If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Denver Post)   Trying to one-up the NRA's "good guys" with guns theory, Colorado State Rep. introduces bill to arm felons   (denverpost.com) divider line 316
    More: Asinine, NRA, Colorado, Ken Buck, CBI  
•       •       •

11039 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Jan 2013 at 2:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



316 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-23 12:31:18 PM  
I don't have a problem with non-violent felons regaining their right to own a gun, subject to judicial review, so long as they aren't otherwise forbidden from owning one. Is justice served because someone like Martha Stewart can't own one?
 
2013-01-23 12:39:33 PM  
It should be easier for certain felons to have their civil rights restored. A violent felon should never be able to legally own a gun. A felon who rigged elections should never be able to vote again. etc.
 
2013-01-23 12:40:12 PM  
Yeah I agree that some white collar asshole shouldn't be denied owning a gun but then I don't give a shiat enough about it that I think there needs to be legislation. Besides, where is the line drawn? If you were popped for possession of copious amounts of meth you didn't commit a violent crime but odds are you're a scumbag and are likely to hang out with violent offenders.
 
2013-01-23 12:41:28 PM  
On my list of equal-rights priorities in this state, felons are pretty low.  Why de-stigmatize felonies for potential future criminals, and why make life easier on people who are already predisposed to break the law?
 
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-01-23 12:42:26 PM  
She seems soft on crime.
 
2013-01-23 12:42:28 PM  

dittybopper: I don't have a problem with non-violent felons regaining their right to own a gun, subject to judicial review, so long as they aren't otherwise forbidden from owning one. Is justice served because someone like Martha Stewart can't own one?


Hmmm...On the one hand, I agree with your point, non-violent ex-felons should usuall regain all their rights after serving their time.

On the other hand, I am philosophically opposed to the protection and defense of Martha Stewart.
 
2013-01-23 01:12:02 PM  
State Rep. Perry Buck, R-Windsor, has introduced a bill which would allow some felons to once again possess a firearm, as long as their crimes were not violent felonies or other crimes such as burglary, arson or those involving the use of force.

Because, you know, nobody ever burglarized with a gun before.   And arson isn't "violent"?  WTF.
 
2013-01-23 01:16:27 PM  
The NRA's gun manufacturer constituency must have projected a drop off in sales to hysterical preppers.  Got to keep those gun sales moving!
 
2013-01-23 01:25:04 PM  
Given how many things are felonies these days, I'm fine with this once they've finished their parole.  Give them back their voting rights while you're at it.  And for more minor felonies, allow them to apply for full restoration of rights and clearing of status after a decade.


ITGreen: why make life easier on people who are already predisposed to break the law


To avoid a permanent underclass.  If you make it too difficult for former criminals to reintegrate into society, you run the risk that they'll turn to desperate (and possibly illegal) means to survive.  Since few prisons are able to house criminals as cheaply as Sheriff Joe, I'd rather avoid the revolving door problem since I don't want to pay for it.
 
2013-01-23 01:28:20 PM  

FloydA: dittybopper: I don't have a problem with non-violent felons regaining their right to own a gun, subject to judicial review, so long as they aren't otherwise forbidden from owning one. Is justice served because someone like Martha Stewart can't own one?

Hmmm...On the one hand, I agree with your point, non-violent ex-felons should usuall regain all their rights after serving their time.

On the other hand, I am philosophically opposed to the protection and defense of Martha Stewart.


Martha didn't do anything that countless other people, mostly men, have done. She was persecuted because she was a successful, strong woman.
Felonies used to be violent offenses like rape and murder but it seems now that anything can de defined as a felony. Regardless, this proposal should excite many people.
 
2013-01-23 01:49:02 PM  

Dinjiin: Give them back their voting rights while you're at it.


I do agree about voting rights. I don't see how one thing has to do with another unless you were found guilty of voter fraud or something.
 
2013-01-23 02:00:51 PM  

AbbeySomeone: FloydA:

On the other hand, I am philosophically opposed to the protection and defense of Martha Stewart.

Martha didn't do anything that countless other people, mostly men, have done.


I spent days making turkey, risotto, pumpkin soup, four different vegetable dishes, three different pies, and a chocolate pavlova for Thanksgiving one year, and one of the guests said "this looks almost as good as Martha Stewart makes on TV" and everyone agreed with her.

Almost?

ALMOST?!?!

My rage at Martha Stewart is all that has kept me alive since then.  Fark you, Martha Stewart, I'll see you in HELLLLL!!!!!!

/jk, I'm actually more pissed off at the guest.
 
2013-01-23 02:05:01 PM  

dletter: State Rep. Perry Buck, R-Windsor, has introduced a bill which would allow some felons to once again possess a firearm, as long as their crimes were not violent felonies or other crimes such as burglary, arson or those involving the use of force.

Because, you know, nobody ever burglarized with a gun before.   And arson isn't "violent"?  WTF.


Most arson isn't some pyromaniac lighting buildings or forests on fire, it's people starting fires to cover up other crimes or to collect insurance. And burglary is breaking into a place to commit a felony. Note this is the ACT of breaking in. Any felony you commit inside will be separate (i.e., theft, vandalism, murder, whatever). So burglary itself isn't violent, only the stuff that often comes after which will be charged separately.

I imagine in this he's trying to carve out the guy who lights his house on fire to collect insurance, or the kid who breaks into an abandoned house to spraypaint it. Crimes sure, but "violent."
 
2013-01-23 02:12:47 PM  

Dinjiin: To avoid a permanent underclass.  If you make it too difficult for former criminals to reintegrate into society, you run the risk that they'll turn to desperate (and possibly illegal) means to survive.  Since few prisons are able to house criminals as cheaply as Sheriff Joe, I'd rather avoid the revolving door problem since I don't want to pay for it.


This isn't a caste system of untouchables I'm talking about.  This is an underclass who earned their place within it by committing serious crimes that the rest of us know are wrong.  If you reject the law, you lose the trust of the people.

Granting gun ownership rights to ex-felons, how will that reintegrate them into society?
 
2013-01-23 02:13:28 PM  

dletter: Because, you know, nobody ever burglarized with a gun before.


Well, there's burglary and robbery.  They're different.  Burglery doesn't involve people getting hurt, and robbery does.
 
2013-01-23 02:14:24 PM  

violentsalvation: It should be easier for certain felons to have their civil rights restored. A violent felon should never be able to legally own a gun. A felon who rigged elections should never be able to vote again. etc.


And someone who defrauded Social Security and/or Medicare should be permanently cut off from all future benefits.
 
2013-01-23 02:17:16 PM  

dletter: State Rep. Perry Buck, R-Windsor, has introduced a bill which would allow some felons to once again possess a firearm, as long as their crimes were not violent felonies or other crimes such as burglary, arson or those involving the use of force.

Because, you know, nobody ever burglarized with a gun before.   And arson isn't "violent"?  WTF.



Uh... they're including burglary in the "You don't get a gun anymore" list of offenses, there.
 
2013-01-23 02:17:53 PM  

dletter: State Rep. Perry Buck, R-Windsor, has introduced a bill which would allow some felons to once again possess a firearm, as long as their crimes were not violent felonies or other crimes such as burglary, arson or those involving the use of force.

Because, you know, nobody ever burglarized with a gun before.   And arson isn't "violent"?  WTF.


I think you misread it. His proposed legislation would continue to bar gun ownership for those convicted of violent crimes, burglary, arson, and crimes committed with the use of force.
 
2013-01-23 02:18:05 PM  
Who cares?

It's dumb how, in this country, we don't want to give someone a second chance.

Like I care what crimes you've been convicted of.
 
2013-01-23 02:18:35 PM  
But they're still not allowed to vote, I hope.
 
2013-01-23 02:19:12 PM  
These guys should be armed and in the front lines of law enforcement. Who knows more about the habits and patterns of felons better than other felons?
 
2013-01-23 02:19:56 PM  
FTA: "Nonviolent felons are no more likely to commit a violent act in the future than non-felons are, so it is irresponsible to prohibit people from being able to protect their homes or hunt or other legal and good uses for firearms when there is no evidence to suggest that they are going to commit a violent act in the future," he said.

images.encyclopediadramatica.se
 
2013-01-23 02:20:08 PM  
What an utterly noncontroversial proposal. Nice try subby.
 
2013-01-23 02:21:52 PM  
I am sure he would be OK with tax evaders (read: his buddies) getting their rights back...the black guy who sold some pot? not so much. But I am sure they will figure out how to word it properly so it works white...i mean right.
 
2013-01-23 02:22:37 PM  

joness0154: dletter: State Rep. Perry Buck, R-Windsor, has introduced a bill which would allow some felons to once again possess a firearm, as long as their crimes were not violent felonies or other crimes such as burglary, arson or those involving the use of force.

Because, you know, nobody ever burglarized with a gun before.   And arson isn't "violent"?  WTF.

I think you misread it. His proposed legislation would continue to bar gun ownership for those convicted of violent crimes, burglary, arson, and crimes committed with the use of force.


OK, yeah.  I guess if there was a comma after "violent felonies", then it would be interpreted the way I read it.  The way it is, they are grouping them within the "were not", not grouping them in the "allowing some felons to possess a firearm".
 
2013-01-23 02:23:32 PM  
"They will be allowed to have their constitutional right back," Buck said.

I see politicians on every side of the fence have taken to this model, huh?
 
2013-01-23 02:23:43 PM  
It would have been a lot of fun if Leona Helmsley had been packing.
 
2013-01-23 02:24:04 PM  

dittybopper: I don't have a problem with non-violent felons regaining their right to own a gun, subject to judicial review, so long as they aren't otherwise forbidden from owning one. Is justice served because someone like Martha Stewart can't own one?


I've said for years that if someone did something bad enough to have his basic rights compromised, he should never have left prison.
 
2013-01-23 02:24:56 PM  

Cyberluddite: But they're still not allowed to vote, I hope.


If they were all allowed to vote, the drug war would be over in one election. Can't have that.
 
2013-01-23 02:25:10 PM  
And with that clarification, you are basically left with almost exclusively "white collar" crimes (Tax Evasion, Corporate crimes, etc)... which are mostly more white, upper class/rich crimes that might be interested in giving you a campaign donation.

Wow, a quite shocking bill then.
 
2013-01-23 02:25:16 PM  
Fun fact:

When I worked at a winery back in 2002/2003, I learned that it was a felony to ship wine to somebody's house in Georgia.

/Not sure if that law still stands.
 
2013-01-23 02:26:01 PM  

lenfromak: dittybopper: I don't have a problem with non-violent felons regaining their right to own a gun, subject to judicial review, so long as they aren't otherwise forbidden from owning one. Is justice served because someone like Martha Stewart can't own one?

I've said for years that if someone did something bad enough to have his basic rights compromised, he should never have left prison.


Everyone who has ever been arrested?
 
2013-01-23 02:26:36 PM  

dittybopper: I don't have a problem with non-violent felons regaining their right to own a gun, subject to judicial review, so long as they aren't otherwise forbidden from owning one. Is justice served because someone like Martha Stewart can't own one?


"Thanks, pal!"

media.npr.org
 
2013-01-23 02:26:47 PM  

lenfromak: Cyberluddite: But they're still not allowed to vote, I hope.

If they were all allowed to vote, the drug war would be over in one election. Can't have that.


No money in empty private prisons.
 
2013-01-23 02:27:16 PM  
i'm surprised no one has shot up a school today. I guess it is still early on the west coast.
 
2013-01-23 02:27:52 PM  

dittybopper: I don't have a problem with non-violent felons regaining their right to own a gun, subject to judicial review, so long as they aren't otherwise forbidden from owning one. Is justice served because someone like Martha Stewart can't own one?


Done in one.
 
2013-01-23 02:29:20 PM  
Doesn't matter. The Dems control the CO house, senate and governor's office. The GOP is going to spend the next few months submitting base-rallying nonsense that is designed to get killed in committee. Something like this only exists so that in the 2014 election, some Democrat or insufficiently conservative Republican can get targeted for refusing to expand gun rights.
 
2013-01-23 02:29:24 PM  

ITGreen: Dinjiin: To avoid a permanent underclass.  If you make it too difficult for former criminals to reintegrate into society, you run the risk that they'll turn to desperate (and possibly illegal) means to survive.  Since few prisons are able to house criminals as cheaply as Sheriff Joe, I'd rather avoid the revolving door problem since I don't want to pay for it.

This isn't a caste system of untouchables I'm talking about.  This is an underclass who earned their place within it by committing serious crimes that the rest of us know are wrong.  If you reject the law, you lose the trust of the people.

Granting gun ownership rights to ex-felons, how will that reintegrate them into society?


By publicly saying 'we recognize you are human beings who have supposedly been rehabilitated'. That's the point of prison; you're supposed to rehabilitate people, because we're after justice, not revenge.

I would not start with gun rights, but at least they're trying. Once someone has a criminal record, it can be pretty hard on them--a lot of teenagers get utterly screwed over because they tried pot once or shoplifted, and have a much harder time getting a job, which if you're disadvantaged anyway can be a problem.
 
2013-01-23 02:30:15 PM  
While we're at it, let's make sure those who were convicted of DV get their guns back, too!
 
2013-01-23 02:30:15 PM  

dletter: And with that clarification, you are basically left with almost exclusively "white collar" crimes (Tax Evasion, Corporate crimes, etc)... which are mostly more white, upper class/rich crimes that might be interested in giving you a campaign donation.

Wow, a quite shocking bill then.


TIL no black people are in jail for drugs and basically nothing else.
 
2013-01-23 02:30:49 PM  
Hmm, sounds reasonable to me.
 
2013-01-23 02:32:04 PM  

dletter: State Rep. Perry Buck, R-Windsor, has introduced a bill which would allow some felons to once again possess a firearm, as long as their crimes were not violent felonies or other crimes such as burglary, arson or those involving the use of force.

Because, you know, nobody ever burglarized with a gun before.   And arson isn't "violent"?  WTF.


forums.ninja250.org


Sees no problem
 
2013-01-23 02:32:14 PM  

gilgigamesh: The NRA's gun manufacturer constituency must have projected a drop off in sales to hysterical preppers.  Got to keep those gun sales moving!


Blah blah blah blah blah

Quick, tell us how the second amendment is only there for state militias for control their slaves, even in non-slave states.
 
2013-01-23 02:32:18 PM  

ITGreen: This isn't a caste system of untouchables I'm talking about. This is an underclass who earned their place within it by committing serious crimes that the rest of us know are wrong. If you reject the law, you lose the trust of the people.

Granting gun ownership rights to ex-felons, how will that reintegrate them into society?


Once they're out of jail they've ostensibly paid their debts to society and relegating them to an "underclass" is just going to increase recidivism. They really should have all the ability to live a normal life that non criminals do. They've already got a shiatty work history and whatever problems that came with being felons in the first place.

That said I'm not sure I'd extend this to gun ownership. The risk/reward seems pretty low.
 
2013-01-23 02:32:38 PM  

The_Sponge: Fun fact:

When I worked at a winery back in 2002/2003, I learned that it was a felony to ship wine to somebody's house in Georgia.



Whose house?  I hope it's Matt Ryan.
 
2013-01-23 02:33:24 PM  

FloydA: Hmmm...On the one hand, I agree with your point, non-violent ex-felons should usuall regain all their rights after serving their time.


And all felons, violent or non-violent,  should have voting rights restored after serving time. I'd think that would be a more pressing issue than arming any of them....
 
2013-01-23 02:34:23 PM  

ITGreen: On my list of equal-rights priorities in this state, felons are pretty low.  Why de-stigmatize felonies for potential future criminals, and why make life easier on people who are already predisposed to break the law?


Because the stigma that comes with having a felony record makes it much harder to break out of that lifestyle. Some people, for a variety of reasons, will always belong to the criminal element but I don't think you should be doomed to working shiatty construction jobs for the rest of your life just because you farked up at 19. I've worked with a lot of those people and it's sad.
 
2013-01-23 02:34:46 PM  

The_Sponge: Fun fact:

When I worked at a winery back in 2002/2003, I learned that it was a felony to ship wine to somebody's house in Georgia.

/Not sure if that law still stands.


I just checked  http://www.winecountrygiftbaskets.com/

It lists GA as you can send to, although it is only "Select wines", not all of them.  Utah (not surprisingly) is totally off limits, along with OK, AR, MA, MS.
 
2013-01-23 02:36:34 PM  

PsiChick: ITGreen: Dinjiin: To avoid a permanent underclass.  If you make it too difficult for former criminals to reintegrate into society, you run the risk that they'll turn to desperate (and possibly illegal) means to survive.  Since few prisons are able to house criminals as cheaply as Sheriff Joe, I'd rather avoid the revolving door problem since I don't want to pay for it.

This isn't a caste system of untouchables I'm talking about.  This is an underclass who earned their place within it by committing serious crimes that the rest of us know are wrong.  If you reject the law, you lose the trust of the people.

Granting gun ownership rights to ex-felons, how will that reintegrate them into society?

By publicly saying 'we recognize you are human beings who have supposedly been rehabilitated'. That's the point of prison; you're supposed to rehabilitate people, because we're after justice, not revenge.

I would not start with gun rights, but at least they're trying. Once someone has a criminal record, it can be pretty hard on them--a lot of teenagers get utterly screwed over because they tried pot once or shoplifted, and have a much harder time getting a job, which if you're disadvantaged anyway can be a problem.


Come on, they're not offering life-changing opportunity to rehabilitated ex-criminals, they're proposing less gun control when the debate for more gun control is reaching a fever pitch.  This is political trolling.
 
2013-01-23 02:36:34 PM  

TheOther: These guys should be armed and in the front lines of law enforcement. Who knows more about the habits and patterns of felons better than other felons?


If prison was actually about rehabilitation and we weren't determined to never let these people partcipate in society again, that would be a great idea. Unfortunately, they throw someone in jail for selling some weed and he ends up coming out with criminal friends and bigger criminal ideas than he'd ever had on his own.
 
Displayed 50 of 316 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report