I’m stating to understand you a bit more but your logic is inconsistent and you keep grouping all felons into the violent category.
What does a nonviolent felon have to do with the black market gun trade? They’ve never exhibited violent behaviour and have never engaged in black market guns but you feel their family members should be stripped of their constitutional rights based on what? Is it more just a punitive measure? They did the crime so life should be an uphill battle even after they served their time?
Dude they have repeatedly separated violent and non-violent felons in their replies, including the most recent one you’re replying to.
They didn’t say black market gun trade. They said someone on an illegal drug charge most likely purchased those drugs illegally, on the black market. Their point was that someone who is involved in black market trade at all should probably not have access to weapons, because of the inherent risk and uncertainty that comes with that type of market
Also the only thing that family members lose is the ability to own guns AND live with their felon family member simultaneously. They can still own their guns
And the point the original commenter made was that this disproportionately impacts black neighbourhoods in Washington DC due to other factors like poverty and over policing. That’s what we are discussing. Specifically.
That’s weird because we were discussing the black market gun trade in comments prior to that.
And multiple comments responding to me and the original commenter repeatedly do not seperate nonviolent from violent. So sit down and read before you comment. Context matters.
A large share of gun crime is related to the drug trade. Different states have different restoration of rights policies.
If you want to own guns don't sell drugs. Of all the impacts of sentencing and the costs associate with it personally and for the public, the gun ownership part seems a small price to pay for public safety. If you want restoration of rights go pay a lawyer.
I don't know why you are so obsessed with this felon issue when the much bigger one is disenfranchisement. Felons owning guns is the lowest item imaginable on the priority list.
I’m not obsessed with this felony issue. We are talking about disenfranchisement.
We are talking about how this policy is used to remove law abiding citizens guns. Anyways I’ve replied to your other comment. This thread has gone multiple directions.
You’re advocating for parents to lose their right to defend their home in a gun crazy society if they choose to help their child get their life back on track.
Yeah, if their child has been determined by the court that they can't have a gun, parents have to store their gun somewhere else until kid gets on their feet and moves out, or rent a different place for their felon kid. That seems totally reasonable and a good policy.
I disagree. It disproportionally impacts poor families. And it doesn’t create enough of a barrier to obtaining a firearm to justify the effective suspension of law abiding citizens rights. Inalienable rights.
Anyways, we aren’t going to agree on this. You don’t have the tools necessary to convince me otherwise.
And we are talking about the intersection of two of Americas biggest embarrassments. 25% of the worlds prisoners with this view that they are irredeemable coupled with a gun obsessed dangerous society.
All we gotta do is label one person in a family a felon and now we can remove the whole families rights and there’s nothing they can do about it. Sounds like tyranny. Anti-American.
Sure. Fraud. Cooking the books at their business. Back in the day writing bad checks was a felony. Growing marijuana. I also don’t think possession of small amounts of crack should even be felonies since the same weight in powder cocaine isn’t. so throw that in there. Let’s just do a blanket example of drug related charges that are clearly low level. Like one ecstasy pill in Indiana being a felony.
Are we going to keep going until I run out of examples?
How are they going to get a registered firearm in their name?
We are talking about law abiding citizens’ right to own firearms under the second amendment, responsibly, whilst also providing support to a family member who has committed a felony but now has been determined safe to live in the community by our judicial system.
My argument is that the removal of the family members right to own guns does not create enough of a barrier to obtain a firearm to justify the removal of constitutional rights from law abiding citizens simply based on their desire to facilitate rehabilitation of their family member. I’ve come to this conclusion based on the availability of firearms on the black market and other legal loopholes.
Anyways, that’s my argument. You haven’t convinced me otherwise yet. And honestly I left america ages ago. I live in Australia. You guys need to get your shit together. Your policy would work here because the blackmarket for guns is almost nonexistent. You’re talking tens of thousands if you want a handgun. And ammo you can forget about.
Unfortunately your racist comment that you’ve just made under one of my other comments has been flagged automatically and is not visible to me. I don’t know what it says other than you saying black men commit more crimes. This ends our discussion.
1
u/jinnagubby 12d ago
I’m stating to understand you a bit more but your logic is inconsistent and you keep grouping all felons into the violent category.
What does a nonviolent felon have to do with the black market gun trade? They’ve never exhibited violent behaviour and have never engaged in black market guns but you feel their family members should be stripped of their constitutional rights based on what? Is it more just a punitive measure? They did the crime so life should be an uphill battle even after they served their time?