Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why Can't Felons Have Guns?

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 12:05:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've never understood this argument, in is execution.
Obviously, hardened murderers and street thugs is an understandable concern.

However, what about those that have committed crimes that are not violent? Why should they, and their entire household, be denied the right to protect themselves?

For example, let's say I was 21 and I went to a bar and hit it off with a girl. She was drinking, and I checked the girl's ID for added security, but she was using a fake ID.

Boom. Statutory rape, a felony.
Now, tell me why I should not be able to protect me or my family, since if I can't own a gun, neither can a gun be registered where I live to my understanding,

Or what about dealing drugs? Or fraud? Or possession of stolen property? Tax evasion? Or any other non-aggressive felony?

Further, in my state, any domestic violence charge is banworthy of owning a gun, including one as a juvenile. This could be a simple slap or shove, and is not even a felony, and this requires not only the man (using stereotypes) not be allowed a gun, but neither the woman or others in the house (roommates, adult children, etc.)

So, can anyone tell me why so many people should be automatically deprived of a means of self defense?
My work here is, finally, done.
SenatorZhen
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 2:05:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sadly it's what happens when politicians vote that way to seem "tough on crime." No where does it specify in the Constitution saying felons can't. It's just one of the ways felons are disenfranchised along with loss of voting rights.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 8:28:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The government also strips my right to litter my lawn with landmines, depriving me of my self defense. I'm so helpless now!
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 8:53:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 8:28:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The government also strips my right to litter my lawn with landmines, depriving me of my self defense. I'm so helpless now!

So your explanation for why things are the way they are....is because they shouldn't be? You ARE saying no one should be armed in a sarcastic manner. You contribute nothing but mockery, when you could use logic and reason your position.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 9:06:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 8:53:59 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:28:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The government also strips my right to litter my lawn with landmines, depriving me of my self defense. I'm so helpless now!


So your explanation for why things are the way they are....is because they shouldn't be? You ARE saying no one should be armed in a sarcastic manner. You contribute nothing but mockery, when you could use logic and reason your position.

It's called reduction to the absurd. The argument was that you cannot protect yourself without guns. By taking it to its absurd conclusion, one can show that it is absurd. Now, we can argue about what should and should not be a felony or have what consequences, but you lose rights when you violate the rights of others.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 9:09:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 9:06:51 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:53:59 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:28:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The government also strips my right to litter my lawn with landmines, depriving me of my self defense. I'm so helpless now!


So your explanation for why things are the way they are....is because they shouldn't be? You ARE saying no one should be armed in a sarcastic manner. You contribute nothing but mockery, when you could use logic and reason your position.

It's called reduction to the absurd. The argument was that you cannot protect yourself without guns. By taking it to its absurd conclusion, one can show that it is absurd. Now, we can argue about what should and should not be a felony or have what consequences, but you lose rights when you violate the rights of others.

After their sentence is served, or their restitution or fine is paid, etc., what rights do they not have, and why?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 9:13:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 9:09:48 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:06:51 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:53:59 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:28:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The government also strips my right to litter my lawn with landmines, depriving me of my self defense. I'm so helpless now!


So your explanation for why things are the way they are....is because they shouldn't be? You ARE saying no one should be armed in a sarcastic manner. You contribute nothing but mockery, when you could use logic and reason your position.

It's called reduction to the absurd. The argument was that you cannot protect yourself without guns. By taking it to its absurd conclusion, one can show that it is absurd. Now, we can argue about what should and should not be a felony or have what consequences, but you lose rights when you violate the rights of others.

After their sentence is served, or their restitution or fine is paid, etc., what rights do they not have, and why?

Their prison sentence may be served, but the loss to own a gun is a life time sentence which is part of their punishment.

Reason why? Safety for the general public.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 9:24:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 9:13:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:09:48 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:06:51 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:53:59 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:28:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The government also strips my right to litter my lawn with landmines, depriving me of my self defense. I'm so helpless now!


So your explanation for why things are the way they are....is because they shouldn't be? You ARE saying no one should be armed in a sarcastic manner. You contribute nothing but mockery, when you could use logic and reason your position.

It's called reduction to the absurd. The argument was that you cannot protect yourself without guns. By taking it to its absurd conclusion, one can show that it is absurd. Now, we can argue about what should and should not be a felony or have what consequences, but you lose rights when you violate the rights of others.

After their sentence is served, or their restitution or fine is paid, etc., what rights do they not have, and why?

Their prison sentence may be served, but the loss to own a gun is a life time sentence which is part of their punishment.

Reason why? Safety for the general public.

Only 2nd Amendment Rights are lost because the felon is still a danger to the public. Correct? If public safety is a concern because these people are still a danger, why are they ever let out? Mandatory life sentences for all felons.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 9:29:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 9:24:47 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:13:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:09:48 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:06:51 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:53:59 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:28:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The government also strips my right to litter my lawn with landmines, depriving me of my self defense. I'm so helpless now!


So your explanation for why things are the way they are....is because they shouldn't be? You ARE saying no one should be armed in a sarcastic manner. You contribute nothing but mockery, when you could use logic and reason your position.

It's called reduction to the absurd. The argument was that you cannot protect yourself without guns. By taking it to its absurd conclusion, one can show that it is absurd. Now, we can argue about what should and should not be a felony or have what consequences, but you lose rights when you violate the rights of others.

After their sentence is served, or their restitution or fine is paid, etc., what rights do they not have, and why?

Their prison sentence may be served, but the loss to own a gun is a life time sentence which is part of their punishment.

Reason why? Safety for the general public.

Only 2nd Amendment Rights are lost because the felon is still a danger to the public. Correct? If public safety is a concern because these people are still a danger, why are they ever let out? Mandatory life sentences for all felons.

Different safety measures for different degrees of risk, as we do with every aspect of life. Next?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 9:35:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 9:29:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:24:47 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:13:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:09:48 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:06:51 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:53:59 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:28:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The government also strips my right to litter my lawn with landmines, depriving me of my self defense. I'm so helpless now!


So your explanation for why things are the way they are....is because they shouldn't be? You ARE saying no one should be armed in a sarcastic manner. You contribute nothing but mockery, when you could use logic and reason your position.

It's called reduction to the absurd. The argument was that you cannot protect yourself without guns. By taking it to its absurd conclusion, one can show that it is absurd. Now, we can argue about what should and should not be a felony or have what consequences, but you lose rights when you violate the rights of others.

After their sentence is served, or their restitution or fine is paid, etc., what rights do they not have, and why?

Their prison sentence may be served, but the loss to own a gun is a life time sentence which is part of their punishment.

Reason why? Safety for the general public.

Only 2nd Amendment Rights are lost because the felon is still a danger to the public. Correct? If public safety is a concern because these people are still a danger, why are they ever let out? Mandatory life sentences for all felons.

Different safety measures for different degrees of risk, as we do with every aspect of life. Next?

So, non-violent felons?
http://www.reviewjournal.com...
Falsifying reports to the EPA. It's a felony. Doesn't sound particularly violent. Should he be locked away for life? Should he lose his 2nd Amendment rights?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 9:52:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 9:35:48 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:29:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:24:47 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:13:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:09:48 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:06:51 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:53:59 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:28:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The government also strips my right to litter my lawn with landmines, depriving me of my self defense. I'm so helpless now!


So your explanation for why things are the way they are....is because they shouldn't be? You ARE saying no one should be armed in a sarcastic manner. You contribute nothing but mockery, when you could use logic and reason your position.

It's called reduction to the absurd. The argument was that you cannot protect yourself without guns. By taking it to its absurd conclusion, one can show that it is absurd. Now, we can argue about what should and should not be a felony or have what consequences, but you lose rights when you violate the rights of others.

After their sentence is served, or their restitution or fine is paid, etc., what rights do they not have, and why?

Their prison sentence may be served, but the loss to own a gun is a life time sentence which is part of their punishment.

Reason why? Safety for the general public.

Only 2nd Amendment Rights are lost because the felon is still a danger to the public. Correct? If public safety is a concern because these people are still a danger, why are they ever let out? Mandatory life sentences for all felons.

Different safety measures for different degrees of risk, as we do with every aspect of life. Next?

So, non-violent felons?
http://www.reviewjournal.com...
Falsifying reports to the EPA. It's a felony. Doesn't sound particularly violent. Should he be locked away for life? Should he lose his 2nd Amendment rights?

Rather than saying felons shouldn't lose that right, I'd say that crime shouldn't be a felony.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 10:01:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 9:52:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:35:48 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:29:46 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:24:47 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:13:24 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:09:48 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/11/2014 9:06:51 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:53:59 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:28:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The government also strips my right to litter my lawn with landmines, depriving me of my self defense. I'm so helpless now!


So your explanation for why things are the way they are....is because they shouldn't be? You ARE saying no one should be armed in a sarcastic manner. You contribute nothing but mockery, when you could use logic and reason your position.

It's called reduction to the absurd. The argument was that you cannot protect yourself without guns. By taking it to its absurd conclusion, one can show that it is absurd. Now, we can argue about what should and should not be a felony or have what consequences, but you lose rights when you violate the rights of others.

After their sentence is served, or their restitution or fine is paid, etc., what rights do they not have, and why?

Their prison sentence may be served, but the loss to own a gun is a life time sentence which is part of their punishment.

Reason why? Safety for the general public.

Only 2nd Amendment Rights are lost because the felon is still a danger to the public. Correct? If public safety is a concern because these people are still a danger, why are they ever let out? Mandatory life sentences for all felons.

Different safety measures for different degrees of risk, as we do with every aspect of life. Next?

So, non-violent felons?
http://www.reviewjournal.com...
Falsifying reports to the EPA. It's a felony. Doesn't sound particularly violent. Should he be locked away for life? Should he lose his 2nd Amendment rights?

Rather than saying felons shouldn't lose that right, I'd say that crime shouldn't be a felony.

Yet it, and many other non-violent crimes like it, are felonies.
The definitions of Felony from common dictionary sites:
an offense, as murder or burglary, of graver character than those called misdemeanors, especially those commonly punished in the U.S. by imprisonment for more than a year.
A serious crime, characterized under federal law and many state statutes as any offense punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

I think there is confusion about what defines a felony. It seems to be very broad. Claim one too many on your taxes or crush a refrigerator and release a pound of CFC's.
A danger to society?
Should these people have their rights restored or restricted permanently?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 10:41:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So the question should be, since felonies are the way they are, and not the way we want them to be, should felons have their 2nd Amendment rights permanently removed?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2014 10:56:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 10:41:29 PM, Skynet wrote:
So the question should be, since felonies are the way they are, and not the way we want them to be, should felons have their 2nd Amendment rights permanently removed?

Take them away. If you're gonna group all of them together and that is your only choice, then they all lose it. The question should be, should X be classified as a felony.

It is like when we talk about should statutory rape require registering as a sexual predator. No one (virtually no one) argues that racists shouldn't have to register because that is unfair to the 19 that boned a 16 year old.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
SenatorZhen
Posts: 10
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 12:30:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 10:56:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/11/2014 10:41:29 PM, Skynet wrote:
So the question should be, since felonies are the way they are, and not the way we want them to be, should felons have their 2nd Amendment rights permanently removed?

Take them away. If you're gonna group all of them together and that is your only choice, then they all lose it. The question should be, should X be classified as a felony.

It is like when we talk about should statutory rape require registering as a sexual predator. No one (virtually no one) argues that racists shouldn't have to register because that is unfair to the 19 that boned a 16 year old.

If the definition of a felony is "A serious crime, characterized under federal law and many state statutes as any offense punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year" for these purposes, if we were to decide that felony should be a misdemeanor, would we have to change many sentencing guidelines?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 12:40:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 12:30:39 AM, SenatorZhen wrote:
At 8/11/2014 10:56:45 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/11/2014 10:41:29 PM, Skynet wrote:
So the question should be, since felonies are the way they are, and not the way we want them to be, should felons have their 2nd Amendment rights permanently removed?

Take them away. If you're gonna group all of them together and that is your only choice, then they all lose it. The question should be, should X be classified as a felony.

It is like when we talk about should statutory rape require registering as a sexual predator. No one (virtually no one) argues that racists shouldn't have to register because that is unfair to the 19 that boned a 16 year old.

If the definition of a felony is "A serious crime, characterized under federal law and many state statutes as any offense punishable by death or imprisonment in excess of one year" for these purposes, if we were to decide that felony should be a misdemeanor, would we have to change many sentencing guidelines?

Yes, otherwise you're engaging in a false dilemma or black and white fallacy.

The question started with "why can't felons have guns?" That was answered. It was then switched to "should felons be allowed to have guns?" As I said, if you are going to force that into a yes/no on a large grouping, then the answer is no. I can give reasoning why many in the group should not have guns, and we can probably give reasoning why many should be allowed to have guns. But that comes down to reclassifying the individual components of the group, rather than striking the restriction from the group.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 12:51:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/11/2014 8:28:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The government also strips my right to litter my lawn with landmines, depriving me of my self defense. I'm so helpless now!

Sarcasm aside, you know that a gun is the best tool for self defense, especially against another gun. Can felons even own a rifle? Can they hunt?

My point is, people will say felons shouldn't have guns (i.e. background checks), even though many felonies are not aggressive in nature.

I get your point, but I'd prefer to see a better example, since the lawn is a bit touchy, given utilities being there.
My work here is, finally, done.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 1:08:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 12:51:08 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:28:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The government also strips my right to litter my lawn with landmines, depriving me of my self defense. I'm so helpless now!

Sarcasm aside, you know that a gun is the best tool for self defense, especially against another gun. Can felons even own a rifle? Can they hunt?

I would disagree. The idea that "guns are the best solution" is one of the key reasons that our society is so violent. It isn't the gun's fault by any means, but it is our love affair with it. The sooner that expunge that from our societal psyche, the better off we will be, and a key part of that is rejecting that guns are the best way to keep us safe. That is nothing more than an individualized MAD policy.


My point is, people will say felons shouldn't have guns (i.e. background checks), even though many felonies are not aggressive in nature.

I get your point, but I'd prefer to see a better example, since the lawn is a bit touchy, given utilities being there.

That depends on if you want this focused on guns or on felons. Right now, it seems that everything is geared towards gun and the felons are just a vehicle to bring them up, rather than honestly about felons.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 1:32:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Despite all the claims for self-defense, you are still 20 times more likely to be murdered by someone you know, than by a stranger breaking into your house. The Kellerman study found that keeping a loaded gun in your home was correlated to a 2.7 times greater chance to being murdered. Even for families that listed the gun as "primarily for self defense" found a 1.7 times greater chance of being murdered.

The best single thing (from a correlation point)? A freaking burglar alarm. They did show, though, that the ownership of a shotgun, was actually a positive correlation (and I plan on owning a shotgun, if ever any gun at all).

Cracked did a good article about guns.

http://www.cracked.com...

And the notion that it is about protecting the family while we still have "40 percent of U.S. residential fire deaths result from fires in homes with no smoke alarms, while 23 percent occurred in homes without working smoke alarms."

http://www.dfs.dps.mo.gov...

And that just 10 years ago in Maine, only 34% of rentals had working CO detectors? And in 2010 it was up to a whooping 58%? Around 40% of apartments (just in the one state, I didn't google more than 30 seconds for it after all) don't have a working one.

http://www.maine.gov...

Things like this cost only $10 - $20. Guns needed for safety? There are more important safety items on the list that the public needs.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 1:36:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 1:08:43 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/12/2014 12:51:08 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:28:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The government also strips my right to litter my lawn with landmines, depriving me of my self defense. I'm so helpless now!

Sarcasm aside, you know that a gun is the best tool for self defense, especially against another gun. Can felons even own a rifle? Can they hunt?

I would disagree. The idea that "guns are the best solution" is one of the key reasons that our society is so violent. It isn't the gun's fault by any means, but it is our love affair with it. The sooner that expunge that from our societal psyche, the better off we will be, and a key part of that is rejecting that guns are the best way to keep us safe. That is nothing more than an individualized MAD policy.

I disagree.
I think our society is violent because we have a sense of entitlement, and we are violent because someone demands satisfaction. Feeling of resentment, betrayal, inadequacy, and hurt channel to an "I'll show them" attitude, and a gun is too efficient to appreciate the consequences.
How many times have people said/did something out of anger?
That, and, you know, gangs and drugs and whatnot.

I see guns as the great equalizer. A gun trumps any other mainstream weapon and matches a commonly used one by criminals. Whether it is a 90-lb woman in a dark alley, or an 80 year old man, or some scrawny nerd, a gun offers protection from the would-be assailant in most cases.

In the home, I'll agree it is often not needed, as most criminals that attack the home are not likely to be violent (vandalism, burglary). However, if there are people with intent to hurt you, like a home invasion or even a hitman, how can you say it is not the best defense?


My point is, people will say felons shouldn't have guns (i.e. background checks), even though many felonies are not aggressive in nature.

I get your point, but I'd prefer to see a better example, since the lawn is a bit touchy, given utilities being there.

That depends on if you want this focused on guns or on felons. Right now, it seems that everything is geared towards gun and the felons are just a vehicle to bring them up, rather than honestly about felons.

I'm referring to the mentality that "felons shouldn't have guns", that people often spout. The issue is about felons losing rights, categorically.

Whether X should be a felony or not is a tangential issue, since at the moment, it is, and those people are affected.
My work here is, finally, done.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 8:20:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In the US, we the people are supposed to make up the government for our common good. The British confiscated arms from the colonists for the good of the Crown against the good of the British citizens, and that's why the government shall not infringe upon the right of the people to bear arms. The militias were meant to substitute a large standing army, because the Founders distrusted a standing army. (see Madison) The 2nd Amendment wasn't to protect us from robbers primarily, and it wasn't to encourage revolts or revenge. It certainly wasn't to make sure we could shoot dinner. The government is supposed to protect us from robbers and brigandry. It was made to disincetivize the government from sending an army after it's own people. It happens all the time today in other countries, (Syria, Egypt, China, Vietnam, etc.) and it happened in Colonial America.

That's the reason for the 2nd Amendment, whether you like the purpose or not. And whether you agree with Cliven Bundy or not, the concept has been demonstrated effective!

We all seem to agree felonies are too broadly defined. So taking guns away from all felons is taking away a vital right of too broad a class of people. If you disagree, you must think people don't need physical protections from physical oppression by the government. Correct?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 8:22:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 1:36:09 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2014 1:08:43 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/12/2014 12:51:08 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:28:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The government also strips my right to litter my lawn with landmines, depriving me of my self defense. I'm so helpless now!

Sarcasm aside, you know that a gun is the best tool for self defense, especially against another gun. Can felons even own a rifle? Can they hunt?

I would disagree. The idea that "guns are the best solution" is one of the key reasons that our society is so violent. It isn't the gun's fault by any means, but it is our love affair with it. The sooner that expunge that from our societal psyche, the better off we will be, and a key part of that is rejecting that guns are the best way to keep us safe. That is nothing more than an individualized MAD policy.

I disagree.
I think our society is violent because we have a sense of entitlement, and we are violent because someone demands satisfaction. Feeling of resentment, betrayal, inadequacy, and hurt channel to an "I'll show them" attitude, and a gun is too efficient to appreciate the consequences.
How many times have people said/did something out of anger?
That, and, you know, gangs and drugs and whatnot.

The two are not mutually exclusive at all, in fact, they go together hand in hand. We have people that feel entitled for X, but they feel that guns and violence are their means to get X (look at your own example of gangs, they want X, Y, and Z, and guns are their method to get it).

Though the funny thing is, you are only hurting your case. You say that the feeling of entitlement is the root to people's violence, yet you are arguing that felons are entitled to have guns.


I see guns as the great equalizer. A gun trumps any other mainstream weapon and matches a commonly used one by criminals. Whether it is a 90-lb woman in a dark alley, or an 80 year old man, or some scrawny nerd, a gun offers protection from the would-be assailant in most cases.

In the home, I'll agree it is often not needed, as most criminals that attack the home are not likely to be violent (vandalism, burglary). However, if there are people with intent to hurt you, like a home invasion or even a hitman, how can you say it is not the best defense?


My point is, people will say felons shouldn't have guns (i.e. background checks), even though many felonies are not aggressive in nature.

I get your point, but I'd prefer to see a better example, since the lawn is a bit touchy, given utilities being there.

That depends on if you want this focused on guns or on felons. Right now, it seems that everything is geared towards gun and the felons are just a vehicle to bring them up, rather than honestly about felons.

I'm referring to the mentality that "felons shouldn't have guns", that people often spout. The issue is about felons losing rights, categorically.

Whether X should be a felony or not is a tangential issue, since at the moment, it is, and those people are affected.

And if you are going to leave it as a category, then the answer (as I've already said, several times), is that they all lose their guns. Sorry to those that don't deserve it, but if the false dichotomy is going to be forced, then too bad, it is for the betterment of society.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 8:28:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 8:20:34 PM, Skynet wrote:
In the US, we the people are supposed to make up the government for our common good. The British confiscated arms from the colonists for the good of the Crown against the good of the British citizens, and that's why the government shall not infringe upon the right of the people to bear arms. The militias were meant to substitute a large standing army, because the Founders distrusted a standing army. (see Madison) The 2nd Amendment wasn't to protect us from robbers primarily, and it wasn't to encourage revolts or revenge. It certainly wasn't to make sure we could shoot dinner. The government is supposed to protect us from robbers and brigandry. It was made to disincetivize the government from sending an army after it's own people. It happens all the time today in other countries, (Syria, Egypt, China, Vietnam, etc.) and it happened in Colonial America.

That's the reason for the 2nd Amendment, whether you like the purpose or not. And whether you agree with Cliven Bundy or not, the concept has been demonstrated effective!

We all seem to agree felonies are too broadly defined. So taking guns away from all felons is taking away a vital right of too broad a class of people. If you disagree, you must think people don't need physical protections from physical oppression by the government. Correct?

guns =/= the only form of protection. It is a false statement to equate taking guns away as taking all forms of protection away.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 8:30:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 8:22:27 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/12/2014 1:36:09 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2014 1:08:43 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/12/2014 12:51:08 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:28:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The government also strips my right to litter my lawn with landmines, depriving me of my self defense. I'm so helpless now!

Sarcasm aside, you know that a gun is the best tool for self defense, especially against another gun. Can felons even own a rifle? Can they hunt?

I would disagree. The idea that "guns are the best solution" is one of the key reasons that our society is so violent. It isn't the gun's fault by any means, but it is our love affair with it. The sooner that expunge that from our societal psyche, the better off we will be, and a key part of that is rejecting that guns are the best way to keep us safe. That is nothing more than an individualized MAD policy.

I disagree.
I think our society is violent because we have a sense of entitlement, and we are violent because someone demands satisfaction. Feeling of resentment, betrayal, inadequacy, and hurt channel to an "I'll show them" attitude, and a gun is too efficient to appreciate the consequences.
How many times have people said/did something out of anger?
That, and, you know, gangs and drugs and whatnot.

The two are not mutually exclusive at all, in fact, they go together hand in hand. We have people that feel entitled for X, but they feel that guns and violence are their means to get X (look at your own example of gangs, they want X, Y, and Z, and guns are their method to get it).

Though the funny thing is, you are only hurting your case. You say that the feeling of entitlement is the root to people's violence, yet you are arguing that felons are entitled to have guns.


I see guns as the great equalizer. A gun trumps any other mainstream weapon and matches a commonly used one by criminals. Whether it is a 90-lb woman in a dark alley, or an 80 year old man, or some scrawny nerd, a gun offers protection from the would-be assailant in most cases.

In the home, I'll agree it is often not needed, as most criminals that attack the home are not likely to be violent (vandalism, burglary). However, if there are people with intent to hurt you, like a home invasion or even a hitman, how can you say it is not the best defense?


My point is, people will say felons shouldn't have guns (i.e. background checks), even though many felonies are not aggressive in nature.

I get your point, but I'd prefer to see a better example, since the lawn is a bit touchy, given utilities being there.

That depends on if you want this focused on guns or on felons. Right now, it seems that everything is geared towards gun and the felons are just a vehicle to bring them up, rather than honestly about felons.

I'm referring to the mentality that "felons shouldn't have guns", that people often spout. The issue is about felons losing rights, categorically.

Whether X should be a felony or not is a tangential issue, since at the moment, it is, and those people are affected.

And if you are going to leave it as a category, then the answer (as I've already said, several times), is that they all lose their guns. Sorry to those that don't deserve it, but if the false dichotomy is going to be forced, then too bad, it is for the betterment of society.

Why not categorically lock up all felons then? If they can't defend themselves, they might be safer in jail. Just to be safe. Why give them any freedoms?

On the other hand, if we let them out of jail, why did we do so if they are a threat? If they don't deserve jail, they must not be a danger, why not let them have guns like everyone else? We are arguing AGAINST leaving it as a category, not agreeing with it.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 8:35:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 8:28:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:20:34 PM, Skynet wrote:
In the US, we the people are supposed to make up the government for our common good. The British confiscated arms from the colonists for the good of the Crown against the good of the British citizens, and that's why the government shall not infringe upon the right of the people to bear arms. The militias were meant to substitute a large standing army, because the Founders distrusted a standing army. (see Madison) The 2nd Amendment wasn't to protect us from robbers primarily, and it wasn't to encourage revolts or revenge. It certainly wasn't to make sure we could shoot dinner. The government is supposed to protect us from robbers and brigandry. It was made to disincetivize the government from sending an army after it's own people. It happens all the time today in other countries, (Syria, Egypt, China, Vietnam, etc.) and it happened in Colonial America.

That's the reason for the 2nd Amendment, whether you like the purpose or not. And whether you agree with Cliven Bundy or not, the concept has been demonstrated effective!

We all seem to agree felonies are too broadly defined. So taking guns away from all felons is taking away a vital right of too broad a class of people. If you disagree, you must think people don't need physical protections from physical oppression by the government. Correct?

guns =/= the only form of protection. It is a false statement to equate taking guns away as taking all forms of protection away.

That's why it's right to bear arms, not right to bear guns. Guns are just an invention that can become obsolete, just like a spear. And no, they currently ARE the best form of deterrent available to an individual against government oppression in the form of an army. Armed citizenry is not primarily for self-defense, it is citizenry deterrent against the possibility of government oppression through force of arms. If you disagree with the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, I'd like to hear how you interpret it.
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 8:42:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 8:30:38 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:22:27 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/12/2014 1:36:09 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2014 1:08:43 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/12/2014 12:51:08 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:28:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The government also strips my right to litter my lawn with landmines, depriving me of my self defense. I'm so helpless now!

Sarcasm aside, you know that a gun is the best tool for self defense, especially against another gun. Can felons even own a rifle? Can they hunt?

I would disagree. The idea that "guns are the best solution" is one of the key reasons that our society is so violent. It isn't the gun's fault by any means, but it is our love affair with it. The sooner that expunge that from our societal psyche, the better off we will be, and a key part of that is rejecting that guns are the best way to keep us safe. That is nothing more than an individualized MAD policy.

I disagree.
I think our society is violent because we have a sense of entitlement, and we are violent because someone demands satisfaction. Feeling of resentment, betrayal, inadequacy, and hurt channel to an "I'll show them" attitude, and a gun is too efficient to appreciate the consequences.
How many times have people said/did something out of anger?
That, and, you know, gangs and drugs and whatnot.

The two are not mutually exclusive at all, in fact, they go together hand in hand. We have people that feel entitled for X, but they feel that guns and violence are their means to get X (look at your own example of gangs, they want X, Y, and Z, and guns are their method to get it).

Though the funny thing is, you are only hurting your case. You say that the feeling of entitlement is the root to people's violence, yet you are arguing that felons are entitled to have guns.


I see guns as the great equalizer. A gun trumps any other mainstream weapon and matches a commonly used one by criminals. Whether it is a 90-lb woman in a dark alley, or an 80 year old man, or some scrawny nerd, a gun offers protection from the would-be assailant in most cases.

In the home, I'll agree it is often not needed, as most criminals that attack the home are not likely to be violent (vandalism, burglary). However, if there are people with intent to hurt you, like a home invasion or even a hitman, how can you say it is not the best defense?


My point is, people will say felons shouldn't have guns (i.e. background checks), even though many felonies are not aggressive in nature.

I get your point, but I'd prefer to see a better example, since the lawn is a bit touchy, given utilities being there.

That depends on if you want this focused on guns or on felons. Right now, it seems that everything is geared towards gun and the felons are just a vehicle to bring them up, rather than honestly about felons.

I'm referring to the mentality that "felons shouldn't have guns", that people often spout. The issue is about felons losing rights, categorically.

Whether X should be a felony or not is a tangential issue, since at the moment, it is, and those people are affected.

And if you are going to leave it as a category, then the answer (as I've already said, several times), is that they all lose their guns. Sorry to those that don't deserve it, but if the false dichotomy is going to be forced, then too bad, it is for the betterment of society.

Why not categorically lock up all felons then? If they can't defend themselves, they might be safer in jail. Just to be safe. Why give them any freedoms?

On the other hand, if we let them out of jail, why did we do so if they are a threat? If they don't deserve jail, they must not be a danger, why not let them have guns like everyone else? We are arguing AGAINST leaving it as a category, not agreeing with it.

Already stated, "Different safety measures for different degrees of risk, as we do with every aspect of life"

You're engaging in a black and white fallacy that we have to do one extreme or the other, which we don't. We can take the appropriate level of safety based on different levels of risk.

Your response to this was not a counter of it, but pointing out something that is classified as a felony that shouldn't be. So far, you have not argued against using different levels of safety for different degrees of risk.

As for the, "We are arguing AGAINST leaving it as a category," that is complete bull. I've said multiple times that it should be re-worked so that some things that are listed as felonies no longer are. That was always disagreed with and you both. If you are going to continue taking it as a all or nothing, then you continue to get nothing. It is far better to let 10,000 safe people not have guns, then let 10,000 violent criminals have guns.

The only other option, which I've been saying the entire time (by arguing against the false dichotomy) is to look at each crime individually and say, "these crimes should not be classified as felonies anymore."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 8:45:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 8:35:56 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:28:37 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:20:34 PM, Skynet wrote:
In the US, we the people are supposed to make up the government for our common good. The British confiscated arms from the colonists for the good of the Crown against the good of the British citizens, and that's why the government shall not infringe upon the right of the people to bear arms. The militias were meant to substitute a large standing army, because the Founders distrusted a standing army. (see Madison) The 2nd Amendment wasn't to protect us from robbers primarily, and it wasn't to encourage revolts or revenge. It certainly wasn't to make sure we could shoot dinner. The government is supposed to protect us from robbers and brigandry. It was made to disincetivize the government from sending an army after it's own people. It happens all the time today in other countries, (Syria, Egypt, China, Vietnam, etc.) and it happened in Colonial America.

That's the reason for the 2nd Amendment, whether you like the purpose or not. And whether you agree with Cliven Bundy or not, the concept has been demonstrated effective!

We all seem to agree felonies are too broadly defined. So taking guns away from all felons is taking away a vital right of too broad a class of people. If you disagree, you must think people don't need physical protections from physical oppression by the government. Correct?

guns =/= the only form of protection. It is a false statement to equate taking guns away as taking all forms of protection away.

That's why it's right to bear arms, not right to bear guns. Guns are just an invention that can become obsolete, just like a spear. And no, they currently ARE the best form of deterrent available to an individual against government oppression in the form of an army. Armed citizenry is not primarily for self-defense, it is citizenry deterrent against the possibility of government oppression through force of arms. If you disagree with the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, I'd like to hear how you interpret it.

No, Tanks, F-22, and nuclear weapons are the best form of protection against a government army. That is why our government uses those, rather than a bunch of foot soldiers with over-the-counter pistols and rifles.

Additionally, I don't really care about the purpose of the 2nd amendment. The original purpose of something has little bearing on what it is now. It also gives you a lovely appeal to authority. The original intent for the constitution was the rights for white men only. Do you believe we should go back to that original intent, or is the new intent acceptable to you?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Skynet
Posts: 674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 9:16:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 8:42:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:30:38 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:22:27 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/12/2014 1:36:09 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2014 1:08:43 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/12/2014 12:51:08 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:28:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The government also strips my right to litter my lawn with landmines, depriving me of my self defense. I'm so helpless now!

Sarcasm aside, you know that a gun is the best tool for self defense, especially against another gun. Can felons even own a rifle? Can they hunt?

I would disagree. The idea that "guns are the best solution" is one of the key reasons that our society is so violent. It isn't the gun's fault by any means, but it is our love affair with it. The sooner that expunge that from our societal psyche, the better off we will be, and a key part of that is rejecting that guns are the best way to keep us safe. That is nothing more than an individualized MAD policy.

I disagree.
I think our society is violent because we have a sense of entitlement, and we are violent because someone demands satisfaction. Feeling of resentment, betrayal, inadequacy, and hurt channel to an "I'll show them" attitude, and a gun is too efficient to appreciate the consequences.
How many times have people said/did something out of anger?
That, and, you know, gangs and drugs and whatnot.

The two are not mutually exclusive at all, in fact, they go together hand in hand. We have people that feel entitled for X, but they feel that guns and violence are their means to get X (look at your own example of gangs, they want X, Y, and Z, and guns are their method to get it).

Though the funny thing is, you are only hurting your case. You say that the feeling of entitlement is the root to people's violence, yet you are arguing that felons are entitled to have guns.


I see guns as the great equalizer. A gun trumps any other mainstream weapon and matches a commonly used one by criminals. Whether it is a 90-lb woman in a dark alley, or an 80 year old man, or some scrawny nerd, a gun offers protection from the would-be assailant in most cases.

In the home, I'll agree it is often not needed, as most criminals that attack the home are not likely to be violent (vandalism, burglary). However, if there are people with intent to hurt you, like a home invasion or even a hitman, how can you say it is not the best defense?


My point is, people will say felons shouldn't have guns (i.e. background checks), even though many felonies are not aggressive in nature.

I get your point, but I'd prefer to see a better example, since the lawn is a bit touchy, given utilities being there.

That depends on if you want this focused on guns or on felons. Right now, it seems that everything is geared towards gun and the felons are just a vehicle to bring them up, rather than honestly about felons.

I'm referring to the mentality that "felons shouldn't have guns", that people often spout. The issue is about felons losing rights, categorically.

Whether X should be a felony or not is a tangential issue, since at the moment, it is, and those people are affected.

And if you are going to leave it as a category, then the answer (as I've already said, several times), is that they all lose their guns. Sorry to those that don't deserve it, but if the false dichotomy is going to be forced, then too bad, it is for the betterment of society.

Why not categorically lock up all felons then? If they can't defend themselves, they might be safer in jail. Just to be safe. Why give them any freedoms?

On the other hand, if we let them out of jail, why did we do so if they are a threat? If they don't deserve jail, they must not be a danger, why not let them have guns like everyone else? We are arguing AGAINST leaving it as a category, not agreeing with it.

Already stated, "Different safety measures for different degrees of risk, as we do with every aspect of life"

You're engaging in a black and white fallacy that we have to do one extreme or the other, which we don't. We can take the appropriate level of safety based on different levels of risk.

Your response to this was not a counter of it, but pointing out something that is classified as a felony that shouldn't be. So far, you have not argued against using different levels of safety for different degrees of risk.

As for the, "We are arguing AGAINST leaving it as a category," that is complete bull. I've said multiple times that it should be re-worked so that some things that are listed as felonies no longer are. That was always disagreed with and you both. If you are going to continue taking it as a all or nothing, then you continue to get nothing. It is far better to let 10,000 safe people not have guns, then let 10,000 violent criminals have guns.

The only other option, which I've been saying the entire time (by arguing against the false dichotomy) is to look at each crime individually and say, "these crimes should not be classified as felonies anymore."

We agree that what qualifies as felonies should be reexamined, and it's ok for non-violent people to be armed. Right?
One perk to being a dad is you get to watch cartoons again without explaining yourself.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/12/2014 9:44:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/12/2014 9:16:34 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:42:07 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:30:38 PM, Skynet wrote:
At 8/12/2014 8:22:27 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/12/2014 1:36:09 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/12/2014 1:08:43 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/12/2014 12:51:08 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/11/2014 8:28:23 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
The government also strips my right to litter my lawn with landmines, depriving me of my self defense. I'm so helpless now!

Sarcasm aside, you know that a gun is the best tool for self defense, especially against another gun. Can felons even own a rifle? Can they hunt?

I would disagree. The idea that "guns are the best solution" is one of the key reasons that our society is so violent. It isn't the gun's fault by any means, but it is our love affair with it. The sooner that expunge that from our societal psyche, the better off we will be, and a key part of that is rejecting that guns are the best way to keep us safe. That is nothing more than an individualized MAD policy.

I disagree.
I think our society is violent because we have a sense of entitlement, and we are violent because someone demands satisfaction. Feeling of resentment, betrayal, inadequacy, and hurt channel to an "I'll show them" attitude, and a gun is too efficient to appreciate the consequences.
How many times have people said/did something out of anger?
That, and, you know, gangs and drugs and whatnot.

The two are not mutually exclusive at all, in fact, they go together hand in hand. We have people that feel entitled for X, but they feel that guns and violence are their means to get X (look at your own example of gangs, they want X, Y, and Z, and guns are their method to get it).

Though the funny thing is, you are only hurting your case. You say that the feeling of entitlement is the root to people's violence, yet you are arguing that felons are entitled to have guns.


I see guns as the great equalizer. A gun trumps any other mainstream weapon and matches a commonly used one by criminals. Whether it is a 90-lb woman in a dark alley, or an 80 year old man, or some scrawny nerd, a gun offers protection from the would-be assailant in most cases.

In the home, I'll agree it is often not needed, as most criminals that attack the home are not likely to be violent (vandalism, burglary). However, if there are people with intent to hurt you, like a home invasion or even a hitman, how can you say it is not the best defense?


My point is, people will say felons shouldn't have guns (i.e. background checks), even though many felonies are not aggressive in nature.

I get your point, but I'd prefer to see a better example, since the lawn is a bit touchy, given utilities being there.

That depends on if you want this focused on guns or on felons. Right now, it seems that everything is geared towards gun and the felons are just a vehicle to bring them up, rather than honestly about felons.

I'm referring to the mentality that "felons shouldn't have guns", that people often spout. The issue is about felons losing rights, categorically.

Whether X should be a felony or not is a tangential issue, since at the moment, it is, and those people are affected.

And if you are going to leave it as a category, then the answer (as I've already said, several times), is that they all lose their guns. Sorry to those that don't deserve it, but if the false dichotomy is going to be forced, then too bad, it is for the betterment of society.

Why not categorically lock up all felons then? If they can't defend themselves, they might be safer in jail. Just to be safe. Why give them any freedoms?

On the other hand, if we let them out of jail, why did we do so if they are a threat? If they don't deserve jail, they must not be a danger, why not let them have guns like everyone else? We are arguing AGAINST leaving it as a category, not agreeing with it.

Already stated, "Different safety measures for different degrees of risk, as we do with every aspect of life"

You're engaging in a black and white fallacy that we have to do one extreme or the other, which we don't. We can take the appropriate level of safety based on different levels of risk.

Your response to this was not a counter of it, but pointing out something that is classified as a felony that shouldn't be. So far, you have not argued against using different levels of safety for different degrees of risk.

As for the, "We are arguing AGAINST leaving it as a category," that is complete bull. I've said multiple times that it should be re-worked so that some things that are listed as felonies no longer are. That was always disagreed with and you both. If you are going to continue taking it as a all or nothing, then you continue to get nothing. It is far better to let 10,000 safe people not have guns, then let 10,000 violent criminals have guns.

The only other option, which I've been saying the entire time (by arguing against the false dichotomy) is to look at each crime individually and say, "these crimes should not be classified as felonies anymore."

We agree that what qualifies as felonies should be reexamined, and it's ok for non-violent people to be armed. Right?

Correct (though "armed" is not an absolute, there are limitations, checks, and balances that would need to be applied).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"