Poll:Should the 2nd Amendment Truly Not Be Infringed In Any Way?

[Duke Junior]

This is a question we encounter on threads every week.Should we have to get permits to carry open or concealed?.Or should the wording of the 2nd Amendment be taken literally with NO constraints.No training or competence requirements,felons who've done their time OK,clean record,domestic violence misdemeanors,carrying in police stations,planes,everywhere.
How do most THR members feel about this very volatile issue?
All comments will be appreciated.

 

[TCB in TN]

2A should rule completely. As for felons, if you are "safe" enough to turn loose you should have access to your rights. Its not like the laws are stopping any released felons from getting weapons, committing crimes or anything else now anyway.

 

[Treo]

The only 2 classes of Americans I would deny the RKBA are, anyone dishonorably discharged from any branch of the military and felons who have comitted a crime in which a gun played a major role. because they've abused the right. And the RKBA in America should (IMO) be restricted to citizens, natualized citizens and legal resident aliens. Catch an illegal W/ gun put his butt on a chain gang for 10 years then boot him across the border.

 

[tasco 74]

i respectfully disagree with TCB... if you are convicted of felony you should lose your 2nd amendment rights to own a gun legally.... of course we all know if the law says you have have a gun as a felon you won't.................

 

[sfmittels]

I'm not going to get into the argument about regulating possession by felons and mental defectives - that's too obvious. However, and I truly hate to say this, but it seems to me there need to be some limits. For example, I'd rather not allow the nutcase down the street the ability to own an M1 Abrams. Besides, the HOA would crap if he parked it on the street.

 

[bobbarker]

Treo, I have to disagree with you. You are willing to let a rapist have a gun, but if that same person, commits the same crime while in the military, he is given a dishonorable discharge, and now you think he shouldn't be allowed it? I'm in no way advocating rape(I used it as the most handy example,) but regardless of WHAT the person did to get a dishonorable, he did it after volunteering to serve his country. Someone committing the same, or worse crime in the civilian sector would still be allowed to own a gun. It seems a little crazy to me.

 

[Hook686]

Keep in mind that once one exception is allowed, others are justified.

 

[Stover954rr]

For example, I'd rather not allow the nutcase down the street the ability to own an M1 Abrams.

sfmittels, I have to disagree, based on sole purpose of the RBKA.

That same "tank argument" is what is used to attack the .50 and other "unpracticle" weapons.

Responsibility doesn't change with the size of the weapon, and if it does, it usually increases with the size of the weapon. If you are responsible enough to own a rifle, you are responsible enough to own any weapon, and yes that includes a tank.

I believe that most people on this board can agree that the 2nd amend. is in place so that we can defend ourselves against our government & threats foreign and domestic. What good is that right if we render ourselves out gunned to impracticle limits.

Oh, and I am for limitations on Felons and mentally defective.

 

[kevindsingleton]

I'm no psychologist, but the only class I'd restrict is the mentally defective.

As said, before, if the criminal justice system has deemed a convict safe to release, then his (or her) rights should be fully restored. If you've paid your debt, then you shouldn't be punished forever, and, cherry-picking the rights that are to be restored (1st, 4th, 5th) smacks of monarchy, and not a nation of laws. Anything else relegates the 2nd Amendment to a privilege, which directly opposes Scalia's masterful interpretation in Heller.

 

[6_gunner]

An age restriction is the only one thing that I think is legitimate. One must be an adult to be considered part of the militia. I believe that my state constitution defines that age as 17. If one is old enough to serve in the militia, then one should be able to own any weapon he or she wishes.

If a convict is too dangerous to be trusted with weapons, then they should remain in prison. If they're ready to re-enter society, then all of their rights should be restored.

If a person is dangerously insane or incompetent, then they should be in an institution or in the custody of a legal guardian.

A free citizen should be completely free.

 

[230RN]

It is the 13th of October, 2009, and...

You have a ponytail. You are therefore mentally defective as showing "socially unacceptable behavior," as in England, and hence ineligible.

You got caught peeing in an alley, thereby "exposing yourself in public." You are therefore a sexual criminal and hence ineligible.

You are a diabetic, and occassionally mis-regulate your sugar level, resulting in a state of confusion and an occasional siezure. You are therefore ineligible.

You are getting a divorce. There is a boiler plate provision in your state's divorce papers that contains an automatic restraining order. You are therefore ineligible.

You are gay. Thus you got dishonorably discharged from the military and are therefore ineligible.

You bounced a check two years ago and was arrested for this felony. You are therefore ineligible.

You post "many" things on gun forums and last week went over the limit of "X" posts, throwing it into the category of X+1 posts, which was recently defined by your state as "too many" and are therefore ineligible.

You are 16 years and 364 days old and it is ten minutes to midnight. You are therefore ineligible.

You spit on the sidewalk and got caught and they just made that a felony last week, too, citing "disease control" as being for the health, benefit, and welfare of the people of your state. You are therefore ineligible.

You are on the FBI's "watch list" because your last name is el-Kabouhmie and you make frequent liesurely boat and limousine trips to Afgahnistan to visit your family and buy stock for your import business. You are therefore ineligible.

You just voted "No Restrictions," on a gun forum poll last year on this date, and therefore must be wun uh them right wing gun nuts and are therefore ineligible.

You are...

...and you notice the Form 4473 is now eight pages long.

Seems to me it worked better before GCA 68.

And maybe even before NFA.

Dare I say it? Perhaps even before the Sullivan Act in New York City.

 

[K3]

No restrictions. Period.

Let's get back to the days where you could mail order a rifle from Monkey Ward's.

No background checks. No NICS. No 4473s. No serial numbers on guns unless the manufacturer wants to put one on for warranty/QC purposes. No getting permission from the government to carry a personal defense implement. No 922(r). Enough of this horsecrap. Keep criminals and nutcases locked up where they can't do damage to others once they've been identified as having those tendencies.

If I have to jump through hoops and ask permission, it isn't really a right.

One must keep in mind one of the main purposes of RKBA. Awfully odd for the very entity that is supposed to be kept in check to be the one you have to ask to wield the implement for the job.

 

[Picard]

We should never assume that, if a felon is out of jail, that he would have any trouble obtaining a firearm. Do firearm laws keep gun-related crimes any lower? Why do we, of all people, still fall into that trap of failed logic.

If a person is out on the streets, we should assume that he has access to anything on the streets. If that makes us uncomfortable, then we should keep them in jail. Otherwise, he/she is free.

 

[ronwill]

Violent felons (murderers, rapists, etc.) and those who have been proven psychologically dangerous to themselves or others should be prevented from gun ownership. Even the founding fathers believed in that limitation as evidenced by the following quote:

".... that the said Constitution be never construed to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms;" Samuel Adams

 

[kevindsingleton]

Picard,

I think I know what you mean, but I'm just trying to confirm that what you said is simply an expedient way of getting the point across:

If a person is out on the streets, we should assume that he has access to anything on the streets. If that makes us uncomfortable, then we should keep them in jail. Otherwise, he/she is free.

To be sure, it has nothing to do with whether we're comfortable, and everything to do with what society's laws dictate. I just don't want anyone to think that "comfortable" is the standard for keeping folks locked up!

 

[LaEscopeta]

After reading most of the Supreme Court Miller decision and all to the Heller decision, it seems the Court is leaning to the idea the 2cd amendment is an individual right of those civilian citizens who are capable and willing to join together in the common defense. That is it is a right of those in the Militia (not the state’s militia, not the National Guard nor the military, but the Militia with a capital M, as it is spelled in the 2cd.) It is the right of those civilians to keep the types of arms in common use for legal purposes (i.e. hunting, target shooting, self defense, etc.) It is also the right to bear those arms for those legal purposes. I think Hamilton’s comments on the 2cd in the Federalist Papers support this view.

A civilian found by a court (after having a proper defense) to be mentally defective to the point of being a danger to themselves or others is not going to be able to help in the common defense. They can also not be expected to be able to use arms for legal purposes. The 2cd Amendment does not apply to such persons.

Felons cannot be relied upon to work or sacrifice themselves for the defense of their neighbors or their state; the 2cd Amendment does not apply to them either. Convicted felons who can convince the proper court them have reformed themselves so they can be relied upon to uphold there civilian duty in the Militia have their 2cd Amendment right restored.

Children obtain 2cd Amendment right when they come of legal responsible age.

What about the elderly, infirmed and disabled, who are not capable of Militia duty? Surely the Supreme Court would find they have the right to self defense. The Court has recognized self defense to be an ancient right all people are born with. The Constitution and Bill of Rights does not list all rights that people have, and self defense is one of the rights not listed. But does self defense only mean have a gun to kill an attacker? Does the phase “…the right of People to…” mean arms must be in general circulation among all people, in order to be reasonable sure those people in the Militia have access to arms and the use of arms? I don’t know, maybe the Supremes will tell us. Or not.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Violent felons (murderers, rapists, etc.) and those who have been proven psychologically dangerous to themselves or others should be prevented from gun ownership.

And such folks get to wander out in public why?
Every time I hear the cliche "he had a rap sheet a mile long" I have to seriously wonder what failure allowed that person to OBTAIN a mile long rap sheet.

 

[contenderman]

When you start making "exceptions" you start the slippery slide toward losing it.

Legal citizens obtain, keep and bear (carry) guns ... the overwhelming majority are going to use them for legal purposes, etc. If not then they become criminals.

Criminals obtain, keep and bear (carry) guns (regardless of law) and use (or carry) them in the act of committing crimes.

The "exceptions" (infringements) will only be impediments to the law abiding, and work to the advantage of the criminal.

Now what part of 2A RKBA would you like to modify, change, clarify or whatever else deviates from the way it was originally written.

:banghead:

 

[Deus Machina]

As far as I'm concerned, everything needs a little regulation. Note: a little.

Full auto stuff should be tough to get, and unfortunately there's no real good way to get around that. I know it wouldn't be as bad as people would have you believe, but I can only see the number of innocent bystanders hit rising, if it was easy for thugs to do a drive-by with an M16.

It should be easier to get than now, but not easy to get illegally. And there's just no way to do that right.

As for felons, they can get their rights restored. Until then, their loss of rights like firearms and voting is part of the punishment. I agree they shouldn't be on the streets until they can be trusted with that stuff, but I know perfectly law-abiding citizens I don't trust to handle guns or realize that politicians are liars.

The idea is that 1) someone convicted of a felony has generally proven themselves unable to make great decisions and 2) statistically speaking, a felon that has been released only has time before he's convicted again.

But even if a guy turns his life to good can have a tough time after an arrest. I believe if he can prove he's been an upstanding citizen after he's released, the arrest and conviction should be erased from the view of employment background checks (even bogus and dropped charges kill your chances for a job), and get his voting and firearm rights back.

I also think misdemeanor arrests shouldn't affect being able to buy a gun (like they do in FL, for years after) aside from drug-related and violent charges.

 

[hso]

If you have to ask permission it isn't a right.

Only if your rights have been taken away, or you've surrendered them, should any right be regulated.

 

[230RN]

13 Oct 2009 again....

Thanks for adding to the confusion, LaEscopeta, with your own confusion.

Are you absolutely, positively, without any doubt, certain that on 13 Oct 2009, you too might not fall into one of those restrictions I mentioned?

Or any others the antis might think of in the meantime?

People denigrate the "slippery slope" concept as falling into one of those "oh, it can't happen here" categories.

Think again.

Maybe I'm spoiled, but I still remember buying my first handgun, circa 1965:

"Here's my money, gimme my gun."

I don't like being an absolutist, but if we don't stand "foursquare" (which unfortunately sounds like wun uh them right wing terms) against any infringements on the Second Amendment, we will be... nay, are.. on that slippery slope to becoming mere subjects.

The Supreme Court? Ha! Don't kid yourself. Most of the lefties I know regard Heller as a victory, affirming a lot of restrictions.

Maybe you're just guilty of being a product of your media-driven times where e-bay will not allow firearms-related items, but I'm a product of my times, when you could stick ads in the Rocky Mountain News for anything you wanted.

Including guns. Any guns.

Things change.

I hope you are never a victim of future changes.

And that goes for the rest of you "compromisers," too. My best wishes to you all --that you will not fall into some new "restricted" category by 13 Oct 2009.

How about: "Well, anyone who's got more than eight points on his driver's license can't be of 'good repute,' therefore they should not be able to own a firearm."

And there's Question 184 on the Form 4473.

Nah. "Can't happen here."

 

[ArmedBear]

If "felon" meant convicted armed robber, murderer, rapist, burglar, etc. I'd be fine with stripping felons of the right to have a firearm.

However, I don't think that someone should be stripped of a fundamental right for lighting firecrackers on the 4th of July, or any number of other ridiculous felonies that vary from state to state.

If "felony" was synonymous with "heinous or violent crime", I'd be okay with it. But "felony" doesn't mean that anymore.

 

[Crazy Fingers]

Some felons should be allowed to own guns. Not all felons are violent, and many need protection against the people they used to be involved with. And not just for them, for their family as well.

For example, say someone was involved with a tax evasion ring. As part of a deal, he pleads guilty to a felony, testifies against the ring leader, and receives a lighter sentence. Well now he is a convicted felon and the ring leader's cronies are after him. He has no legal way to defend himself or his family from retaliation, and his felony wasn't even violent to begin with.

 

[Erik Jensen]

I've been thinking about the "tank argument" lately.

tanks (and AV-8B Harriers) are very expensive. fueling and loading them even more so.

also, murder is illegal, regardless of the weapon.

if you could afford to purchase an M1A1 Abrahms, and were able to afford fueling it and loading it, do you think you would use it illegally and have it taken away from you by force? are millionaires more prone to wanton violence than the 99% of us who wouldn't be able to afford an M1 in the first place?

the argument sounds sort of dumb when you really think it through.

 

[ronwill]

And such folks get to wander out in public why?
Every time I hear the cliche "he had a rap sheet a mile long" I have to seriously wonder what failure allowed that person to OBTAIN a mile long rap sheet.

As opposed to locking an armed robber up for life in an already crowded system. We all know the U.S. justice system isn't perfect but I believe it to be one of the best in the world, mainly because of our constitution. In my opinion, the only right that is truly unlimited is thought. You can think anything you want, have any fantasy you want. It's when those thoughts are placed into action that restrictions occur. The 2A is close to all of us but, like all rights, there are limits.