pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Guy arrested for shooting intruders...
#1
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/07/cal...latestnews

Well....he was in a no win situation. He could either risk his life with the intruders, or get sent to jail after shooting them.

Well....one guy will never rob again, and the second one probably won't either....
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply
#2
RugerGirl;38134 Wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/07/cal...latestnews

Well....he was in a no win situation. He could either risk his life with the intruders, or get sent to jail after shooting them.

Well....one guy will never rob again, and the second one probably won't either....

Well, that's what he gets for living in California. Shrug

Not that it matters really, since being a felon means he can't own/possess firearms or ammunition in any of the 50 States. Though, I wonder, why do they call him an ex-felon in the article? What's an ex-felon? Doesn't being in illegal possession of a firearm make one a felon all over again? Where does the ex come in?
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."
Reply
#3
ByblosHex;38161 Wrote:
RugerGirl;38134 Wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/11/07/cal...latestnews

Well....he was in a no win situation. He could either risk his life with the intruders, or get sent to jail after shooting them.

Well....one guy will never rob again, and the second one probably won't either....

Well, that's what he gets for living in California. Shrug

Not that it matters really, since being a felon means he can't own/possess firearms or ammunition in any of the 50 States. Though, I wonder, why do they call him an ex-felon in the article? What's an ex-felon? Doesn't being in illegal possession of a firearm make one a felon all over again? Where does the ex come in?

I wondered that too! Sounds like he was a felon "a long time ago" or something......
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply
#4
RugerGirl;38166 Wrote:
ByblosHex;38161 Wrote:Well, that's what he gets for living in California. Shrug

Not that it matters really, since being a felon means he can't own/possess firearms or ammunition in any of the 50 States. Though, I wonder, why do they call him an ex-felon in the article? What's an ex-felon? Doesn't being in illegal possession of a firearm make one a felon all over again? Where does the ex come in?

I wondered that too! Sounds like he was a felon "a long time ago" or something......

Well, if he was currently illegally in possession of a firearm and ammunition that means he was also a current felon. Otherwise he wouldn't have been arrested. Tongue
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."
Reply
#5
Darwinning! One gets a Coffin, two get a jail cell. Are you really sad?
bad guys should commit burglary's. Convicted felons should not have guns. Its a Win-Win situation!
Life is terminal, get over it!!! 124
Daycrawler, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#6
Daycrawler;38217 Wrote:Darwinning! One gets a Coffin, two get a jail cell. Are you really sad?
bad guys should commit burglary's. Convicted felons should not have guns. Its a Win-Win situation!

Yeah but we wanted to know why he was called an "ex-felon"!

If the guy were a little more clean-cut looking in the mug shot I would have felt a little more sorry for him...I mean, technically speaking, you could be a felon at age 20 and then be clean from age 25 to age 60 and then need to defend yourself at age 61, you know? But I guess that's why you shouldn't be a felon at age 20. *shrug*
Error 396: Signature cannot be found.
Reply
#7
RugerGirl;38404 Wrote:
Daycrawler;38217 Wrote:Darwinning! One gets a Coffin, two get a jail cell. Are you really sad?
bad guys should commit burglary's. Convicted felons should not have guns. Its a Win-Win situation!

Yeah but we wanted to know why he was called an "ex-felon"!

If the guy were a little more clean-cut looking in the mug shot I would have felt a little more sorry for him...I mean, technically speaking, you could be a felon at age 20 and then be clean from age 25 to age 60 and then need to defend yourself at age 61, you know? But I guess that's why you shouldn't be a felon at age 20. *shrug*

As long as youre in illegal possession of a firearm you're still a felon. Ex never enters the equation. Tongue
"As I lay rubber down the street I pray for traction I can keep, but if I spin and begin to slide, please dear God, protect my sweet ride."
Reply
#8
RugerGirl;38404 Wrote:Yeah but we wanted to know why he was called an "ex-felon"!

If the guy were a little more clean-cut looking in the mug shot I would have felt a little more sorry for him...I mean, technically speaking, you could be a felon at age 20 and then be clean from age 25 to age 60 and then need to defend yourself at age 61, you know? But I guess that's why you shouldn't be a felon at age 20. *shrug*

So because the guy has a beard and longish hair you don't???
Reply
#9
I think the "ex" denotes that he had committed a felony a significant amount of time ago and that all of his sentence/parole/etc. have been satisfied.

I.e. "A long time ago the person screwed up to the felony level. However, he did his time and has behaved since. We doubt he is engaged in the same behavior that made him a felon in the first place."

As far as felons being prohibited... I know this isn't a popular position, but why should they be prohibited? If the 2A is understood to mean that the people should have equal arms with the government to ensure a free society, why should people the government has branded as "really bad" be prohibited from having a means of keeping the government in check? Aren't those the types of people who are likely to be best/more experienced at keeping the .gov in check? Seems like a great way for the .gov to protect itself. As for those that question the wisdom of letting rapists, robbers, etc. possess firearms: 1) they can get them illegally, so the question really is: should they be punished, and 2) In a truly free society, there will always be personal risks. As is credited to Franklin: "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

[Flame suite]
Reply
#10
rmagill;38530 Wrote:As far as felons being prohibited... I know this isn't a popular position, but why should they be prohibited? If the 2A is understood to mean that the people should have equal arms with the government to ensure a free society, why should people the government has branded as "really bad" be prohibited from having a means of keeping the government in check? Aren't those the types of people who are likely to be best/more experienced at keeping the .gov in check? Seems like a great way for the .gov to protect itself. As for those that question the wisdom of letting rapists, robbers, etc. possess firearms: 1) they can get them illegally, so the question really is: should they be punished, and 2) In a truly free society, there will always be personal risks. As is credited to Franklin: "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

I'm glad you raised this. In many jurisdictions, they're looking at restoring felons' voting rights, either automatically after a period of time, or following a review board, of convicted felons.

It seems to me as though denying any rights to all felons who've served their sentences suffers from the "painting with too broad of a brush-stroke" problem that attends so much "law and order" legislation. Such cases include, for example, prohibitions on magazines of more than 10 round capacity--- even for .22s. Or the "three strikes" legislation which has packed jails in some states with non-violent offenders.

Speaking of non-violent offenders, does someone who gets caught in some sort of financial impropriety, serves their time, and comes back into society really deserve to be enjoined from their tight to self-defense for life the same as someone who used a gun to rob a bank?

On top of that there has been a tendency to make felonies of non-violent offenses that were once misdemeanors due to pressure from organized campaigns like MADD.

Do some of these sorts of laws, like unduly restrictive laws on the rest of us, threaten to make criminals out of law-abiding citizens?
gascolator, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Nov 2012.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  FBI fakes mass shooting data!? Coops 5 903 03-25-2015, 09:42 PM
Last Post: sgtsandman
  Student arrested for carry on campus given 8 years. Emoticon 5 1,081 12-31-2014, 02:21 AM
Last Post: panopticonisi
  State Passes Law to Legalize Shooting Police goofin 5 1,233 11-14-2014, 09:54 PM
Last Post: goofin
  MSM Is Using the Las Vegas Shooting to Attack the Liberty Movement das 4 892 06-15-2014, 11:10 AM
Last Post: middlefinger
  Here We Go Again.California Shooting Prompts Bipartisan Calls for Gun Control das 56 5,011 06-03-2014, 07:21 PM
Last Post: Emoticon



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.