying statistics are irrelevant.
After posting over there, it seems to me that they are all perfectly ok with giving up rights and freedoms for supposed "safety." They also seem like they think government is your friend and will never oppress you. Ugh, thank bejesus I live in America.
There's plenty of space in the Northwest Territories if you want to live without any government restrictions, but if you want to live in society, you'll find all sorts of restrictions on your liberty. Do you have the liberty to murder, rape, and steal? Do you have the liberty to burn garbage on your front lawn? Do you have the liberty to drive your car at 100 miles an hour through a school zone? Do you have the liberty to take your gun and start firing randomly in the public square? Do you have the liberty to sell poison disguised as food?
Government does have a compelling interest in keeping its citizens safe. If you want a real security v. liberty issue, you should be more concerned with the War on Terror.
Steve, having an armed populace is the first line of defense? It should be the last. There is a reason why we have a military with professional soldiers.
Steve, having an armed populace is the first line of defense? It should be the last. There is a reason why we have a military with professional soldiers.
What if that professional military is the enemy? Who will defend you?
Joe, those are all actions taken by people, against others. That is not what I am saying at all. We cannot live in anarchy, it is not possible the way we live now. Hopefully in the future there will be no need for government, society will be strong enough to govern itself, but that will not happen for a long long time, if at all. There must be punishments against wrong doings, but you cannot "preemptively" strike against criminals by eliminating the citizen's right to freedom. Are you going to enact "strict car regulation laws" to prevent speeders? Ex-felons are not allowed to own a car. You aren't allowed to own a car if you got a speeding ticket. We need background checks for car purchases. Are you going to enact "strict food laws" to prevent poisoned food from entering supermarkets? Background checks for supermarket managers. Ban of non-organic foods. How about "strict garbage laws"? Sounds silly doesn't it?
Comments
Are felons not allowed to vote? I was not aware. Or maybe you were making a joke. If not, are they taxed? Are they taxed without representation?
Quote:
So it would have been safer to have a shootout involving 121 students? Okay, I'm sure you'll say that you feel like if you were there you would have been rational and heroic and concentrated your fire on the bad guy. What about the other people? Thaye might not be as rational. They might have started shooting at anyone. They might have shot you, mistakenly thinking you were the bad guy. How could law enforcement then identify the bad guy? "Halt! All good guys stop shooting!"?"
Safe? Who knows?!? I'm talking about defense. If you were in that situation, someone came and started shooting people around you are you going to think: "phew, good thing I don't have a gun. This way, I'm considered helpless and no one can interpret me as possibly committing a crime against a criminal. Uh oh, he's pointing his gun at me...."
Tomorrow(Friday) is the anniversary of Columbine.
I disagree - I'm happy enough with Stricter gun laws - but I would rather extend them, so that they are both strict, but allow freedom - for example, expand the licence classess, and the testing for them, and allow the unrestricted sale of airsoft weapons - or at the least, allow the full range of airsoft weapons to be sold even if only out of gun stores and to class A licence holders.
Hell, I'd be more than happy to buy them if they were Neon green and orange - I frankly don't care what colour they are, or even if they come out in models that don't look like real guns - but the freedom to purchase and own is the important thing.
The reason I find it so stupid is that the Australian Government Deems it perfectly allowable to own a 30.08 lever action rifle, multiple revolvers, and a 30.08 Target rifle that I could kill someone from a kilometre distant - but I'm not allowed to own a Replica weapon that fires Plastic 6MM BBs at under 400 Feet per second - Despite the fact that I'm allowed to own a BB gun firing metal Ball Bearings at a much higher velocity.
I guess I could add my voice to the crazy right wing chorus this way: "I'm so tough that if I had been there, I could have killed him with a stern look. Huah."
Please. Some people are beginning to have a real problem distinguishing reality from an action movie. Gunfights in real life are not choreographed like The Matrix. The guy had two handguns. I think that most people who are honest with themselves will admit that, even if they had a gun, their first thought would be to hide. If other people had started shooting, there would be confusion and dismay resulting in many more deaths.
As long as we're thinking that real life is just like the movies, I have to ask: Where were the superheroes? Why didn't Spiderman save them? Where were those damn mutants?
Obama wants to stop the mentally ill from buying guns
Do I believe they should be? No, I don't necessarily think that we need the government to keep a database. It is sufficient to require doctors to keep records. Then if some issue comes up in court, you can just demand the doctors hand over the relevant files. This would of course be much easier if doctors took advantage of got-damn technology. *grumble*
Also, there are some people who have a problem, and they need to take psychiatric medication of some sort. Some of those people pose a danger to themselves and others in the event that they do not take that medication. It should be a crime for them to not take their medication. Some people pose a danger to themselves and others even if they do take their medication. Those people need to be put in a safe place where they can receive healing without posing a threat to society.
I posted this on the Movies You Should See forum in response to someone from Albion who claimed that America's gun-related fatalities were approximately 30,000 per year:
The number of annual U.S. gun fatalities is half what you reported. Yet despite a 16% reduction in handguns in the U.K., gun crime there was up 55% in 2004, according to your home office. In Switzerland, 14% of homes have automatic weapons, but the crime rate is far lower than in Britain. The 1994 Brady Bill banned many automatic weapons in the U.S., but there has been no reduction in their use in gun crimes. The U.S. Department of Justice says non-fatal gun crimes are close to an all-time low, and that less than 10% of non-fatal crimes involve a gun. About 57% of all gun deaths are suicides, which would occur regardless of whether a gun is involved. In fact, of the homicides in the U.S., only 49% involve guns - which means the majority of murders occur without them. Guns in the U.S. are used 2 million times each year for self-defense (against aggressors and wild animals), and private ownership is estimated to prevent 450,000 annual burglaries, according to the most conservative of nine international studies. In 1982, a survey of imprisoned criminals found that 34% of them had been "scared off, shot at, wounded or captured by an armed victim." Passage of the Right-to-Carry law in Florida resulted in a 36% reduction in homicides. Firearms account for only 1.5% of fatal accidents in the U.S. (1,400 deaths). Motor vehicles account for 43,900 deaths.
I linked the relevant text to sources, which didn't copy over. To see the sources, visit the MYSS thread. At any rate, nobody cared, saying statistics are irrelevant.
1) 2nd Amendment was written to allow the people to protect themselves from the tyranny of the government. By having an armed populace you protect your borders (first line of defense) and you keep the government in check.
2) There should be no laws in regards to gun ownership.
3) If a criminal is released from jail (and not on probation) they should not have their rights restricted in any way shape or form. If they are still a danger to society they should not be free.
4) If the other students were allowed to have guns on campus (or if the no guns on campus rule was strictly enforced) this tragedy would not have claimed as many lives as it did.
5) If someone started shooting people near me and I was armed I would seek cover and then return fire (if able) otherwise I would simply drop prone and return fire. I come from a family where gun ownership is a way of life. I had a rifle long before I ever learned how to drive. Yes, I still have that rifle.
Government does have a compelling interest in keeping its citizens safe. If you want a real security v. liberty issue, you should be more concerned with the War on Terror.