Here we go again: HR45 "The Firearm Licensing Act of 2009"

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
Nomix, the reason no one is bitching about it is because felons give up many of their constitutional rights by committing a felony, including the right to bear arms and the right to vote. They gave up those rights by committing a cime, they were not taken away from someone who never broke the law. Big difference.

I must admit that I am not an expert in the American constitution, but does the constitution say that the government has the right to take away anyone's right to bear and own arms?

And I happen to think it's a grave injustice to take away someone's right to vote in elections because they've commited a crime. In my moral world, it is immoral and a grave violation of the individual's human rights.

Crime is punished with prison, fines and other. Not by taking away people's right to vote.

But that is another question, and I'm digressing.

But, please tell me where the constitution allows the government to restrict the right of any member of the American society to bear and own arms?

I am quite interested to know.
 

wooflepoof

WoofleDay
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,050
Location
Los Angeles
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
So if a person commits a human rights violation, i.e. a hate crime,murder, etc, they're still entitled to their own rights in your book so long as they've been 'punished' through prisons and fines? interesting. So a child rapists has the right to not be refused work at a day care center or as a boy scout leader because he's already been to prison is what you're basically saying, right?
 

JipJopJones

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,478
Location
North Shore
Car(s)
1979 Cressida Wagon, 1981 Corolla Hardtop
Gun registrars are a useless waste of money. Honest people get fined (or worse) and the criminals still have guns which they obtain illegally.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
So if a person commits a human rights violation, i.e. a hate crime,murder, etc, they're still entitled to their own rights in your book so long as they've been 'punished' through prisons and fines? interesting. So a child rapists has the right to not be refused work at a day care center or as a boy scout leader because he's already been to prison is what you're basically saying, right?

Yes, they should have the right to vote. But hey, that's just my personal conviction.

A child rapist should not work with children, I find that a completely different matter. Voting is a human right, working with children is not.
 

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
23,319
Location
Utah, Banana Republic
Car(s)
06 XTerra, '00 VFR800, '11 Multistrada, Yamaha R6
Voting is not a human right, it's the right granted to citizens under the US Constitution. Non-citizens don't have the right to vote in our country (nor do felons).
 

Plissken

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,404
So if a person commits a human rights violation, i.e. a hate crime,murder, etc, they're still entitled to their own rights in your book so long as they've been 'punished' through prisons and fines? interesting.

The difference between the US attitude and the UK is that the US prison is there to punish criminals and the UK it is there to rehabilitate so that they don't offend again. There are rights and wrongs to both approaches, but the latter means that once your time is served, the debt is repaid and the slate is wiped clean.

So a child rapists has the right to not be refused work at a day care center or as a boy scout leader because he's already been to prison is what you're basically saying, right?

A completely different matter and you would do well not to conflate the two in search of cheap headlines.
 

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
Voting is not a human right, it's the right granted to citizens under the US Constitution. Non-citizens don't have the right to vote in our country (nor do felons).

In my mind, you shant take someone's citizenship because they commit a crime. That is inhumane. Again, just personal moral views, but I find it immoral.

"All Men are create equal", is not followed with "until they commit a crime".

There is neither a passage regarding the government's right to restrict a criminal, or even the mentally ill's right to bear arms, as far as I know.

So, in practice, it should indeed be unconstitutional.

But that's irrelevant. With crime and mental illness has become more important over the years, there was a rational descision to take guns away from criminals and nutters. And that's good. But now, with the threat from the King of England gone, I also think one should take them away from the general public, as the need that was in place when the constitution was written is not at place right now, nor has it been for a long time.
 

AiR

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
11,985
Location
Suecia
Car(s)
Bulgogi Knedliky 1.6 GDI (Hyundai i30)
Cars kill as well and we let 15 year olds drive.
I think you need to regulate that. Start phasing out weapons now, and eventually your society will be less violent than it is, I promise. It might take 25, 50 or 100 years but inaction only results in it staying the same as it is.

We definitely do restrict guns. My old boss had a semi-automatic AK47
Very restrictive :lol:
 
Last edited:

Twerp128

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2006
Messages
3,662
Location
Indiana
Car(s)
'91 Miata, '09 Street Triple
^I guess it just seems to me foreigners seem to think were just some redneck gun totin' nation. My old English teacher hosted a Japanese exchange student, when he stepped off the plane he had a straw hat, and cowboy boots (where he got them in Japan?). All he wanted to do was go to Texas and thought he deathly needed to buy a handgun.

In reality only about 20% of American's own a gun and I'd say the majority of them are enthusiasts and use it for target shooting, not security. We do have a lot of homocides in America, but outlawing guns is just stupid. That's like getting rid of the Golden Gate because there's a lot of suicides there. There are four times more accidental drownings than accidental gun deaths so clearly we should ban water!
 

freeferrarisdonotexist

I'm not stupid - I'm British!
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
1,143
Location
Somewhere in the South of England, UK.
Car(s)
Yamaha YBR125 (touring), FG 29er touring bike
But that's irrelevant. With crime and mental illness has become more important over the years, there was a rational descision to take guns away from criminals and nutters. And that's good. But now, with the threat from the King of England gone, I also think one should take them away from the general public, as the need that was in place when the constitution was written is not at place right now, nor has it been for a long time.

That was one of my points as well.
 

Blind_Io

"Be The Match" Registered
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
23,319
Location
Utah, Banana Republic
Car(s)
06 XTerra, '00 VFR800, '11 Multistrada, Yamaha R6
In my mind, you shant take someone's citizenship because they commit a crime. That is inhumane. Again, just personal moral views, but I find it immoral.

"All Men are create equal", is not followed with "until they commit a crime".

There is neither a passage regarding the government's right to restrict a criminal, or even the mentally ill's right to bear arms, as far as I know.

So, in practice, it should indeed be unconstitutional.

But that's irrelevant. With crime and mental illness has become more important over the years, there was a rational descision to take guns away from criminals and nutters. And that's good. But now, with the threat from the King of England gone, I also think one should take them away from the general public, as the need that was in place when the constitution was written is not at place right now, nor has it been for a long time.

All men are created equal. It doesn't mean they end up equal, that is a matter of personal choice. Also, we don't take someone's citizenship when the commit a felony (note: his is only for felonies, not misdemeanors), the person has demonstrated that they can not be trusted with all the rights they were granted. They are still protected under the law: they still have the right to a trial by a jury of their peers, they are free from "double jeopardy." They still have the right to peacefully assemble, speech, and freedom of religion. They don't loose their home to quarter troops, and they are protected from cruel and unusual punishment. What they don't have is a right to bear arms or vote in elections. Once they are no longer on probation or parole they are once again free from unreasonable search and seizure (while on parole or probation they are still wards of the penal system).

I'll talk to my girlfriend when she gets home, she can probably cite the Supreme Court cases that ruled on this so you can read the rulings. I don't know them off hand.

As for getting rid of arms because the King's men aren't at the gates, well, you can try. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the Second Amendment and that's not going to happen. This nation was built with hammers, axes and guns; they remain a part of our culture today and probably always will. I enjoy shooting and have a number of guns owned by my father and my grandfather, just like millions of Americans. We won't give up those parts of our family history easily.

Check Article V of our Constitution for the Amendment process, you will see that any amendments need approval from two-thirds of the states. Now go look at a map and see how many states make up "middle America." These are rural farming and ranching areas and easily outweigh the urban areas.

So, why don't we get rid of guns?

Because we don't fucking want to!

Fair enough?
 

tigger

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Messages
5,737
Car(s)
'88 Vic Wagon, '92 Honda VFR
"All Men are create equal", is not followed with "until they commit a crime".

There is neither a passage regarding the government's right to restrict a criminal, or even the mentally ill's right to bear arms, as far as I know.
The 14th Amendment, Section 2:
"Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
Obviously some of that has changed, but if you commit treason or a felony you, by our Constitution, lose the right to elect your leaders. This is not the loss of citizenship, like Blind elaborated upon. Most of those who lose the right to vote are violent felons, those guilty of murder, assault, etc etc. There is an argument surrounding non-violent offenders losing their right to vote though. As some with other felony convictions have lost their right to vote; stuff like drug convictions and other non-violent felonies.

My mom's father lost the right to vote after he went AWOL twice (then broke out of a military brig :lol: ) in the 1930s. Lived the next 60 years of his life; through WWII, the Cold War, the Civil Rights movement, Gingrich's 'Culture War' etc without being able to cast a vote. I call that punishment disproportionate to the crime, but it didn't bother him much.
 

alihaig

Active Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
178
Location
Manchester
The difference between the US attitude and the UK is that the US prison is there to punish criminals and the UK it is there to rehabilitate so that they don't offend again. There are rights and wrongs to both approaches, but the latter means that once your time is served, the debt is repaid and the slate is wiped clean.

Actually - unless the bastards have changed the law while I wasn't looking<_< - the position in the UK is the same as the US, convicts lose the right to vote, as do the mentally ill and some others I can't recall right now. Also the UK prison system is designed primarily to punish, although there are courses available and generally "rehabilitation" is encouraged. It is only this current namby-pamby bunch of idiots who have tried to realign the system in favour of the rights of the violent criminals instead of the innocent victims:mad:

EDIT: Ok apparantly I was wrong, you can vote after you are released - although I don't see why you should be able to - serving prisoners still cannot vote although they are plotting to allow some to do so - something to do with human rights?? As usual these so called "rights" are just preventing ordinary people from living in peace.

The rest of my point still stands though - prison is to punish, rehabilitaion is a side effect.
 
Last edited:

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
All men are created equal. It doesn't mean they end up equal, that is a matter of personal choice. Also, we don't take someone's citizenship when the commit a felony (note: his is only for felonies, not misdemeanors), the person has demonstrated that they can not be trusted with all the rights they were granted. They are still protected under the law: they still have the right to a trial by a jury of their peers, they are free from "double jeopardy." They still have the right to peacefully assemble, speech, and freedom of religion. They don't loose their home to quarter troops, and they are protected from cruel and unusual punishment. What they don't have is a right to bear arms or vote in elections. Once they are no longer on probation or parole they are once again free from unreasonable search and seizure (while on parole or probation they are still wards of the penal system).

I'll talk to my girlfriend when she gets home, she can probably cite the Supreme Court cases that ruled on this so you can read the rulings. I don't know them off hand.
I see the quotation of the constitution, and agree it does leave room for such sanctions. I still disagree with the idea, but I accept it's valid, at least legally.

As for getting rid of arms because the King's men aren't at the gates, well, you can try. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the Second Amendment and that's not going to happen. This nation was built with hammers, axes and guns; they remain a part of our culture today and probably always will. I enjoy shooting and have a number of guns owned by my father and my grandfather, just like millions of Americans. We won't give up those parts of our family history easily.
And I don't think you should. I think there should be a case for restricting the purchase of guns.

I know lots of people who shoot guns, I respect that, and I might one day get one myself, for target shooting. I've always been interested in guns, and I like their estetics (to put it weirdly). I am not against guns, I am against any idea that it's a good idea to sell guns to people just-like-that.

And, my point is, that as far as I know (and, as we see with tigger's quote, I can very well be wrong), there is no cause in the constitution to take that right away from nutters and criminals. Still it's common practice. Please inform me if I am wrong, but if I am right, I think it's a valid point. Taking guns from nutters and criminals would in that case be unconstitutional.

Check Article V of our Constitution for the Amendment process, you will see that any amendments need approval from two-thirds of the states. Now go look at a map and see how many states make up "middle America." These are rural farming and ranching areas and easily outweigh the urban areas.
Fair point, but that is really not my argument.

So, why don't we get rid of guns?

Because we don't fucking want to!

Fair enough?
Fair it is. But it still seems it is technically unconstitutional to take guns away from nutters and criminals. Again, correct me if I am wrong.

That is my argument, not the legal side of changing the ammendment or adding one.

The 14th Amendment, Section 2:

Obviously some of that has changed, but if you commit treason or a felony you, by our Constitution, lose the right to elect your leaders. This is not the loss of citizenship, like Blind elaborated upon. Most of those who lose the right to vote are violent felons, those guilty of murder, assault, etc etc. There is an argument surrounding non-violent offenders losing their right to vote though. As some with other felony convictions have lost their right to vote; stuff like drug convictions and other non-violent felonies.

My mom's father lost the right to vote after he went AWOL twice (then broke out of a military brig :lol: ) in the 1930s. Lived the next 60 years of his life; through WWII, the Cold War, the Civil Rights movement, Gingrich's 'Culture War' etc without being able to cast a vote. I call that punishment disproportionate to the crime, but it didn't bother him much.
I understand. See my answer to Blind_Io. :)

alihaig: How is giving convicts in prison the right to vote "... preventing ordinary people from living in peace [...]"?

Also, "... prison is to punish, rehabilitaion is a side effect [...]", I think it would be an overstatement, to say the least, to say that punishment leads to rehabilitation. Every single piece of research on the subject I've come across says otherwise.

And please do not mistake defending the rights of prisoners for pouring a big bucket of shit over the heads of the victims. You can do both. And before you ask, no, I do not feel the same sympathy for criminals as I do for victims. But I do feel some sympathy for them.

The world is not black and white, never forget it.
 
Last edited:

alihaig

Active Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
178
Location
Manchester
The "living in peace" bit I was more just getting a bit angry about the Human Rights Act in general - all around are peoples rights to privacy etc being diminished by the increasing surveillance state while people convicted of serious crimes go crawling to the ECHR saying that their punishment is "against their human rights" or it is their "human right" to get a tv in their cell etc. From my point of view if you commit a crime serious enough to warrant jail time it should be miserable enough to act as a deterrant. In a lot of cases the prison life is better than life outside! I also think that if you are in prison you should lose rights such as that to vote partly to add to the punishment/detterant side but also because committing a serious crime shows you are not fit to make important decisions such as who to vote for.

Of course this opens the whole other can of worms in what constitutes a crime serious enough for jail time, which I think the balance is currently wrong in this country. Too many people are put away for 2 months for petty offences which does nobody any good, meanwhile the gaols are so full more dangerous criminals are set free early.

For the rehabilitation thing, I probably used the wrong words. What I mean't to say was you go to jail as a punishment, but if while there you decide that you want to turn your life around and become "rehabilitated" the the opportunity should be available.
 

wooflepoof

WoofleDay
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,050
Location
Los Angeles
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
In my mind, you shant take someone's citizenship because they commit a crime. That is inhumane. Again, just personal moral views, but I find it immoral.

"All Men are create equal", is not followed with "until they commit a crime".

Please note you're quoting a man who owned more than 200 slaves, none of which he ever set free. But I guess we can let that slide since slaves were nothing more than property back then like horses or a Nintendo Wii. (so that makes me partially descended from some white dude's stuff!)

Just like morality, there really isn't nor can there ever truly be a standard, timeless definition of human rights because the concept of human rights has evolved through time based on changing societies, cultures and a particular societies' values and views on morality.
__________________________________________________
In just about every society, human rights and the extent to which they are allowed to be exercised must be governed. In the U.S*., even if someone has paid their debt, sacrificing all but their right to food, water, and life in prison, that doesn't mean they can just start on a clean slate, entitled to all of the rights they previously enjoyed, took advantage of, or had denied to someone else. Sometimes they[certain rights] must be taken away, restricted, or regulated to ensure the rights and freedoms of everyone else. Especially true in the case of certain criminals who have proven/demonstrated that they have no regard for the rights of others such as someones right to live.

Example:
According to some of the other members, our child rapist shouldn't be allowed to work in a day care center, but it can easily be argued that that would be in violation or restriction of one of their rights by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' definition.

Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

In order to keep the kids at the day care center or any other place where they congregate, our convicted felon is not to be allowed anywhere near them and a sign is put up notifying the residents of the town that he's there.

This further albeit indirectly violates more of his rights to work and liberty and probably a few others. In extreme cases, laws are passed in a particular town preventing the rapist from using public transport, going to the park, or working in certain establishments; how many of you would support similar restrictions to be put in place? thats just one example, but it happens all over, violations of human rights of a person to protect the population from further harm. We in this country and others I'm sure are willing to give up some of our own rights and freedoms in the name of safety. Look at airport security, the NSA nonsense, and there are most likely laws and regulations and things of the sort in your respective countries as well. Absolutely protecting every established human right at all costs for every moral or immoral person doesn't really work due to arguably and possibly ironically basic human nature itself.**

__________________________________________________
Different societies put different values on different rights invoked by different governments based on different histories and evolutions of their vastly different cultures.

Example 2:

In the same child rapist case, nobody asked about the conditions of the incident, whether it was a mental disorder, a fetish, or perhaps a situation where the child was dishonest in saying that they had fully consented to the intercourse, or even honest consent by a child with full and competent knowledge of what they were doing, but frowned upon so much by the parents and the community that they had the charges raised to invoke a harsher punishment (which would be violating the defendant's right to a fair and just trial). In most of our "civilized" western cultures, any reason to sexually or intimately contact a child is considered filthy, disgusting, perverted, and almost always associated with a mental sickness. There are however, cultures which consider a person to be an adult when they are sexually mature, meaning they're physically able to have intercourse and produce a healthy child. In that case, the criteria by which our man is judged has changed and the whole ordeal might be less of an issue if an issue at all depending on the circumstances.
__________________________________________________
To say we shouldn't have guns in our society that was created, protected, defended, defined, and preserved by them; a deeply symbolic and ingrained part of our culture, is almost offensive. No we don't have King George to fight off but even so, many of us have great deal of respect and pride because our nation tells us it's our RIGHT to bear arms in order to defend ourselves. The situation HAS changed, we no longer need to shoot at the limey Brits but we feel we need them(guns, not Brits) there to protect us from the random mugger, or the burglar or other wrongdoer that has entered our home, our castle, to take our possessions, do us harm, or otherwise threaten our supposed inalienable rights to life, or perhaps even liberty and the pursuit of happiness(sorry for the over-patriotism in that last part). For us, guns more or less fulfill every level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, our security and esteem, and help us defend and protect our physiological, loving(family, loved ones, etc) and even self actualization for some like in a recreational situation when you finally shoot all the clay pigeons, for example.

One of the BEST things about America*** is that even though we're unified and equal, we're also separate and different. Other sates/counties/cities/local ordinances have their own ideas and societies within the the big American bubble and our government gives them the freedom to regulate many issues the way they please. We did have a point where the conflict was so great it split us in half for a time, but we've since then healed that wound. Now, if you don't like guns, move to a state that has them banned or heavily regulated. Hell, you can even go to Vermont where when last I checked, allowed their convicts to vote even while in prison! Our national/federal government usually does a pretty good job of stepping in and creating laws that protect our basic human rights across the country(imagine if the 15th and 19th amendments were left for the states to decide :no:). Other issues, e.g. gay marriage, guns, the death penalty, and marijuana use among others, in my eyes are things that the states should decide upon individually based on their own values. Cuz thats what we're all about here :yes:****




*most of
** there are plenty such as right to food, land and education as well as other natural rights and such that I DO feel we should always strive to uphold, I'm not hating human rights please don't think I'm an immoral godless nazi. or an ultrarepublican
***and in some ways confusing, irrational, and outright bad things I'll amit
****My opinions on various issues are liable to change but even so, I'll (probably) always be proud to be an American! Now to jump back into my hyper-patriotic super-biased ultimate USA! internet character
note: yes I was bored. also there was alot of cutting and pasting and editing within this document so i may have missed some points and there might be a few big gaps int the logic or gramm or something because of it.
 
Last edited:

BlaRo

Little Nudger
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
18,176
Location
Brooklyn
Car(s)
Moto Guzzi V7 Special, Saab 900 Turbo
My mom's father lost the right to vote after he went AWOL twice (then broke out of a military brig :lol: ) in the 1930s. Lived the next 60 years of his life; through WWII, the Cold War, the Civil Rights movement, Gingrich's 'Culture War' etc without being able to cast a vote. I call that punishment disproportionate to the crime, but it didn't bother him much.

OT, but your grampa sounds AWESOME, and I want to hear more about his action-movie life. :clap:
 

wooflepoof

WoofleDay
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,050
Location
Los Angeles
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
I wouldn't call it disproportionate (but I'm a military brat of sorts so, I wouldn't :p) but that does indeed sound awesome
 

Plissken

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,404
Also the UK prison system is designed primarily to punish, although there are courses available and generally "rehabilitation" is encouraged. It is only this current namby-pamby bunch of idiots who have tried to realign the system in favour of the rights of the violent criminals instead of the innocent victims:mad:

Yeah, yeah and what else did the Daily Mail say today?

Of course being banged up in a cell is a punishment. It is what you do to the people while they are inside that counts. Do you keep on punishing them, or do you offer them the chance to break the cycle.

EDIT: Ok apparantly I was wrong, you can vote after you are released - although I don't see why you should be able to - serving prisoners still cannot vote although they are plotting to allow some to do so - something to do with human rights?? As usual these so called "rights" are just preventing ordinary people from living in peace.

The rest of my point still stands though - prison is to punish, rehabilitaion is a side effect.

Good, because I was going to correct you. And please stop with the gorblimey wouldja believe it Littlejohn language, it does you no favours.

The point of a sentence is a punishment fit for the crime handed down by a judge. What it says is "you've been naughty and to make reparations you must do this".

That is the deal. You do what the judge says and your debt to society is repaid. Everyone is square.

What taking away the right to vote once that sentence is served does is simply double-punish. And then keep on punishing for the rest of the life. That is only going to breed resentment.

Say some 19 year old gets in a fight, injures a bloke. He's had a beer or three, lost control. Gets 12 months. While inside he learns a trade and on coming out, gets a job. He works hard, builds the business. Owns the business. By the time he is 45, he employs similar ex-prisoners, keeps them on the straight and narrow.

His debt to society has been repaid over a quarter of a century ago and he has without shadow of a doubt, done more than enough to enhance that society. Yet you are saying that he shouldn't be able to vote for even a local councillor.

Doesn't that strike you as a bit wrong?
 

wooflepoof

WoofleDay
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,050
Location
Los Angeles
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
Say some 19 year old gets in a fight, injures a bloke. He's had a beer or three, lost control. Gets 12 months. While inside he learns a trade and on coming out, gets a job. He works hard, builds the business. Owns the business. By the time he is 45, he employs similar ex-prisoners, keeps them on the straight and narrow.

His debt to society has been repaid over a quarter of a century ago and he has without shadow of a doubt, done more than enough to enhance that society. Yet you are saying that he shouldn't be able to vote for even a local councillor.


I don't think thats a crime that invokes a permanent voting ban, sounds like a mere misdemeanor. If he killed someone his debt may be repaid as you say but the family is still left without a son, daughter, husband, wife, etc etc etc. Felons: Assault & battery, arson, burglary, illegal drug abuse/sales, embezzlement, grand theft, tax evasion, treason, espionage, racketeering, robbery, murder, rape, kidnapping and fraud. Not things you just pop back from and its all cool.

Mistakes have consequences, which with big mistakes such as these, are quite dire. most of the above things are premeditated by nature(besides in some cases murder, which can never fully be repaid since a life is lost that can never come back, and sometimes rape...which if you think "oh I learned my lesson served my time, nevermind the trauma of the victim/possible child/abortion PTSD" is enough to let him off and do whatever just because he help out others like him, theres something seriously wrong) so he should consider the risks going in before he ruins lives, families, and/or steals money from the government or tires to sell out his country.
 
Last edited:
Top