Thread: Would you support this law?

I voted yes, but there would need to be adequate clause to protect people who legitimately acted in self-defense while using a firearm. I don't want to see lawyers twisting the laws and putting innocent people in jail as they are sometimes known to do.

i have mixed feelings bout this. with ohios odd laws for self defence. now if i still lived in florida then yes. the self defence laws are much better down there.

Originally Posted by danzik17

I don't want to see lawyers twisting the laws.....

Oh no. I doubt THIS would ever happen.

I vote yes, based on the language Clemson used...

Two seperate convictions for forcible felonies committed while in possession of a firearm

I seriously doubt an individual would be in the position of defending himself twice. If this were the case, they're hanging out in the wrong places.

I am against all life sentences. Either reform them, or kill them, but fuck paying for someone to live for the rest of their life behind bars.

Originally Posted by clemson357

Two strikes you're out:

Two seperate convictions for forcible felonies committed while in possession of a firearm = automatic life sentence without the possibility of parole.

I would only support it if you changed it from "life sentence" to "death penalty"

Yes, but what about over population? You are making the problem worse with this

I don't think you need to qualify it with a gun, imo 2 felonies should result in you going away for good. Of course, I don't think anything dealing with drugs or a personal choice affecting no one else should be considered a felony, however. The point of jail is rehabilitation, if it didn't work the first time, the second should be permanent.

Can we kill them instead of giving them a life sentence? If so, then I vote yes. If not, then keep them out on the streets to kill other people like them.

This is a little flawed IMO. First I think it depends on what the felonies are for. And second, if they didn't use the gun in the act of the felony and they merely had it on their body, then I would have to say no. If the law was written just as you stated, IMO, it needs to be amended. THere are many types of felonies.

Originally Posted by dg806

This is a little flawed IMO. First I think it depends on what the felonies are for. And second, if they didn't use the gun in the act of the felony and they merely had it on their body, then I would have to say no. If the law was written just as you stated, IMO, it needs to be amended. THere are many types of felonies.

Damn, I re-read that and I sound like I'm turning liberal

Originally Posted by dg806

Damn, I re-read that and I sound like I'm turning liberal

That's the real problem with being a liberal. It would be a public service to shoot yourself in the head, but you've denied yourself a gun. A true Catch 22.

Damn, I re-read that and I sound like I'm turning liberal

Softie.

Originally Posted by DOMS

That's the real problem with being a liberal. It would be a public service to shoot yourself in the head, but you've denied yourself a gun. A true Catch 22.

HEHEHE

I'm not a fan of mandatory sentences. Miscarriages of justice are bound to happen. Justice will be better serve by removing liberal judges.

i am a fan of electric bleachers, as oposed to the chair. just fry a bunch of em at once heheh.

I'm not a fan over generalizing every crime...each case needs to be treated uniquely IMO. There has to be some type of stipulation or flexibility in the law before I'd support it.

What if the two felonies were committed by a young person (under the age of 14 say)? There can mitigating circumstances that need to be taken into account.

What if a man walked home found his wife sleeping with another man...grabbed a bat and hit the guy with it (not causing permanent damage but still assault with a deadly weapon) and then resisted arrest 30mintues later when the police caught up with him. I don't think he deserves to sit behind bars his entire life.

Originally Posted by lnvanry

I'm not a fan over generalizing every crime...each case needs to be treated uniquely IMO. There has to be some type of stipulation or flexibility in the law before I'd support it.

What if the two felonies were committed by a young person (under the age of 14 say)? There can mitigating circumstances that need to be taken into account.

If they're committing that many felonies as a juvenile, they're probably going to be trash as an adult. Make a stipulation in these cases where it's "one strike and you're out" as an adult.

What if a man walked home found his wife sleeping with another man...grabbed a bat and hit the guy with it (not causing permanent damage but still assault with a deadly weapon) and then resisted arrest 30mintues later when the police caught up with him. I don't think he deserves to sit behind bars his entire life.

He didn't have a firearm at the time, so this law would not be applicable. We are discussing felonies committed with a firearm.