So Liberals don't want to take people's guns away? I've never really had it explained to me how gun violence can be reduced 'without' taking guns away from people. Buybacks?
Well, we’ll start with this: define an arm that is labeled in the second amendment.
Would a nuclear missile be considered an arm a citizen of the united state would have the right to own under the second amendment?
That may sound extreme, but it is just as extreme as Liberals wanting to take away everyone’s gun. Obviously, or I should say hopefully, a person doesn’t think the average person shouldn’t own a nuke. But slowly go down the line starting there and figure out a good compromise what a person can legally own.
Ownership can be grandfathered in if say the population of the United States say owning a missile launcher should be a no-no but you personally already have one. That grandfather clause can even be estate established so a person can pass on their collection of fire arms to an heir if desired without worry the state will go after them after they have passed. The state could also offer buyback programs for any weapons - no questions asked just to get them off the streets.
Once the amendment is actually defined and not some vague statement that was meant to replace an actual standing army at the time of conception, I think people would be able to move forward and away from “there here for my guns!”
But pulling out of an international trade agreement because it infringes on a person’s second amendment is b.s. It was because US arms dealers couldn’t sell to places like Saudi.
So how does the government know who has guns and who doesn't?
Being from Canada, I realize that gun registration after the fact does not work. But we’re not talking about making ownership lists of every entire type of gun.
I am talking about it being illegal to sell or buy certain weapons that should not be classified as an arm in the second amendment. Ownership itself wouldn’t be illegal.
So Liberals don't want to take people's guns away? I've never really had it explained to me how gun violence can be reduced 'without' taking guns away from people. Buybacks?
Well, we’ll start with this: define an arm that is labeled in the second amendment.
Would a nuclear missile be considered an arm a citizen of the united state would have the right to own under the second amendment?
That may sound extreme, but it is just as extreme as Liberals wanting to take away everyone’s gun. Obviously, or I should say hopefully, a person doesn’t think the average person shouldn’t own a nuke. But slowly go down the line starting there and figure out a good compromise what a person can legally own.
Ownership can be grandfathered in if say the population of the United States say owning a missile launcher should be a no-no but you personally already have one. That grandfather clause can even be estate established so a person can pass on their collection of fire arms to an heir if desired without worry the state will go after them after they have passed. The state could also offer buyback programs for any weapons - no questions asked just to get them off the streets.
Once the amendment is actually defined and not some vague statement that was meant to replace an actual standing army at the time of conception, I think people would be able to move forward and away from “there here for my guns!”
But pulling out of an international trade agreement because it infringes on a person’s second amendment is b.s. It was because US arms dealers couldn’t sell to places like Saudi.
So how does the government know who has guns and who doesn't?
Being from Canada, I realize that gun registration after the fact does not work. But we’re not talking about making ownership lists of every entire type of gun.
I am talking about it being illegal to sell or buy certain weapons that should not be classified as an arm in the second amendment. Ownership itself wouldn’t be illegal.
Yeah it could work where if you commit crimes and you have an illegal type gun it adds more to the charges, like where if you commit crimes and have drugs it's more charges.
A buyback program for guns is an excellent idea. I'm also all for requiring people to pass a licensing process before being able to own a gun. We license cars, which are very dangerous, why not guns? Something like a competency test (able to hit x target from x distance) to make sure you won't be so likely to accidentally shoot the wrong person in a self defense situation. A required safety test should also be mandatory, to ensure responsible ownership. Re-testing would be required on a regular basis. Maybe every 5 years or so?
Make people have liability insurance for their gun (again it is REQUIRED for cars). Proof of insurance absolutey MUST be presented before a purchase can be made, no exceptions. #1 it will force insurance companies to make reasonably sure they aren't insuring a nutcase and #2 it will virtually eliminate guns bought impulsively just before crimes are committed. And we know in almost EVERY mass shooting, the guns were obtained legally.
Ownership can be grandfathered in if say the population of the United States say owning a missile launcher should be a no-no but you personally already have one. That grandfather clause can even be estate established so a person can pass on their collection of fire arms to an heir if desired without worry the state will go after them after they have passed.
This, by the way, is exactly how it works for machine guns in the US. If your grandfather brought an MG-42 back from the war, and properly registered it, and you are his legal heir, then you legally own that machine gun.
So Liberals don't want to take people's guns away? I've never really had it explained to me how gun violence can be reduced 'without' taking guns away from people. Buybacks?
Well, we’ll start with this: define an arm that is labeled in the second amendment.
Would a nuclear missile be considered an arm a citizen of the united state would have the right to own under the second amendment?
That may sound extreme, but it is just as extreme as Liberals wanting to take away everyone’s gun. Obviously, or I should say hopefully, a person doesn’t think the average person shouldn’t own a nuke. But slowly go down the line starting there and figure out a good compromise what a person can legally own.
Ownership can be grandfathered in if say the population of the United States say owning a missile launcher should be a no-no but you personally already have one. That grandfather clause can even be estate established so a person can pass on their collection of fire arms to an heir if desired without worry the state will go after them after they have passed. The state could also offer buyback programs for any weapons - no questions asked just to get them off the streets.
Once the amendment is actually defined and not some vague statement that was meant to replace an actual standing army at the time of conception, I think people would be able to move forward and away from “there here for my guns!”
But pulling out of an international trade agreement because it infringes on a person’s second amendment is b.s. It was because US arms dealers couldn’t sell to places like Saudi.
So how does the government know who has guns and who doesn't?
Being from Canada, I realize that gun registration after the fact does not work. But we’re not talking about making ownership lists of every entire type of gun.
I am talking about it being illegal to sell or buy certain weapons that should not be classified as an arm in the second amendment. Ownership itself wouldn’t be illegal.
Yeah it could work where if you commit crimes and you have an illegal type gun it adds more to the charges, like where if you commit crimes and have drugs it's more charges.
Criminals don't think they're going to get caught so that isn't really a deterrent. I guess it keeps them off the streets longer though...
A buyback program for guns is an excellent idea. I'm also all for requiring people to pass a licensing process before being able to own a gun. We license cars, which are very dangerous, why not guns? Something like a competency test (able to hit x target from x distance) to make sure you won't be so likely to accidentally shoot the wrong person in a self defense situation. A required safety test should also be mandatory, to ensure responsible ownership. Re-testing would be required on a regular basis. Maybe every 5 years or so?
What if you already own a gun, though? Grandfather out?
So Liberals don't want to take people's guns away? I've never really had it explained to me how gun violence can be reduced 'without' taking guns away from people. Buybacks?
Well, we’ll start with this: define an arm that is labeled in the second amendment.
Would a nuclear missile be considered an arm a citizen of the united state would have the right to own under the second amendment?
That may sound extreme, but it is just as extreme as Liberals wanting to take away everyone’s gun. Obviously, or I should say hopefully, a person doesn’t think the average person shouldn’t own a nuke. But slowly go down the line starting there and figure out a good compromise what a person can legally own.
Ownership can be grandfathered in if say the population of the United States say owning a missile launcher should be a no-no but you personally already have one. That grandfather clause can even be estate established so a person can pass on their collection of fire arms to an heir if desired without worry the state will go after them after they have passed. The state could also offer buyback programs for any weapons - no questions asked just to get them off the streets.
Once the amendment is actually defined and not some vague statement that was meant to replace an actual standing army at the time of conception, I think people would be able to move forward and away from “there here for my guns!”
But pulling out of an international trade agreement because it infringes on a person’s second amendment is b.s. It was because US arms dealers couldn’t sell to places like Saudi.
So how does the government know who has guns and who doesn't?
Being from Canada, I realize that gun registration after the fact does not work. But we’re not talking about making ownership lists of every entire type of gun.
I am talking about it being illegal to sell or buy certain weapons that should not be classified as an arm in the second amendment. Ownership itself wouldn’t be illegal.
Yeah it could work where if you commit crimes and you have an illegal type gun it adds more to the charges, like where if you commit crimes and have drugs it's more charges.
Criminals don't think they're going to get caught so that isn't really a deterrent. I guess it keeps them off the streets longer though...
Adding to the charges would not be productive. Research has found that criminals don't actually respond to harsher sentences; they're only deterred by an increased chance of getting caught. Humans aren't fully rational critters, and criminals in particular aren't the type to make intelligent choices. The only people who do cost-benefit analyses to find out if crime pays are corporations who are weighing the chance of a fine against a profit. Ordinary crooks don't make those calculations--if they did, they'd know better than to break the law!
It might well keep them off the streets longer, but again, we're talking about just locking up people for longer prison times. That costs money, and in general I am very hesitant to spend taxpayer dollars to keep someone out of the workforce and put them in close contact with the worst social influences you can get: other convicts. I've made this point in regards to other crimes, but the same applies to gun laws.
A buyback program for guns is an excellent idea. I'm also all for requiring people to pass a licensing process before being able to own a gun. We license cars, which are very dangerous, why not guns? Something like a competency test (able to hit x target from x distance) to make sure you won't be so likely to accidentally shoot the wrong person in a self defense situation. A required safety test should also be mandatory, to ensure responsible ownership. Re-testing would be required on a regular basis. Maybe every 5 years or so?
What if you already own a gun, though? Grandfather out?
Adding to the charges would not be productive. Research has found that criminals don't actually respond to harsher sentences; they're only deterred by an increased chance of getting caught. Humans aren't fully rational critters, and criminals in particular aren't the type to make intelligent choices. The only people who do cost-benefit analyses to find out if crime pays are corporations who are weighing the chance of a fine against a profit. Ordinary crooks don't make those calculations--if they did, they'd know better than to break the law!
It might well keep them off the streets longer, but again, we're talking about just locking up people for longer prison times. That costs money, and in general I am very hesitant to spend taxpayer dollars to keep someone out of the workforce and put them in close contact with the worst social influences you can get: other convicts. I've made this point in regards to other crimes, but the same applies to gun laws.
Well won't deter individual criminals but yeah keep em locked a bit longer is fine. Those for profit prisons need the bodies since we lost the war on drugs.
It always bugs me how when someone says "we need reasonable regulations" the Right freaks out and shouts "liberals are calling for unreasonable regulations!"
No. The word "reasonable" was literally used right there.
"Taking people's guns away" would be unreasonable. (Not to mention, I don't know logistically how that could even work.)
Buybacks seem reasonable. They respect the freedom promised by any reading of the 2nd Amendment.
Restrictions on resale seem reasonable to me. If you want a firearm because you enjoy shooting, or hunting, or think you need one for self-defense, then God Bless. OTOH if you want to supply violent criminals with the means to do greater violence... that's not kosher.
Some restrictions on the type of firearm or ammo seems reasonable; these are items designed to do harm, in many cases designed to do harm specifically to humans. Even if the risk that a firearm might be used unlawfully is low, if the possible results of such use would be unusually grave for a particular kind of firearm, that merits more action to control for that risk.
I believe policy should be reactive; there is no one perfect set of rules and regulations that should govern society for all time. Circumstances change. As sea levels rise, the dangers of flooding require a change in policies; as the economy heats up or stalls, it becomes prudent to raise or lower interest rates; as common drugs become more addictive and more dangerous, stricter enforcement begins to make more sense. Et cetera. So if, for example, data shows that the risks associated with the unlawful use of firearms spikes in emotionally volatile situations like relationships involving domestic violence... then policies should react to that and stricter regulations should apply in such cases.
I have other ideas along similar lines. None of them involve seizing firearms from people.
I'm not sure that 'not' seizing firearms from people in this country would be successful. There are a shit-ton of firearms in America that are not 'new' or registered. What are liberals here proposing that not only isn't grandfather claused into irrelevance but will actually make a difference?
It always bugs me how when someone says "we need reasonable regulations" the Right freaks out and shouts "liberals are calling for unreasonable regulations!"
No. The word "reasonable" was literally used right there.
"Taking people's guns away" would be unreasonable. (Not to mention, I don't know logistically how that could even work.)
Buybacks seem reasonable. They respect the freedom promised by any reading of the 2nd Amendment.
Restrictions on resale seem reasonable to me. If you want a firearm because you enjoy shooting, or hunting, or think you need one for self-defense, then God Bless. OTOH if you want to supply violent criminals with the means to do greater violence... that's not kosher.
Some restrictions on the type of firearm or ammo seems reasonable; these are items designed to do harm, in many cases designed to do harm specifically to humans. Even if the risk that a firearm might be used unlawfully is low, if the possible results of such use would be unusually grave for a particular kind of firearm, that merits more action to control for that risk.
I believe policy should be reactive; there is no one perfect set of rules and regulations that should govern society for all time. Circumstances change. As sea levels rise, the dangers of flooding require a change in policies; as the economy heats up or stalls, it becomes prudent to raise or lower interest rates; as common drugs become more addictive and more dangerous, stricter enforcement begins to make more sense. Et cetera. So if, for example, data shows that the risks associated with the unlawful use of firearms spikes in emotionally volatile situations like relationships involving domestic violence... then policies should react to that and stricter regulations should apply in such cases.
I have other ideas along similar lines. None of them involve seizing firearms from people.
I'm not sure that 'not' seizing firearms from people in this country would be successful. There are a shit-ton of firearms in America that are not 'new' or registered. What are liberals here proposing that not only isn't grandfather claused into irrelevance but will actually make a difference?
If you’ve owned a gun for X amount of years and haven’t committed a crime with it, chances are you are not going to in the future. There are exceptions to this (such as the Vegas shooter), but anyone who has threatened violence against another group of people should not be able to casually walk into a store, pick out a gun, then drive to a place and start using it.
Proper training, on use and storage, will eliminate stupid deaths resulting from fire arms such as one going off in a diaper bag. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/16/us/diaper-bag-gun-death/index.html but advocates say it is just a roadblock for an individual to own a gun. (Most of these people have no worries about putting roadblocks up on other Rights however, such as mandatory ID for voting)
It always bugs me how when someone says "we need reasonable regulations" the Right freaks out and shouts "liberals are calling for unreasonable regulations!"
No. The word "reasonable" was literally used right there.
"Taking people's guns away" would be unreasonable. (Not to mention, I don't know logistically how that could even work.)
Buybacks seem reasonable. They respect the freedom promised by any reading of the 2nd Amendment.
Restrictions on resale seem reasonable to me. If you want a firearm because you enjoy shooting, or hunting, or think you need one for self-defense, then God Bless. OTOH if you want to supply violent criminals with the means to do greater violence... that's not kosher.
Some restrictions on the type of firearm or ammo seems reasonable; these are items designed to do harm, in many cases designed to do harm specifically to humans. Even if the risk that a firearm might be used unlawfully is low, if the possible results of such use would be unusually grave for a particular kind of firearm, that merits more action to control for that risk.
I believe policy should be reactive; there is no one perfect set of rules and regulations that should govern society for all time. Circumstances change. As sea levels rise, the dangers of flooding require a change in policies; as the economy heats up or stalls, it becomes prudent to raise or lower interest rates; as common drugs become more addictive and more dangerous, stricter enforcement begins to make more sense. Et cetera. So if, for example, data shows that the risks associated with the unlawful use of firearms spikes in emotionally volatile situations like relationships involving domestic violence... then policies should react to that and stricter regulations should apply in such cases.
I have other ideas along similar lines. None of them involve seizing firearms from people.
I'm not sure that 'not' seizing firearms from people in this country would be successful. There are a shit-ton of firearms in America that are not 'new' or registered. What are liberals here proposing that not only isn't grandfather claused into irrelevance but will actually make a difference?
If you’ve owned a gun for X amount of years and haven’t committed a crime with it, chances are you are not going to in the future. There are exceptions to this (such as the Vegas shooter), but anyone who has threatened violence against another group of people should not be able to casually walk into a store, pick out a gun, then drive to a place and start using it.
Proper training, on use and storage, will eliminate stupid deaths resulting from fire arms such as one going off in a diaper bag. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/16/us/diaper-bag-gun-death/index.html but advocates say it is just a roadblock for an individual to own a gun. (Most of these people have no worries about putting roadblocks up on other Rights however, such as mandatory ID for voting)
So you're not in favor of mandatory ID for voting? How does that work? Where I live I have to present a voter card or driver's license. Not a big inconvenience as far as I'm concerned. If somebody can't be bothered to get a voter card, I can't be bothered worrying about who they'd vote for...
The problem is that voter ID laws are generally designed to make it harder to qualify--not all cards count. Poor folks don't generally have a driver's license, folks who move out to state don't always have a birth certificate on hand, and getting a valid card is an extra hoop to jump through for anyone who doesn't already have the right card.
It shouldn't be difficult to get a voter ID card, but that's the thing--Democratic policymakers are the only ones who are actually trying to pass laws to make it simple and straightforward for people to get their ID's. The GOP does not, because that would be contrary to the purpose: to decrease voter turnout. It's part of the same strategy as shutting down voting stations in minority and Democrat-leaning neighborhoods.
Voting is important. We shouldn't be forcing people to jump through extra hoops just to exercise their most basic right. It shouldn't be any harder to exercise your right to vote than to exercise your right to free speech.
In following this in recent years, it is PLAINLY obvious that preventing voter fraud isn't remotely what this is about. I have read about voter ID being passed in Alabama and then (what a conincidence) DMV hours are slashed to nothing in minority districts. I have seen states where a NRA membership card counted but a college ID didn't. And then you have the case in Texas where the Attorney General just made up a non-existent vote fraud story to try remove people from being able to show up and vote. The GOP does not believe liberals (but especially black people) have an inherent right to vote. As I have said a dozen times, there is NO equivalent systematic effort taking place on the left.
It always bugs me how when someone says "we need reasonable regulations" the Right freaks out and shouts "liberals are calling for unreasonable regulations!"
No. The word "reasonable" was literally used right there.
"Taking people's guns away" would be unreasonable. (Not to mention, I don't know logistically how that could even work.)
Buybacks seem reasonable. They respect the freedom promised by any reading of the 2nd Amendment.
Restrictions on resale seem reasonable to me. If you want a firearm because you enjoy shooting, or hunting, or think you need one for self-defense, then God Bless. OTOH if you want to supply violent criminals with the means to do greater violence... that's not kosher.
Some restrictions on the type of firearm or ammo seems reasonable; these are items designed to do harm, in many cases designed to do harm specifically to humans. Even if the risk that a firearm might be used unlawfully is low, if the possible results of such use would be unusually grave for a particular kind of firearm, that merits more action to control for that risk.
I believe policy should be reactive; there is no one perfect set of rules and regulations that should govern society for all time. Circumstances change. As sea levels rise, the dangers of flooding require a change in policies; as the economy heats up or stalls, it becomes prudent to raise or lower interest rates; as common drugs become more addictive and more dangerous, stricter enforcement begins to make more sense. Et cetera. So if, for example, data shows that the risks associated with the unlawful use of firearms spikes in emotionally volatile situations like relationships involving domestic violence... then policies should react to that and stricter regulations should apply in such cases.
I have other ideas along similar lines. None of them involve seizing firearms from people.
I'm not sure that 'not' seizing firearms from people in this country would be successful. There are a shit-ton of firearms in America that are not 'new' or registered. What are liberals here proposing that not only isn't grandfather claused into irrelevance but will actually make a difference?
If you’ve owned a gun for X amount of years and haven’t committed a crime with it, chances are you are not going to in the future. There are exceptions to this (such as the Vegas shooter), but anyone who has threatened violence against another group of people should not be able to casually walk into a store, pick out a gun, then drive to a place and start using it.
Proper training, on use and storage, will eliminate stupid deaths resulting from fire arms such as one going off in a diaper bag. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/16/us/diaper-bag-gun-death/index.html but advocates say it is just a roadblock for an individual to own a gun. (Most of these people have no worries about putting roadblocks up on other Rights however, such as mandatory ID for voting)
So you're not in favor of mandatory ID for voting? How does that work? Where I live I have to present a voter card or driver's license. Not a big inconvenience as far as I'm concerned. If somebody can't be bothered to get a voter card, I can't be bothered worrying about who they'd vote for...
Where I live, I have to provide anything that has my name and address on it as well as the card they sent me in the mail.
If I don’t have that, I can get another person who does have It, and vouch for me by saying this person is who he/she says they are.
Last year, my voter card was sent to my old address (family home) and I had to scramble to get a new one (scramble as in log into the internet and say send me a new card to this address) which I got on the day of the election. This happened even though my taxes have been filed through my new address for the last two years, and I have updated all my ID and banking contact information to the new address.
Having proper ID is the easiest thing for the poll workers to do/use but shouldn’t be mandatory.
The person who lives in a shelter has every right to vote as much as I do.
The person who doesn’t drive, or is unable to obtain a drivers licence for whatever reason should also have the right to vote for whatever reason. (Ontario actually has a ID card for this purpose, to replace the drivers licence ID requirement for things like banking and government registrations).
The citizen that just recently moved into an area has every right to vote for the candidate of their choice.
It always bugs me how when someone says "we need reasonable regulations" the Right freaks out and shouts "liberals are calling for unreasonable regulations!"
No. The word "reasonable" was literally used right there.
"Taking people's guns away" would be unreasonable. (Not to mention, I don't know logistically how that could even work.)
Buybacks seem reasonable. They respect the freedom promised by any reading of the 2nd Amendment.
Restrictions on resale seem reasonable to me. If you want a firearm because you enjoy shooting, or hunting, or think you need one for self-defense, then God Bless. OTOH if you want to supply violent criminals with the means to do greater violence... that's not kosher.
Some restrictions on the type of firearm or ammo seems reasonable; these are items designed to do harm, in many cases designed to do harm specifically to humans. Even if the risk that a firearm might be used unlawfully is low, if the possible results of such use would be unusually grave for a particular kind of firearm, that merits more action to control for that risk.
I believe policy should be reactive; there is no one perfect set of rules and regulations that should govern society for all time. Circumstances change. As sea levels rise, the dangers of flooding require a change in policies; as the economy heats up or stalls, it becomes prudent to raise or lower interest rates; as common drugs become more addictive and more dangerous, stricter enforcement begins to make more sense. Et cetera. So if, for example, data shows that the risks associated with the unlawful use of firearms spikes in emotionally volatile situations like relationships involving domestic violence... then policies should react to that and stricter regulations should apply in such cases.
I have other ideas along similar lines. None of them involve seizing firearms from people.
I'm not sure that 'not' seizing firearms from people in this country would be successful. There are a shit-ton of firearms in America that are not 'new' or registered. What are liberals here proposing that not only isn't grandfather claused into irrelevance but will actually make a difference?
If you’ve owned a gun for X amount of years and haven’t committed a crime with it, chances are you are not going to in the future. There are exceptions to this (such as the Vegas shooter), but anyone who has threatened violence against another group of people should not be able to casually walk into a store, pick out a gun, then drive to a place and start using it.
Proper training, on use and storage, will eliminate stupid deaths resulting from fire arms such as one going off in a diaper bag. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/16/us/diaper-bag-gun-death/index.html but advocates say it is just a roadblock for an individual to own a gun. (Most of these people have no worries about putting roadblocks up on other Rights however, such as mandatory ID for voting)
So you're not in favor of mandatory ID for voting? How does that work? Where I live I have to present a voter card or driver's license. Not a big inconvenience as far as I'm concerned. If somebody can't be bothered to get a voter card, I can't be bothered worrying about who they'd vote for...
Where I live, I have to provide anything that has my name and address on it as well as the card they sent me in the mail.
If I don’t have that, I can get another person who does have It, and vouch for me by saying this person is who he/she says they are.
Last year, my voter card was sent to my old address (family home) and I had to scramble to get a new one (scramble as in log into the internet and say send me a new card to this address) which I got on the day of the election. This happened even though my taxes have been filed through my new address for the last two years, and I have updated all my ID and banking contact information to the new address.
Having proper ID is the easiest thing for the poll workers to do/use but shouldn’t be mandatory.
The person who lives in a shelter has every right to vote as much as I do.
The person who doesn’t drive, or is unable to obtain a drivers licence for whatever reason should also have the right to vote for whatever reason. (Ontario actually has a ID card for this purpose, to replace the drivers licence ID requirement for things like banking and government registrations).
The citizen that just recently moved into an area has every right to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Everyone should have the right to vote.
Well I don't buy in that felons should have the right, but otherwise, sure.
The government argued, and the minority of the Court agreed, that the objective of the law was to enhance prisoner’s civic responsibility and respect for law. Denying the right to vote was educative. If inmates voted it would demean the political system. Denying them the right to vote was an appropriate punishment no matter what crime had been committed.
The majority decided that denying the right to vote does not teach anything about the nature of our rights and obligations under the law. Denying the right to vote runs counter to the Canadian commitment to the inherent worth and dignity of every individual. The majority noted that right to vote is a Charter right that cannot be “overrode” by the notwithstanding clause (Section 33). The Parliament cannot invoke the notwithstanding provision. The majority indicated that the government cannot equate inmate disenfranchisement with youth voting restrictions. They are different. Inmates are denied the right to vote because they are considered unworthy. Youth are not allowed to vote because of their level of experience. Punishment should have a penal purpose: deterrence, rehabilitation, rehabilitation and denunciation. The majority found that the government did not show how punishing an inmate by disenfranchisement is relevant to the offender’s particular crime or serves a legitimate sentencing purpose. The Court also stated that Aboriginal peoples in particular would be disproportionately affected due to their over-representation in prisons.
The last line may ring similar to a group of people in the United States.
I can also add that this also prevents political imprisonment from happening. A person can’t vote for your rival if they are locked behind bars.
A right should be something that is afforded to all citizens regardless of any other situation. If a ex felon wants to own a gun because it is a right, he should. According to society he has been rehabilitated and is allowed to be released from prison.
It gets tricky in prison, as the person has the right to bear arms, but IMO, that is the most stupidest right anyone can have when taken just into that context. Having a right to bear arms as part of a militia, isn’t however. One cannot be part of a militia when behind bars (or can be I guess in times of crisis), so having an arm, but not having access to it until their is a crisis is completely reasonable.
Current felons who are incarcerated I agree with (Bernie Sanders is stepping too far with that one, and it's horrible politics). But a felon who has served their time?? I mean yeah, OF COURSE they should be able to vote. When people get out of prison, it's already a monumental task to get a decent job and housing. Making then permanent second-class citizens is doing nothing but encouraging them to commit more crimes and get sent back to prison. When did society decide that the punishment administered by the justice system is not sufficient and that every felony conviction is a de-facto life sentence even after it's been served??
I think losing the right to vote should only occur when the person is convicted of voter fraud or some electoral crime. Likewise, losing the right to own a weapon should only occur when the person is convicted of a violent crime. Same reason we deny the right to drive to folks who drink and drive and so forth: because the restriction matches the crime. Otherwise, taking away the person's rights is entirely arbitrary.
Current felons who are incarcerated I agree with (Bernie Sanders is stepping too far with that one, and it's horrible politics). But a felon who has served their time?? I mean yeah, OF COURSE they should be able to vote. When people get out of prison, it's already a monumental task to get a decent job and housing. Making then permanent second-class citizens is doing nothing but encouraging them to commit more crimes and get sent back to prison. When did society decide that the punishment administered by the justice system is not sufficient and that every felony conviction is a de-facto life sentence even after it's been served??
I'll agree with you that rehabilitated felons should be given back their voting rights. I don't think they should have that right while incarcerated or on parole, though.
I think losing the right to vote should only occur when the person is convicted of voter fraud or some electoral crime. Likewise, losing the right to own a weapon should only occur when the person is convicted of a violent crime. Same reason we deny the right to drive to folks who drink and drive and so forth: because the restriction matches the crime. Otherwise, taking away the person's rights is entirely arbitrary.
being able to drive is a privilege, not a right.
edit: No other rights get taken away from a person. Everyone still has the right to a fair trial and to legal council. Everyone still has the right to freely practise religion and free speech. A person's rights should never be taken away from them or else it is considered a privilege.
Can you guys explain why you think people shouldn't be allowed to vote while serving their sentences? I didn't come into this feeling strongly about it, but now I really can't think of a good reason.
Can you guys explain why you think people shouldn't be allowed to vote while serving their sentences? I didn't come into this feeling strongly about it, but now I really can't think of a good reason.
My only problem with them not being able to vote is that I'm 100% positive that there are people in prison who are either 1.) innocent or 2.) don't deserve anywhere near the length of their sentence. My opposition is to it being political malpractice. Most of us weren't politically aware in 1988, but if you are a student of history, you'll know that the infamous Willie Horton ad (despite being focused of a furlough program that Dukakis basically had nothing to do with) is part of what put Bush Sr. in the White House. And the last thing we need with a demagogue on the level of Donald Trump on the other side is a candidate who is advocating for (essentially) polling stations being set up in prison mess halls.
Now granted, Trump will just make shit up anyway (like this absolutely maniacal lie he has been telling lately about doctors and mothers killing newborn babies long after birth in hospitals), but I'm not interested in handing him actual substance on this particular issue. I'm liberal, but not to the point of being suicidal and sacrificing every single other issue that is important so I can die on the hill of making sure people in prison can vote. Because there are about a couple 100 other things I think are more important that could be flushed down the toilet by supporting something that I guarantee the public will steadfastly reject sight unseen. Let's start with keeping people who don't belong in prison for meaningless crimes out, not going to bat for voting rights (again, WHILE they are in prison) of people that DO belong there.
I mean shit, Florida just voted to restore the rights of FORMER felons after they get out of prison overwhelmingly and the Republicans in the state are basically trying to nullify that vote. So let's walk before we can run and make sure all the people who AREN'T in prison anymore can do so. Because if it can pass by an overwhelming majority in Florida of all places, it can probably pass anywhere. People will support this. They absolutely will not support the other.
I think losing the right to vote should only occur when the person is convicted of voter fraud or some electoral crime. Likewise, losing the right to own a weapon should only occur when the person is convicted of a violent crime. Same reason we deny the right to drive to folks who drink and drive and so forth: because the restriction matches the crime. Otherwise, taking away the person's rights is entirely arbitrary.
being able to drive is a privilege, not a right.
edit: No other rights get taken away from a person. Everyone still has the right to a fair trial and to legal council. Everyone still has the right to freely practise religion and free speech. A person's rights should never be taken away from them or else it is considered a privilege.
Well, we take away their right to personal freedom. And their right against warrantless searches. (Or, we say they have no privacy interest in their cell and sundries, in which case we are taking away their right to private property.) And, arguably, their 7th Amendment right to have a jury decide civil grievances. Et cetera. And to the extent that sentences can be lengthened by intra-prison factfinding tribunals or parole hearings, that is a loss of some 6th Amendment rights. (Personally such prospects seem to violate Apprendi v. NJ and Ring v. AZ, but whatever.) We do take away many constitutional rights of prisoners.
Setting aside the question of whether there is actually a right to vote (spoiler alert, maybe not - very few people seem to agree with me that there is and that it is born of the 1st Amendment)... I'm with @joluv here. Why not let prisoners vote? Who gives a crap? What are we afraid will happen?
It makes for bad soundbites, but I think Bernie's probably right. Is that what it boils down to - that it makes for bad soundbites?
You can still have private property if you have been arrested, you personally may not have access to it, but neither does the government. While in prison, there is a warrant to search a cell, but that warrant doesn't extend to your house.
Comments
Being from Canada, I realize that gun registration after the fact does not work. But we’re not talking about making ownership lists of every entire type of gun.
I am talking about it being illegal to sell or buy certain weapons that should not be classified as an arm in the second amendment. Ownership itself wouldn’t be illegal.
Yeah it could work where if you commit crimes and you have an illegal type gun it adds more to the charges, like where if you commit crimes and have drugs it's more charges.
This, by the way, is exactly how it works for machine guns in the US. If your grandfather brought an MG-42 back from the war, and properly registered it, and you are his legal heir, then you legally own that machine gun.
Criminals don't think they're going to get caught so that isn't really a deterrent. I guess it keeps them off the streets longer though...
What if you already own a gun, though? Grandfather out?
Right.
It might well keep them off the streets longer, but again, we're talking about just locking up people for longer prison times. That costs money, and in general I am very hesitant to spend taxpayer dollars to keep someone out of the workforce and put them in close contact with the worst social influences you can get: other convicts. I've made this point in regards to other crimes, but the same applies to gun laws.
Please see first sentence of my post
Well won't deter individual criminals but yeah keep em locked a bit longer is fine. Those for profit prisons need the bodies since we lost the war on drugs.
I'm not sure that 'not' seizing firearms from people in this country would be successful. There are a shit-ton of firearms in America that are not 'new' or registered. What are liberals here proposing that not only isn't grandfather claused into irrelevance but will actually make a difference?
If you’ve owned a gun for X amount of years and haven’t committed a crime with it, chances are you are not going to in the future. There are exceptions to this (such as the Vegas shooter), but anyone who has threatened violence against another group of people should not be able to casually walk into a store, pick out a gun, then drive to a place and start using it.
Proper training, on use and storage, will eliminate stupid deaths resulting from fire arms such as one going off in a diaper bag. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/04/16/us/diaper-bag-gun-death/index.html but advocates say it is just a roadblock for an individual to own a gun. (Most of these people have no worries about putting roadblocks up on other Rights however, such as mandatory ID for voting)
So you're not in favor of mandatory ID for voting? How does that work? Where I live I have to present a voter card or driver's license. Not a big inconvenience as far as I'm concerned. If somebody can't be bothered to get a voter card, I can't be bothered worrying about who they'd vote for...
It shouldn't be difficult to get a voter ID card, but that's the thing--Democratic policymakers are the only ones who are actually trying to pass laws to make it simple and straightforward for people to get their ID's. The GOP does not, because that would be contrary to the purpose: to decrease voter turnout. It's part of the same strategy as shutting down voting stations in minority and Democrat-leaning neighborhoods.
Voting is important. We shouldn't be forcing people to jump through extra hoops just to exercise their most basic right. It shouldn't be any harder to exercise your right to vote than to exercise your right to free speech.
Where I live, I have to provide anything that has my name and address on it as well as the card they sent me in the mail.
If I don’t have that, I can get another person who does have It, and vouch for me by saying this person is who he/she says they are.
Last year, my voter card was sent to my old address (family home) and I had to scramble to get a new one (scramble as in log into the internet and say send me a new card to this address) which I got on the day of the election. This happened even though my taxes have been filed through my new address for the last two years, and I have updated all my ID and banking contact information to the new address.
Having proper ID is the easiest thing for the poll workers to do/use but shouldn’t be mandatory.
The person who lives in a shelter has every right to vote as much as I do.
The person who doesn’t drive, or is unable to obtain a drivers licence for whatever reason should also have the right to vote for whatever reason. (Ontario actually has a ID card for this purpose, to replace the drivers licence ID requirement for things like banking and government registrations).
The citizen that just recently moved into an area has every right to vote for the candidate of their choice.
Everyone should have the right to vote.
Well I don't buy in that felons should have the right, but otherwise, sure.
I am pretty sure I posted this before, but let just post it again:
https://ojen.ca/wp-content/uploads/Richard-Sauve-v-Attorney-General-of-Canada.pdf
The government argued, and the minority of the Court agreed, that the objective of the law was to enhance prisoner’s civic responsibility and respect for law. Denying the right to vote was educative. If inmates voted it would demean the political system. Denying them the right to vote was an appropriate punishment no matter what crime had been committed.
The majority decided that denying the right to vote does not teach anything about the nature of our rights and obligations under the law. Denying the right to vote runs counter to the Canadian commitment to the inherent worth and dignity of every individual. The majority noted that right to vote is a Charter right that cannot be “overrode” by the notwithstanding clause (Section 33). The Parliament cannot invoke the notwithstanding provision. The majority indicated that the government cannot equate inmate disenfranchisement with youth voting restrictions. They are different. Inmates are denied the right to vote because they are considered unworthy. Youth are not allowed to vote because of their level of experience. Punishment should have a penal purpose: deterrence, rehabilitation, rehabilitation and denunciation. The majority found that the government did not show how punishing an inmate by disenfranchisement is relevant to the offender’s particular crime or serves a legitimate sentencing purpose. The Court also stated that Aboriginal peoples in particular would be disproportionately affected due to their over-representation in prisons.
The last line may ring similar to a group of people in the United States.
I can also add that this also prevents political imprisonment from happening. A person can’t vote for your rival if they are locked behind bars.
A right should be something that is afforded to all citizens regardless of any other situation. If a ex felon wants to own a gun because it is a right, he should. According to society he has been rehabilitated and is allowed to be released from prison.
It gets tricky in prison, as the person has the right to bear arms, but IMO, that is the most stupidest right anyone can have when taken just into that context. Having a right to bear arms as part of a militia, isn’t however. One cannot be part of a militia when behind bars (or can be I guess in times of crisis), so having an arm, but not having access to it until their is a crisis is completely reasonable.
I'll agree with you that rehabilitated felons should be given back their voting rights. I don't think they should have that right while incarcerated or on parole, though.
being able to drive is a privilege, not a right.
edit: No other rights get taken away from a person. Everyone still has the right to a fair trial and to legal council. Everyone still has the right to freely practise religion and free speech. A person's rights should never be taken away from them or else it is considered a privilege.
My only problem with them not being able to vote is that I'm 100% positive that there are people in prison who are either 1.) innocent or 2.) don't deserve anywhere near the length of their sentence. My opposition is to it being political malpractice. Most of us weren't politically aware in 1988, but if you are a student of history, you'll know that the infamous Willie Horton ad (despite being focused of a furlough program that Dukakis basically had nothing to do with) is part of what put Bush Sr. in the White House. And the last thing we need with a demagogue on the level of Donald Trump on the other side is a candidate who is advocating for (essentially) polling stations being set up in prison mess halls.
Now granted, Trump will just make shit up anyway (like this absolutely maniacal lie he has been telling lately about doctors and mothers killing newborn babies long after birth in hospitals), but I'm not interested in handing him actual substance on this particular issue. I'm liberal, but not to the point of being suicidal and sacrificing every single other issue that is important so I can die on the hill of making sure people in prison can vote. Because there are about a couple 100 other things I think are more important that could be flushed down the toilet by supporting something that I guarantee the public will steadfastly reject sight unseen. Let's start with keeping people who don't belong in prison for meaningless crimes out, not going to bat for voting rights (again, WHILE they are in prison) of people that DO belong there.
I mean shit, Florida just voted to restore the rights of FORMER felons after they get out of prison overwhelmingly and the Republicans in the state are basically trying to nullify that vote. So let's walk before we can run and make sure all the people who AREN'T in prison anymore can do so. Because if it can pass by an overwhelming majority in Florida of all places, it can probably pass anywhere. People will support this. They absolutely will not support the other.
You can still have private property if you have been arrested, you personally may not have access to it, but neither does the government. While in prison, there is a warrant to search a cell, but that warrant doesn't extend to your house.