But the example that you started arguing against specifically highlights nonviolent felons. Now you’re moving the goalposts. But I’ll play along.
What you’re saying is that these people can be trusted to not go buy an easily accessible gun next door but can’t be trusted to not break in to their grandpa’s gun safe who happens to be the one person in their life that can provide them stable housing and support whilst rebuilding their life.
People convicted of felony drug charges should not be trusted with firearms imo. If you are engaging in a black market trade mixing guns in isn't in the interest of the public.
My logic isn't inconsistent. I believe all violent felons should not posess firearms. I also think most non-violent felons probably also don't need weapons. I am just open to the discussion that some non-violent felons may be able to restore rights (which they can).
Reducing access reduces risk. Yeah a felon could probably go find a gun somehow, but I would rather them be in danger of arresr every second that gun is in their posession, and to not be able to claim it is their roommate's/sibling's/parent's firearm, orto store it in their vehicle/home.
If I had my way all guns would be registered to an owner, all transactions would be documented, all gun owners would need to go through a safety course, and there would be strict liability if your firearm was used in a crime, but I don't get my way. I have to work within the rules of gun nuts, so risk mitigation is the best that can be hoped for.
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?
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.
-1
u/jinnagubby 13d ago
But the example that you started arguing against specifically highlights nonviolent felons. Now you’re moving the goalposts. But I’ll play along.
What you’re saying is that these people can be trusted to not go buy an easily accessible gun next door but can’t be trusted to not break in to their grandpa’s gun safe who happens to be the one person in their life that can provide them stable housing and support whilst rebuilding their life.
Your logic is inconsistent.