Why don't we just shoot them all?

[Mark Benningfield]

Hello All.

Okay, I've got one for ya.

Why shouldn't we just shoot everyone convicted of a felony?

Now, follow me here:

BG commits felony X. BG gets caught and convicted. BG is justly deprived of his rights for X years. After X years, BG has his rights restored, but not all of them.

Alright, now, help me out.

1. If we truly believed that BG could be and is rehabilitated, then all of his rights should be restored.

2. If we do not believe BG is rehabilitated, then why did we restore any of his rights?

3. If we do not care if BG is rehabilitated, but only punished, and we still consider him a threat, then why did we restore any of his rights?

4. If we restore some of his rights, but not all, then we consider him to be unworthy of some of his rights.

5. If we consider him to be unworthy of some, but not all, of his rights, then we consider some rights to be worth more than others.

6. If we consider some rights to be worth more than others, then we are forced to construct a hierarchy of the relative values of these rights.

7. If we reject the notion that some rights are worth more than others, then all of the inalienable rights natural to mankind are of equal worth.

8. If BG is unworthy of some of his rights, and if they are all of equal worth, then he is unworthy of any of his rights.

Ergo, he is unworthy of the right to life and should be destroyed.

Now, as far as I am concerned, this is a morally indefensible position. The only other conclusion of this argument that I can arrive at is that if BG has served the sentence, then all of his rights should be restored. Yes, that includes the RKBA.

Now, if you can shoot any holes in these argument points, I would appreciate it. Many of you will disagree with one or the other conclusion. I submit for consideration that many of these objections will not be with the logic of the argument, but the disagreeable nature of the conclusions. I maintain that that very nature leads us to the flaws in the current system, one way or the other.

(You know, having teenagers that you have taught to question things can really bite you in the a$$. )

[madkiwi]

Great idea.

Ooooh... just spotted a problem. Social engineering liberal judges and politicians would be in charge of determining who is a felon. Someday owning a .22 could be a felony.

I'll take my chances with less severe punishments, thanks very much.

madkiwi

[pax]

It is illegal for felons to own guns.

The felons who are still felony-prone, have no respect for the law and own guns anyway.

The felons who have cleaned up their acts and become model citizens obey the law and don't own guns.

Hmmm.

pax

[DadOfThree]

We already have so many laws that nearly everyone is a felon. They just selectively prosecute when it suits them. Give me the name of anyone who knows all of the laws. If no one knows them all without the aid of a law library, how can you execute an individual for not knowing them?

[Cal4D4]

There is a Sophist taint to your analysis The first three questions you pose create sort of a "straw man"argument.

1. Why are the restorations of rights linked to any rehab score? How about, rights were removed because the felon diminished the quality of our society by his actions. Society is not made whole again by his incarceration. We don't lop off fingers and feet, but we will lessen his freedoms for what he has taken from all others.

2. We can not read minds or predict future actions. Too Orwellian even for today's leaders. We try to leave the freed prisoner with the basics it takes to establish himself in a legal and reasonable lifestyle, but quite often problems occur.

3. Gotta give them a chance. They run the gauntlet of armed citizens and cops everytime they step outside the law. We really don't want to shoot them, so we let them be jailed for longer periods each time. With 3 strikes, time gets real long. But they do get a chance. At strike 3 they are pretty well denied a right to life in the outside world.

The whole argument hangs on the link to rights and rehab. I say no link; rights are removed as punishment and to pull the teeth of the predator in society. Right to armed self defense, the right to help decide our leaders, rights to free association.
The possibly arbitrary definition of a felony for political reasons as raised by Madkiwi is a very real threat and one all gun owners are staring at today. Here in Kali, if I pack my .44 S&W purchased decades ago, it would be termed unregistered and me a felon. If I was packing my .44 SRH purchased recently it would be a first offense misdemeanor. Go figure.

My take on it.

[Hkmp5sd]

Way too broad a range of crimes to be giving the death sentence. Some felony convictions I have seen are more stupidity than actual criminal intent. The removal of certian rights could be considered as being part of the penalty for committing the felony.

Of course, if they do impliment your plan, I wonder if they would do like the Chinese. Shoot you in the back of the head and then send a bill to your family for the cost of the cartridge.

[Justin]

Upon actually taking the time to read the original post, objection withdrawn.

[Airwolf]

Every year it seems more and “crimes” are classed as felonies. Look at the laws involving firearms for the most glaring examples. If things proceed on the current course I wouldn’t be surprised to see letting your dog take a dump on the sidewalk become a serious misdemeanor with “special circumstances” making a felony conviction mandatory. Sound crazy? Again, look at the firearms (especially the AW ban) laws for an example.

As was pointed out it’s IMPOSSIBLE to know all the laws. I can guarantee that each and every one of you (and myself as well) break some every single day with out having the slightest idea that we did.

The system is broken. Until some sanity returns we all (especially as firearms owners) run a high risk of having some possession or behavior that has been perfectly acceptable suddenly made a serious crime by the stroke of a pen. It’s happened before, it will continue and get worse as time passes.

[Hal]

This guy will prolly end up a felon,,,
http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...hreadid=146183

You want to be the one to draw down on him for what he did?

didn't think so....neither do I.

[Kharn]

Airwolf: There are even dumber felonies than gun laws: Banking laws. For example, if you withdraw $10k or more in cash, the bank is supposed to run a check to make sure it wasnt gotten from drug money. Withdrawing less than $10k with the intent of avoiding the check (getting $9.9k at one time) is a felony.

Kharn

[illuminatus99]

what I don't understand is why they don't return the RKBA when the felony in question wasn't a violent one? my father in law has been fighting this one tooth and nail for ten years and all he's got so far are lawyer fees for nothing gained. he was convicted of a felony hit and run / negligent manslaughter after he blacked out at the wheel from being way too drunk to drive. he served his time, hasn't had a drink for over 10 years now, and is a model father and citizen. he can now vote but still doesn't have his gun rights back.

[Brian Gibbons]

Where I live, we speak of "criminalising" an act. This equates to what y'all call a "felony". There is consideration of criminalising the act of "talking on your cell phone while driving". Shooting all folks who are caught using their cell phones while driving might sound like a good solution to some, but I personaly would just settle for a mild beating ...

[Snowdog]

Ok then, it would seem caffeine is not everyone's friend.

Never one to connive myself, it amazes me as to what some can conjure up while weilding the loose brush of vigilantism; thank G*d for elections.

[LiveWire]

To make matters even worse, science has positted the notion, based on substantial evidence, that our behavior is a mere function of our genetic blueprint.



Hence,

genetic evil should be eradicated (i.e., kill all the felons), or

scientists must engineer a method that will enable them to selectively modify a felon's genes, and therefore his behavior; in which case,

felons are not responsible for their acts... ...and

free will (which doesn't exist anyway, since our genes call the shots) is something that can be arbitrarily denied; from which it is discerned that,

rights of any kind are subject to arbitrary stipulation---which, unfortunately, puts a dent in your theory.

Still, in honoring one the West's best traditions, you have come up with a dialectic masterpiece; which, as Socrates---that unsung genius to whom we owe so much of our present culture, science, and basic way of thinking---would certainly have put it: is no less fit for mind than mirth.

Kudos to you.

P.S.> To keep this post OT, I will add that felons do sometimes use guns to commit their crimes.

[Joe Demko]

The inevitable outcome of the historical dialectic is that there is no good or evil. There is only that which does, or does not, serve the purposes of the state. You are a felon, or not, as it suits the purposes of the state. You will be shot, or not, as it suits the purposes of the state.

[TallPine]

The prohibition against felons owning guns is, at least in the case of all convictions prior to the prohibition, an ex post facto law which is blatantly unconstitutional.

IMO, If there is to be any such prohibition, it should be part of the specific sentence pronounced from the bench for this specific conviction.

[Futo Inu]

Good questions, all - don't have any answers. Agree that its wrong/dissonant to restore voting rights but not gun rights, as is often the case. Agree that whatever rule is laid down, it should most definitely NOT be in the DISCRETION of a life-appointed federal judge, but rather objectively legislated by statute, as are sentencing guidelines in the federal system. I need to research how this stuff works, because your logic is sound. Only thing is, regardless of whether some dirtbag "deserves" to live at all, it is still ONE viable position to say that the gov't ought not ever take a life (however one comes down on the issue, it's not an absolute axiom that gov't-sanctioned killing is OK).

[Quartus]

I'm with you, Mark!


I see that a few of you had no clue what he was saying.



(HINT: He isn't really saying that we should shoot all the felons!)

[BrokenPaw]

If one pays attention to what Mark is saying, one may distill it to this nutshell:

"Rights" are either unalienable or they are not. You cannot say "the right to keep and bear arms" is intrinsically more or less inalienable than the "right to free speech". Therefore felons who have served their assigned sentences should either get all of their rights restored (under the assumption that rights are inalienable), or get none of them restored (under the assumption that they are not inalienable).

Reducto ad absurdum: If felons should not be given all of their rights back (after completing their sentence and, presumably, having been rehabilitated), they should get none of them back. If they get none back, that means they have no right to life, and might as well be dispatched.

What Mark is saying is that killing all felons is patently insupportible, and therefore rights must be inalienable. Therefore, Mark's position is that felons, once they have completed their assigned sentences, should be given back all rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.

I'm not expressing an opinion about whether I agree or disagree, I'm just attempting to clarify what I believe Mark is stating.

-BP

[LiveWire]

What Mark is saying is...

and

I'm just attempting to clarify what I believe Mark is stating.

Um... so which is it?

[Quartus]

BrokenPaw, you took all the fun out of it!





(nice summation)

[Mark Benningfield]

Hello All.

Whew!! Thanks, CaptainHoek, for a minute there I was beginning to despair.

Yes, what I was trying to do was to illustrate the logical dillemma in not restoring the RKBA to a convicted felon. Even after having read a great deal of the discussions of the Classical ethicists, I guess I am a bit more clumsy at it than they are.

So yes, in a much simpler nutshell, the dillemma is this:

Why do we not restore ALL of someone's rights when he has served his sentence. If we truly believe about rights the way we say, then we must, or else we are hypocrites. Now, having said that, what do you think the chances are of actually going on the offensive, politically speaking, and rolling back some of this nonsense?

[Quartus]

I guess I am a bit more clumsy at it than they are.

I disagree, sir. I think you did it quite well. But we are a poorly educated nation. We no longer teach logic in our public schools, we have substituted teaching "throw out all authority" for teaching critical thinking, and we have a nation of people who cannot reason in a straight line.

[LiveWire]

Heh!...Don't you see? It isn't about logic. It's about might, as in "might makes right".

In sum:

All rights were created equal.

and,

Some rights are more equal than others.

[pax]

Mark,

That was a well-done post.

pax