3 ms·

Have you actually looked into what it takes to restore full citizenship in many places? In some locations it means having to get the Governor to act on your be

Have you actually looked into what it takes to restore full citizenship in many places? In some locations it means having to get the Governor to act on your behalf. Imagine what it would take to even get in contact with the Governor of a largely populated state, let alone trying to convince them that you should have your rights restored. Your judgement is twisted if you think that's a reasonable expectation for anyone who has served their time.

WillAdams 8mo ago
Yes, I have experience of this, having known a person for decades who has done this --- if a person can't manage it, they shouldn't be voting, and they shouldn't be allowed to own firearms as I reasoned/rationalized above. Just to confirm your meaning --- if a person has demonstrated such poor judgement as to be convicted of a felony, and then cannot trouble themselves to then recant this judgement and argue that they are now capable of making responsible decisions, then they should be allowed to vote and own firearms despite not being willing to make an effort to state that their character has changed?
- c22 8mo ago
  You should consider that this process varies wildly in different locales and sometimes even case by case.
- Brian_K_White 8mo ago
  "such poor judgement as to be convicted of a felony" I think we know all we need to know.
- tracker1 8mo ago
  So because someone gets railroaded into a plea deal that includes a felony, they should never be able to vote or protect themselves again unless they can form the connections and/or the ultra-wealth to coopt a seated governor of that state? I'd be more inclined to see an English language and American history/civics test as a requirement to vote. Not that I'm advocating for this, but it would be just as justified by your logic. If you've served your time, you've served your time... I wouldn't even mind a reasonable parole term (something up to even a decade) after release... but at least some limit on the restriction(s). I'm also opposed to private prisons for similar reasons... you shouldn't incentivize restricting/removing people's rights. If you're too much of a danger to society, you should remain locked up.

WillAdams 8mo ago

Yes, I have experience of this, having known a person for decades who has done this --- if a person can't manage it, they shouldn't be voting, and they shouldn't be allowed to own firearms as I reasoned/rationalized above. Just to confirm your meaning --- if a person has demonstrated such poor judgement as to be convicted of a felony, and then cannot trouble themselves to then recant this judgement and argue that they are now capable of making responsible decisions, then they should be allowed to vote and own firearms despite not being willing to make an effort to state that their character has changed?

c22 8mo ago
You should consider that this process varies wildly in different locales and sometimes even case by case.
Brian_K_White 8mo ago
"such poor judgement as to be convicted of a felony" I think we know all we need to know.
tracker1 8mo ago
So because someone gets railroaded into a plea deal that includes a felony, they should never be able to vote or protect themselves again unless they can form the connections and/or the ultra-wealth to coopt a seated governor of that state? I'd be more inclined to see an English language and American history/civics test as a requirement to vote. Not that I'm advocating for this, but it would be just as justified by your logic. If you've served your time, you've served your time... I wouldn't even mind a reasonable parole term (something up to even a decade) after release... but at least some limit on the restriction(s). I'm also opposed to private prisons for similar reasons... you shouldn't incentivize restricting/removing people's rights. If you're too much of a danger to society, you should remain locked up.