Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

nowhereman1223 t1_iu8pd49 wrote

Good. This is what we need more of. Enforcement of current laws.

Also, how stupid do you have to be to post photos and videos of a pretty major criminal act? He had to understand just holding a firearm as a felon is a crime; right?

30

dojijosu t1_iu8xpmt wrote

Where my “shall not be infringed” people at?

−14

BowTiedAgorist t1_iu9ht0v wrote

Replying to NEED_TP_ASAP (#315,718)

Allow me.

Assuming he is no longer serving a sentence or parole, he should absolutely have his gun rights an voting rights restored. The additional penalty society applies by forcing him to surrender his rights well AFTER he's already served his time - is tantamount to making him a second class citizen. My stepfather wasn't able to vote for almost 10 years because of fist fight he got in he was 17.

Arguably - if he's not paid enough of a debt to society, to be trusted with a firearm in a society where firearms are part of the everyday culture, then why was he released from prison at all?

We regularly restrict people who are on parole, probation, or suspended sentence other forms of sentence disbursement from consuming drugs, alcohol, leaving the state etc - but that is by condition of agreement. they agree to those standards.

12

nowhereman1223 t1_iu9jcg2 wrote

Replying to smartest_kobold (#312,505)

Storage facilities. That’s where it’s at.

Charge people massive money to store their stuff. Then when they forget or decide they don’t want to pay anymore after doing it for 2-10 years; sell the stuff to someone else. Then charge them a higher rate to store it short term and get rid of it. Then repeat.

8

nowhereman1223 t1_iu9jwtm wrote

Replying to BowTiedAgorist (#317,128)

I agree to an extent.

If they were convicted of using a firearm in a crime (even unloaded, not fired, etc) I don’t believe they should get that right back. Convicted of non-violent crime WITHOUT a firearm present? yeah, give them that right back. They have enough trouble as it is. Let them hunt. It’s gonna be hard enough to find work, don’t make feeding yourself a crime (I know most aren’t doing it to hunt but still its a crime for them too).

The right to vote however; should absolutely come back after they have fully served their sentence (parole, probation, etc).

6

BowTiedAgorist t1_iu9uxb0 wrote

Replying to nowhereman1223 (#317,528)

>If they were convicted of using a firearm in a crime (even unloaded, not fired, etc) I don’t believe they should get that right back.

I don't believe they should be let out.

Part of the problem I see with a lot of this is we treat simple nonsense crimes the same as we do violent crimes.

Rape, Murder, Armed\Aggravated Assault should be punished by decades long sentences (with very easy to understand strict prosecution standards, avoiding mandatory minimums, and extenuating circumstances aside of course). I agree that rehabilitation should be the ambition... but the truth of the matter is some crimes - rehabilitation isn't nearly as important as separating someone from society.

Also - Make prison punishment again. No bullshit privileges, no bullshit commissary, no bullshit work release programs. They should be largely responsible for growing their own food - incorporating fasting, meditation, and reading as part of the daily activities. Men\Women shouldn't go to prison just to stack protein and work out while learning to be more dangerous criminals.

Part of the problem in our society is straight up prosecutorial misconduct - supercharging easy convictions while giving sweet heart deals and early release to the real scum of the earth - because we filled our prisons with people who just didn't belong there.

Most crimes we charge people with should be re-evaluated.

5

BowTiedAgorist t1_iu9vxak wrote

Replying to SheeEttin (#319,415)

I absolutely believe they should lose those rights while under confinement and under various early release programs.

They've proven they can't operate in society - why should they get a say in how society operates?

They're also - routinely - some of the least literate, educated, and informed people on the planet... hell if they were any good at forethought they probably wouldn't be in jail.

I'd sooner let 16 year olds vote than someone serving a sentence.

I am, however, also of the opinion that mandatory civics\reading tests should be require before you can vote - and we should raise the age to like 25

2

BowTiedAgorist t1_iu9zuje wrote

Replying to MiggySmalls6767 (#320,108)

I've met BU\Umass college kids that couldn't do the same... I'm sure that whole crowd is just died in the wool red...

Maybe step back from the partisan circle jerk for a few minutes to let the obvious chaffing your jimmies are suffering subside. Goofy mf

1

DeerFlyHater t1_iuaqebf wrote

Replying to nowhereman1223 (#317,429)

No kidding, but I have rarely heard of a bad situation for storage facility owners.

I'm sure there are the ancillary costs such as insurance and occasional maintenance, but where is the down side? Commercial land is pricey, but not that pricey, and it isn't as if the buildings themselves are expensive.

1

nowhereman1223 t1_iuav32g wrote

Replying to DeerFlyHater (#325,108)

Insurance is cheap. They keep it cheap by having you sign that nothing that could damage other stuff is being stored. And by having you sign that it is all at your own risk.

Heck you don’t even need commercial property. I know people that had a chunk of land in their back yard. They built the storage facility, had that chunk re-zoned, and BAM, they have a storage facility. Heck they get to write off their house as a business expense because they sell that someone is on site 24/7.

2