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

[Queltor]

Some limits must apply.

Mental defectives. Felons. Dishonorably discharged.

I understand the arguments favoring more relaxed ownership for felons, but you're wrong. Keeping someone locked up "until they're trustworthy" doesn't work. Who decides that? Who are you willing to give that power to? Who ensures the government doesn't abuse that power?

Releasing people from prison is a risk assessment. We know recidivism is a problem, but some people get out and become law-abiding citizens. Many don't. I'd much rather have felon's rights limited than allow career criminals to use my gun store for their purchases.

Career criminals purchasing from legitimate gun stores will just get them shut down. Then we all lose.

 

[ArmedBear]

I understand the arguments favoring more relaxed ownership for felons, but you're wrong.

So a college kid who lights a firecracker on the 4th of July in California, in a location where there is no fire hazard, should never be allowed to have a firearm?

Don't fall for the lie that "felon" necessarily means "career criminal" any more. It doesn't.

 

[Trisha]

Nicely said, 230RN. Add "a little mandatory testing" and perhaps those who fail will benevolently receive "just a little something to take the edge off, per The Law; yep, twice a day, in perpetuity so you can keep your job and the rest of your rights as a citizen."

 

[HGUNHNTR]

A felon charged with insurance fraud is not the same as afelon charged with rape in my opinion.

 

[ArmedBear]

A felon charged with insurance fraud is not the same as afelon charged with rape in my opinion.

Agreed.

Sure, someone who has committed insurance fraud should pay for the crime appropriately.

But there's no reason to believe that, once he has been punished, paid restitution, etc., he is any more likely to murder someone than anyone else is.

 

[Queltor]

Gun ownership is something we trust other people to do responsibly. When people are trustworthy, it's a great system and further limits aren't needed.

Felons, people who have committed serious crimes, have violated the society's trust. It shouldn't matter whether they raped and killed a nun or committed large scale fraud. They proved themselves to be untrustworthy.

If you want to argue that some crimes shouldn't be felonies, go ahead. But as a category of people, felons have demonstrated their disdain for the rules of society and shouldn't be owning firearms.

 

[ArmedBear]

Felons, people who have committed serious crimes

You can repeat it as much as you want, but that won't make it true. "Felons" and "people who have committed serious crimes" are not synonymous any more.

WRT responsibility, there are plenty of traffic infractions that show a lack of responsibility and judgment, even "disdain for the rules of society" that exceeds that of some felonies.

I'm not saying that there aren't things people do, which should result in their losing certain rights. I just think that this should be dealt with specifically, rather than throwing the vicious firecracker lighters into the same boat as people who have raped children, killed people, robbed banks, etc.

 

[Trisha]

So there should be rules applied to felons - who don't care about rules. . .

Yeah.

Chuck the whole bureaucracy and the database, too. Once and for good. Evildoers are held in check by the absolute certainty the worthy will destroy them without hesitation if they act on their thoughts.

Unless you need a hug. And a nightlight.

 

[Queltor]

ArmedBear,
Your continuing argument is that not all felonies are serious crimes, even though that's the very definition of the word.

Do you read entire posts? You force me to repeat myself: "If you want to argue that some crimes shouldn't be felonies, go ahead. But as a category of people, felons have demonstrated their disdain for the rules of society and shouldn't be owning firearms."

Re: Trisha

So there should be rules applied to felons - who don't care about rules. . .

The rules against sales to felons apply to the FFL holders, who do care about the rules, and other firearms owners. If you, personally, want to sell to a felon then by all means... go ahead and forfeit your own ownership rights by willingly violating the law.

 

[Deus Machina]

The rules against sales to felons apply to the FFL holders, who do care about the rules, and other firearms owners.

Agreed. It's so otherwise law-abiding citizens (or ones that haven't been caught) won't supply them.

And, whether they listen to the rules or not, it is and should be illegal.

Say ex-con A robs a house, unarmed. Gets caught, does five years. Ex-con B robs a house, is caught with a Glock he's not legally allowed to own tucked in his waistband.

Should he also get the five-year punishment? He was, after all, stealing someone's stuff while armed, and under the circumstances how do you think he would react to the homeowner interrupting him?

The laws are there to have something else to throw against these type of people.

 

[HonorsDaddy]

Ronwill

You said:

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​

Bear in mind, at the time the Constitution was written, the kind of people you mention were typically on the wrong end of a rope after their conviction. Hence, their ownership of weapons post-conviction was a non issue.

Exclusive of that, would you be so kind as to identify where exactly the government has been granted the authority to restrict ANY private ownership?

 

[Old Grump]

Section 1 of the XIV amendment spells it out, not my highlighted section.

AMENDMENT XIV
(ratified July 9, 1868)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are Citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Society has the right to protect itself and if a person has proven to be a danger than judicial restraints may be applied to him including restricting certain rights that could increase his danger to others. Ie. carrying deadly weapons, not just guns. He can be restricted from driving or brandishing a sword in public or possessing a firearm. Just my opinion, legal beagles can pick holes in my argument.

 

[ronwill]

Bear in mind, at the time the Constitution was written, the kind of people you mention were typically on the wrong end of a rope after their conviction. Hence, their ownership of weapons post-conviction was a non issue.

Exclusive of that, would you be so kind as to identify where exactly the government has been granted the authority to restrict ANY private ownership?

Hanging all criminals in the past wasn't necessarily the case. Some were put in the stocks and some were imprisoned. We can discuss whether VIOLENT felons, notice I said VIOLENT felons, should be restricted from firearms ownership and neither one of us will probably change our minds. Anyone that uses violence against another has demonstrated the inability to properly use the right. It is my opinion murderers, rapists, and child molesters have shown they aren't responsible enough to be given firearms. Let me clarify child molester. I'm not talking about an 18 year old boyfriend and his 16 year old girlfriend. I'm talking about the slime that robs children of their childhood.

 

[TallPine]

It is my opinion murderers, rapists, and child molesters have shown they aren't responsible enough to be given firearms.

Of course not - they should have to buy them like everybody else


Really, I have no problem with restricting firearm ownership among those on probation or parole. It could even be for life as long as it was an optional specific part of the sentence rather than automatic.

Or even perhaps a law prohibiting CCW for felons (not that it would do that much good). IOW, your "permit" is the fact that you have a clean record - something that can be established quickly on the radio. Felons would have to open carry, or maybe apply for an exception permit after five years of no serious offenses.

There, aren't I "reasonable"

 

[kcw12]

Any person who shouldn't have a firearm, should not be on the streets.

 

[Aran]

Felons, people who have committed serious crimes, have violated the society's trust.

I was almost a felon (charged with Criminal Trespass) after visiting my old Home Ec teacher at my old high school a few back when the new vice principal came across me chatting with the office staff and kicked me out/called the police because he "didn't know me." (Despite me introducing myself to him as soon as I saw him come out of his office, and making sure he was aware I was signed in as a guest with the appropriate ID tag)

If I hadn't gotten a good lawyer, should I never have been able to own a firearm, vote, or enjoy any other freedom because some ******* overreacted in a hostile manner?

 

[Gottahaveone]

230RN
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.

Well said. I knew there was a reason I liked you

 

[Dr. Fresh]

This question is easy.


VIOLENT felons (read: violent) should be locked up FOR LIFE without exception. Rapists, armed robbers, murderers, etc. have no business walking among the civilized and should stay in jail.

Thus there is no reason to make exceptions to 2A rights for people who are violent felons since they should all be in jail. Just deregulate the 2A completely.

 

[au1776]

There is a lot to be said for "no infringement," but it simply doesn't match up with America's history of infringing even upon fundamental rights.

 

[K3]

If I hadn't gotten a good lawyer, should I never have been able to own a firearm, vote, or enjoy any other freedom because some ******* overreacted in a hostile manner?

According to some here...

no guns for you.

 

[ZeSpectre]

Seems to me that there is no crime that can be committed with a firearm that would be legal without a firearm.

So how about crime/criminal control. "Gun control" is a red herring to make us all waste tons of time/effort/money and obscure the real issues.

 

[TAB]

For all of you that say felons should not own guns...

Know any one that cut the cat off thier car/truck? guess what they just commited a federal felony.

And now the group that says people that say if you can't be trusted with a gun you should not be on the street. I have a client that is a cardiac surgen... if I had to go under the knife I would trust him with my life, but he can not be trusted with a skrew driver. its the same thing only diffrent object.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

"Some" Restrictions

Once again I see people lobbying for "some restrictions."

This is very glib, and done without actually thinking the whole thought.

You aren't restricting the criminal. Since when do criminals obey restrictions?

You can only restrict me. I'm the guy who pays his taxes, drives safely, treats his fellow man (and his property) with respect. And I'm the guy who has to prove I'm not a felon, not crazy, not dishonorably discharged whenever I want to buy a gun.

There is a serious comprehension problem here.

Any "restriction" placed on a member of society who's walking around without leg irons and funny clothes is meaningless.

Except, that is, for the good guys. You're gonna make the good guy prove he's NOT the bad guy.

And that . . . is . . . just . . . freaking . . . nuts.

How dare you?

What business do you have assuming I'm a felon?

All you've done is create a plausible reason for government to keep track of everyone. Otherwise, there's no way to be sure who the bad guys are.

We certainly can't keep the bad guys locked up -- that would be cruel.

No, much better to make everyone else prove he's not the bad guy. Well? What are you upset about? Hey, you don't HAVE to buy a gun! If you'd just stay out of gun stores, you wouldn't have to prove you're not a bad guy!

What kind of thinking process is it that inevitably concludes that "what we need here is another law to fix what that other law broke" and that bad guys pay any actual attention to laws?

Here's an idea: make CRIMES illegal. That way the bad guys won't do bad stuff to begin with.

There's a name for a system where it is ASSUMED that the common man is incapable of judgment or living his life without being managed and regulated. Where it is assumed that you will, by default, do the wrong thing unless there's a rule.

I'd be really tickled if that name were never applied to this country.

 

[230RN]

Full auto stuff should be tough to get...

Why?

 

[230RN]

Thanks, gottahaveone.

I just feel so sorry for the 76 people who, so far, voted for some restrictions, and "just don't get it."

...as the lefties are so fond of saying.