Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > General Topics > 2nd Amendment Forum
Forum Register Expert Commentary Members List


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-29-2012, 01:26 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 375
Likes: 83
Liked 79 Times in 59 Posts
Default Is gun ownership really a right?

This was the off-shoot of a different topic so instead of highjacking another thread I decided to make it it's own thread. My diatrab stems from the topic of the right of gun ownership being taken away from felons. This is the thread where the discussion started and here is the discussion so far:

US v Weaver et al (US Dist Ct West Virgina)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martya View Post
Just curious, which part irritates you - the outside the home, the felons, or the bodyguards, if you don't mind the [slightly off-topic] question?
I don't mind but my opinion isn't a popular one.

I hear many firearms advocates talk about how defending ourselves is a right, to possess firearms is a right and how the 2nd amendment gives us that right. Then why is that "right" the only one that is taken away for life? No one ever loses their right of freedom of speech for life. No one loses their right to due process, or to a lawyer, or to assemble for life. Now I'm not talking about being incarcerated or on parole or probation. I'm talking about how they are done serving their time on an incident that happened 20 years ago and they are still deprived of their right for something that may or may not have anything to do with firearms.

An 18 year old takes old man Potters car for a joy ride. Old man potter doesn't find it that funny, presses charges and now the 18 year old can't own firearms for the rest of their life. They even give back voting rights after time served.

Now I just made that one up but here is a true story. My friend (when we were 16) had a butterfly knife. I have no idea where he got it from but that knife was dull as all. We used to practice flipping it around because we thought it looked cool. It was so dull that there really wasn't a sharp or a dull side. He gets pulled over with it in the glove box. They find nothing else after the search the car (with his permission because he doesn't think he has anything illegal, we're not drug users or thieves) and they find the old butterfly knife in the glove box. Now they charge him with concealing a deadly weapon, possession of an illegal weapon, etc... He gets the charges significantly reduced but if he was found guilty he wouldn't be able to hunt every year with me.

Most people agree that dangerous people shouldn't have guns. But to put a blanket over everyone convicted of a felony is excessive. On top of that all of the responsible gun owners who proclaims that carrying a firearm is a right guaranteed by the constitution looks the other way when some are deprived of their rights which I said before is the only one that is taken away for life.

"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all" -Thomas Jefferson

If gun ownership and protecting one's self is a right then it's in the same category as freedom of speech.

If gun ownership can be taken away for life, then owning a gun is put into the category of a privilege instead of a right, which is why the whole situation irritates me. Is it a privilege or a right? Even drunk drivers have a timetable on when they can get their driver's license back.

Take the argument a step further. Obviously the guy in this case feared for his life. So he didn't break the law and let other's carry guns and do the protecting. The Federal Government says even that's not o.k. Now that guy has no right to protect himself? What about his employee who worries that his boss will be a target and therefore the employee's life is in danger? Doesn't the employee have a right to protect himself?

Like I said in the beginning, there are plenty of people who disagree with me. But there are also plenty of felonies that have nothing to do with violence which means the argument that society is depriving someone of that right in the name of public safety has gone out the window. And all that leaves is society taking away "rights" as a punishment to the individual which we shouldn't do if we recognize it as a right and not a privilege.

Anyone want to jump in and tell me where I'm wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Model520Fan View Post
No. Can't find it.

If someone is too dangerous to be permitted by the state to have firearms, why is he not in prison? Or at least under parental or other competent supervision.

So-called liberals' objections to guns have nothing to do with the law, the Constitution, or common sense. They don't like guns, and they want to outlaw them. They simply don't believe in a free society. Rather, they believe that they should be able to cram their ideas down everyone else's throats. They need a taste of their own medicine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martya View Post
Fat B - I sort of suspected that was what you meant, and just recently this was in a conversation I was having with someone. In theory, in a perfect world, a person who "done his time" would be out on the streets as a contributing member of society, a citizen, stuck with finding a job, paying taxes, choosing a candidate to vote for, and so on, just like me. Why not, they have 'paid their debt to society.'

Unfortunately, many see any felony as a felony, and many felons return to felony graduate school and learn how to be better felons, and that contaminates the rest of the truly rehabilitated ones. So, while I agree with you in principle, the reality is gun carrying is a privilege just about everywhere now, even for someone like me, felons are in prisons run by private companies and are released due to someone's cost / benefit calculation and not whether they truly 'paid their debt to society' and thus, in the pool of folks with 'felony' in their history, some of those released probably should never be allowed to own / handle a gun (not that that matters, I know).

Maybe some day, perhaps with some report or approval from wardens or probation officers, some former felons would be considered citizens again?

Last edited by Fat B; 03-29-2012 at 01:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #2  
Old 03-29-2012, 01:35 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 375
Likes: 83
Liked 79 Times in 59 Posts
Default

Martha Stewart was convicted of 4 felonies. She can't own or possess a firearm and no one that works for her or takes directions from her can be armed when they are with her. Is she a danger to society? Why does she lose the right to be armed or to defend herself?

When people think of felons they think of murders, rapists and carjackers. My whole point is there are a lot of other felons that are generally peaceful who have a right taken away. I've had this discussion with many NRA members and they proclaim the right to defend themselves and the right to gun ownership and they get very worked up why talking about politicians who want to take that right away. Yet are perfectly fine with taking away that right from felons for life. Or they don't speak up for the rights of others as it is an unpopular position. It's a double standard to say the least.

Last edited by Fat B; 03-29-2012 at 01:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #3  
Old 03-29-2012, 01:38 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NE Iowa
Posts: 4,848
Likes: 1,184
Liked 2,286 Times in 914 Posts
Default

I only want to comment on your saying some people say "the Second Amendment gives us that right". They certainly do say that, and it is untrue. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution do not GIVE us any rights. In the case of the Second Amendment, or as I prefer to refer to it as, Article Two of the Bill of Rights, it states these rights (pre-existing) shall not be infringed. We do not get these rights from the Constitution. The Constitution protects them.
That may, to some people, be a minor point. It certainly wasn't to the Founding Fathers.
Jim
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-29-2012, 02:57 PM
ckprax's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 155
Likes: 6
Liked 25 Times in 13 Posts
Default

I do not see the reason for banning felons from gun ownership. There are many non-violent felons that deserve the right to protect themselves. The violent felons should not be on the street.

As we know violent felons are released from prison every day. Do they care about gun laws? No, if they want a gun they will get one, no law has ever prevented a rape or murder. Everyone has a right to keep and bare arms so that we can be as well armed as the felons who will inevitable get weapons and do harm. It is a feel good law that really does more harm than good (I do not believe it keeps felons from possessing weapons).

And yes gun ownership is a right, it is not given to us by the 2A, it is God-given, we were all born with it.

Last edited by ckprax; 03-29-2012 at 03:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Like Post:
  #5  
Old 03-29-2012, 03:07 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 20
Likes: 3
Liked 5 Times in 2 Posts
Default

I am not "articulate" as others, but i want to voice my gripe and point out an instance in our recent past that the "right", which you think you have, was taken away by the "controlling forces" during a time when that "right" was most needed.

After the hurricane that took a toll on New Orleans, there were videos on youtube about homes being entered and law abiding citizens being "forced" to hand over their firearms to "authorities".

That was a great example of what you "thought" was a "right" got turned into a "privilege" that can be forcefully taken away whenever the "authority" deems necessary.

So now when the bad guy comes along, i have to let him have is way with my family ?????
This irritates me to no end. Can i or can i not defend myself and my family with whatever force necessary to eliminate that danger ? Do i have that right ? or is it all a smoke screen and we are just sheeple believing in a false reality ?

Wake Up...... we have already lost the battle for the freedom to bear arms



zoso
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #6  
Old 03-29-2012, 04:01 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,925
Likes: 232
Liked 1,245 Times in 477 Posts
Default

I've never understood the connection between a Felony conviction (for a non-violent offense) and the restriction of gun possession. If someone has lost their 2nd Amendment rights over a conviction for writing a bad check, how does that make sense? But neither does giving someone a life sentence for a 3rd offense writing bad checks (that has happened under the 3 strikes law). It appears that rather than judge each case on its merits it's simpler to just say: Felony conviction - No gun possession, period. Clear cut and simple. Perhaps not fair, but not enough people care. But what do we expect from a society that suspends kids from school for possession of Tylenol (under the Zero Tolerance Policy)?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #7  
Old 03-29-2012, 04:45 PM
vytoland's Avatar
US Veteran

 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,793
Likes: 2,843
Liked 1,533 Times in 742 Posts
Default

we have no "rights", just a bunch of temporary privileges………….with the stroke of a pen……..it all can and does change.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #8  
Old 03-29-2012, 04:51 PM
jlrhiner's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Arnold, Missouri
Posts: 3,318
Likes: 2,326
Liked 2,582 Times in 1,029 Posts
Default

I understand there is a process that may be used to reinstate the rights of convicted felons. Even an office of I believe, associated with the Marshals service. I agree that loss of those rights is excessive in some cases.
__________________
James L. "Jim" Rhiner
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-29-2012, 10:33 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Posts: 1,816
Likes: 2,026
Liked 1,405 Times in 547 Posts
Default

It's a right, end of story. The question is, how it's defended.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-30-2012, 12:12 AM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Wilmington, NC
Posts: 468
Likes: 2
Liked 36 Times in 26 Posts
Default

I've never understood why felons lose there gun rights or voting rights. And it seems every day it easier and easier to become a felon just by looking the wrong way. If someone was convicted of a crime that involved harming another person I can see a restriction of gun rights imposed by a judge, but simply banning some who used poor judgement, like Martha Steward, is beyond the pale. Most people don't realize it, but Martha broke "regulatory law", not criminal law. When you deal with regulatory bodies, EPA, OHSA, NRC, etc. you have NO rights. No right to a lawyer, no Miranda rights, nothing. The penalty is pretty much whatever the regulatory body wants to impose.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-05-2012, 04:11 PM
rcnixon's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Old North State
Posts: 560
Likes: 12
Liked 140 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Attainder of civil rights (voting and firearms rights, as discussed here) are a creature of the mid-twentieth century and, I believe, unconstitutional. I further believe that a constitutional amendment is required to make the process legal. It is interesting that no other rights are attainted, just those two. If we cannot trust someone with a ballot in his hand, what is he doing out of prison?

Russ
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #12  
Old 04-07-2012, 06:45 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: DFW< TEXAS
Posts: 610
Likes: 149
Liked 204 Times in 87 Posts
Default

Very good points. I do believe that no matter what we might believe, the courts will never agree felons can posses arms.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-07-2012, 11:28 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

The reason and logic in the example is sound but the comparison to other rights is not. Constitutional rights are routinely denied to certain segments of the populace. Off the top of my head:

1. 4th amendment rights are universally denied to those who are incarcerated (for both felonies and misdemeaners) during their incarceration

2. The constitutional right to vote has historically been denied to felons and continues to be in some states (although the number is dwindling).

3. Many constitutional rights, including the freedom of speech, are lost by members who enlist in the U.S. armed services (during their enlstment) and others will be forfiet by a service member who is dishonorably discharged.

4. Freedom of speech is denied to children in many contexts.

5. Due process is denied to those with previous convictions of sex crimes.

So when it comes down to it we have a long history of denying constitutional rights to substantial segements of the population. You can argue logically felons should have 2nd amendment rights but it is incorrect to say it is the only example of people being denied.

Last edited by auburn2; 04-07-2012 at 11:40 PM.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #14  
Old 04-13-2012, 11:42 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: GA
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 1 Post
Default

You guys make some good points. However, I don't have a problem denying convicted felons, foreign guests, illegal immigrants, bicyclists, vegetarians, people who bring kids to restaurants, and many other people their rights. The loss of firearms and voting privileges should simply be deterrent to those contemplating criminal activities.
__________________
Vanquish Fear and Panic!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-16-2012, 03:59 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: MA
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 839
Liked 692 Times in 429 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StatesRightist View Post
It's a right, end of story. The question is, how it's defended.
I think that the answer to that question, and a few others, is in the Constitution - in the second amendment.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #16  
Old 04-16-2012, 07:02 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Eastern Nebraska
Posts: 55
Likes: 1
Liked 4 Times in 3 Posts
Default Crimes

What we need is a third level for crimes and leave the term "felon" to the most egregious. Something like misdemeanor, dereliction, felony. Dereliction would be for serious but non-violent crimes.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #17  
Old 04-17-2012, 12:41 AM
AZretired's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: AZ/NM USA
Posts: 684
Likes: 123
Liked 175 Times in 111 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZretired
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by auburn2 View Post
The reason and logic in the example is sound but the comparison to other rights is not. Constitutional rights are routinely denied to certain segments of the populace. Off the top of my head:

1. 4th amendment rights are universally denied to those who are incarcerated (for both felonies and misdemeaners) during their incarceration

2. The constitutional right to vote has historically been denied to felons and continues to be in some states (although the number is dwindling).

3. Many constitutional rights, including the freedom of speech, are lost by members who enlist in the U.S. armed services (during their enlstment) and others will be forfiet by a service member who is dishonorably discharged.

4. Freedom of speech is denied to children in many contexts.

5. Due process is denied to those with previous convictions of sex crimes.

So when it comes down to it we have a long history of denying constitutional rights to substantial segements of the population. You can argue logically felons should have 2nd amendment rights but it is incorrect to say it is the only example of people being denied.
Where do I start? First I don't believe 2nd Am. Rights should be lost forever or even just for a non violent felony. That's. The Federal law and not all states revoke the right forever.
Next the 4th Amd. Is based on your right of privacy. Prisoners have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Last, I investigated many sex crimes. Previous offenders are always afforde due process!
Sent from my Ally
__________________
Support the NRA!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-17-2012, 10:50 PM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,046
Likes: 4
Liked 356 Times in 226 Posts
Default

I believe Gun Ownership, and everyday Concealed carry is the right of every Law Abiding Citizen.

If you are a Convicted Felon, a Criminal, Then you have violated the Rights of Man. You are Waste of Skin...

I think that ANY burglary, ANY robbery, ANY theft from person, ANY vehicle theft, ANY theft of property over one hundred dollars, ANY stranger to stranger sex crime, ANY treason, should be the DEATH PENALTY...
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #19  
Old 04-17-2012, 10:53 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Maine
Posts: 226
Likes: 8
Liked 76 Times in 34 Posts
Default

the only people who i believe should NOT own firearms are those with mental disorders that may cause them to use said firearm to harm themselves or other innocent peoples, and FELONS who have used a weapon in a violent crime. i will take a lot of flack for that comment but to me its common sense. someone is a paranoid schizophrenic , lets give them a deadly weapon , and this guy shot 2 people robbed 8 liquor stores and was charged with domestic violence 8 times, lets also give him a gun..........not good ideas in my opinion
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-18-2012, 03:32 PM
CelticSire's Avatar
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 727
Likes: 1
Liked 113 Times in 34 Posts
Default

The ancillary question to this debate is: who is going to pay for it? If the law is amended to allow certain classes of convicted felons to retain their 2A right while denying other convicted felons the same right, then a very large database will need to be created and maintained to record exactly which felon is on which side of the law. Records from every criminal court jusrisdiction, to include local, state and Federal, will need to be screened and entered, monitored, and amended as necessary. For example, if a person is convicted of a non-violent felony in one jurisdiction then moves to another jurisdiction, the records will need to be updated to reflect the new address. Then let's say that that person commits another felony, also non-violent. Records updated again. Then the person commits a felony that does require the abrogation of 2A rights. Records updated again. And this database will need to be accessible 24/7 to every law enforcement agency in the US, and has to have a real live person monitoring a telephone to confirm the information, the same as arrest warrants. Think of the number of courts in the US and the amount of cases tried every year, either through plea bargains, trials, deferred adjudications, etc. Then think of the number of law enforcement agencies across the US, from local, county, school district, colleges, hospitals, state police, Federal agencies with arrest powers, etc. Obviously this will necessitate personnel and equipment to set up and maintain. It will of necessity be a governmental function, which means that the cost will be borne by taxpayers. So, which of you is willing to pay more taxes to defray the cost?

Last edited by CelticSire; 04-18-2012 at 03:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-20-2012, 04:12 PM
MTKTM's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 805
Likes: 14
Liked 101 Times in 51 Posts
Default

Keep in mind that it doesn't even have to be a felony necessarily. In addition to an 18 year old "kid" (even though he's legally an adult) being convicted of some heinous felony like writing bad checks or criminal mischief (vandalism, i.e., spraying grafitti on a boxcar) being barred from possessing a firearm for life, so is a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic assualt. I've seen people, usually men, convicted of that for very minor family disputes, often where some pushing and shoving takes place where it is totally a case of "mutual combat", nobody is injured in the slightest, and yet the police tend to side with the woman in such instances, even where she might have been the instigating party. Conviction of such a misdemeanor is a lifetime bar to owning or possessing a firearm. So is having an order-of-protection taken out.....again, often for very minor conduct, sometimes nothing more than verbal sparring. Think about it next time you are tempted to say to your wife or girlfriend "I'd like to kick your a**!" I've seen OPs granted for no more than that, and if it happens to you, you can kiss your 2A "rights" sayonara. Of course, none of us would never say such a thing in a million years, so I guess we have nothing to worry about. But whatever happened to the ol' "sticks and stones" principle?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #22  
Old 04-21-2012, 09:36 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Nevada
Posts: 151
Likes: 2
Liked 65 Times in 40 Posts
Default

"Shall not be infringed" means exactly that. Regardless of circumstances. Period! I may not like the idea that a felon or mentally incapable person can carry a gun, but who am I to deny a God given right? And who outranks God? Nobody on this planet. I know this will inflame some members but so be it.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #23  
Old 04-22-2012, 10:12 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZretired View Post
Last, I investigated many sex crimes. Previous offenders are always afforde due process!
Sent from my Ally
No they are not. Sex crime offenders have to register with municipalities, where they can and can not live is often controled by policy, not penalties described under law and they have extra-judicial stipulations imposed on them, for example they can't loiter around schools.

I'm not saying it is wrong but it is an example of denying that segment of the population their rights.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-22-2012, 10:14 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NE450No2 View Post
I think that ANY burglary, ANY robbery, ANY theft from person, ANY vehicle theft, ANY theft of property over one hundred dollars, ANY stranger to stranger sex crime, ANY treason, should be the DEATH PENALTY...
That would be afoul of the 8th amendment and article 3 of the U.S. constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-23-2012, 02:00 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lafayette, IN
Posts: 1,299
Likes: 63
Liked 426 Times in 215 Posts
Default

The Gun Control Act of 1968 is the law that made it a crime for felons to possess firearms.

It is a bad law for the obvious reason that once you allow one group's rights to be denied, you are on the slippery slope where the bar can be lowered until everyone is denied. And that has happened - the Lautenburg Ammendment, if you have a restraining order against you, etc.

But it is also unconstitutional because it is an ex post facto law. A convicted felon in 1967 was able to legally own firearms. It became a crime for him to do so in 1968. This is an increasing of criminal penalties after the fact. Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-23-2012, 08:39 PM
JJEH's Avatar
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tornado Alley, OK
Posts: 3,592
Likes: 4,489
Liked 1,328 Times in 595 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat B View Post
When people think of felons they think of murders, rapists and carjackers. My whole point is there are a lot of other felons that are generally peaceful who have a right taken away.
I don't wanna be a smart@$$, but what is a peaceful felony please?
__________________
Jorge
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-23-2012, 09:04 PM
StuperDan's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: WA
Posts: 175
Likes: 12
Liked 17 Times in 12 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JJEH View Post
I don't wanna be a smart@$$, but what is a peaceful felony please?
Mail fraud? Shoplifting a diamond? Taking the label from a mattresses?

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk 2
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #28  
Old 04-24-2012, 10:52 AM
JJEH's Avatar
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tornado Alley, OK
Posts: 3,592
Likes: 4,489
Liked 1,328 Times in 595 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StuperDan View Post
Mail fraud? Shoplifting a diamond? Taking the label from a mattresses?
Good. People who do that shouldn't have the right to posess a firearm. Otherwise they would use it the next time they rob a store. But wait, criminals get weapons anyway... they don't care about laws...
__________________
Jorge
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-24-2012, 11:25 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 515
Likes: 110
Liked 150 Times in 100 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JJEH View Post
I don't wanna be a smart@$$, but what is a peaceful felony please?
I was thinking more of tax fraud, stock manipulation, money laundering, bribery...all the Bernie Madoff type felonies; armed robbery sans the armed part.

But the mattress tag thing...I think that says it all.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-25-2012, 08:35 AM
JJEH's Avatar
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tornado Alley, OK
Posts: 3,592
Likes: 4,489
Liked 1,328 Times in 595 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by McBear View Post
I was thinking more of tax fraud, stock manipulation, money laundering, bribery...all the Bernie Madoff type felonies; armed robbery sans the armed part.

But the mattress tag thing...I think that says it all.
I understand where you coming from. But still, if somebody has such criminal mindset they shouldn't have a right to posess firearms. That's my opinion.

There is right and there is wrong! You can be the greatest guy/gal in the world, but if you do wrong you shouldn't cry about punishment.
__________________
Jorge

Last edited by JJEH; 04-25-2012 at 08:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-25-2012, 07:41 PM
MTKTM's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Montana
Posts: 805
Likes: 14
Liked 101 Times in 51 Posts
Default

I tore some pillow tags off. There, I said it. I've not been sleeping well due to the guilt! There are lots of non-violent or "peaceable" felonies. Writing bad checks. Forgery. Possession of certain drugs. Simple theft. Growing some pot plants. Damaging a highway sign. It used to be a felony in Montana to brand a cow with a frying-pan. Of course, the cow might think that was serious. I could continue with the list. Don't get me wrong, I don't condone any of these offenses. I just don't believe that any person should be deprived of his 2A rights based on them. For that matter, I am inclined to believe that once a person has served his/her sentence and is fully discharged therefrom, regardless of the nature of the offense, his/her 2A rights should resume. I don't disagree with a person being disarmed, obviously, during periods of incarceration or serving probationary time.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-25-2012, 08:20 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Nevada
Posts: 151
Likes: 2
Liked 65 Times in 40 Posts
Default

Anyone that advocates the suspension of American citizens rights, other than during time of incarceration, does not understand the true meaning of "unalienable rights" nor the reasons behind the American Revolution.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #33  
Old 04-25-2012, 08:30 PM
Member

 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: washington illinois
Posts: 2,683
Likes: 6,013
Liked 1,288 Times in 556 Posts
Default

Yes gun ownership is a right and many good men and women have given their lives to protect and defend that right.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-25-2012, 10:30 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central Kentucky
Posts: 515
Likes: 110
Liked 150 Times in 100 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JJEH View Post
I understand where you coming from. But still, if somebody has such criminal mindset they shouldn't have a right to posess firearms. That's my opinion.

There is right and there is wrong! You can be the greatest guy/gal in the world, but if you do wrong you shouldn't cry about punishment.
I wasn't supporting the intent to restore rights, that is another conversation. I was just answering the "non-violent felony" question.

To the question of things like banking fraud...anything less that life for folks who defraud pension funds, retirement funds, investment funds and people's life savings is just wrong. That is what it will take to stop that kind of fraud. Otherwise they calculate the Return on Risk. Unless RISK is everything...some bozo will try it.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-06-2012, 04:41 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 375
Likes: 83
Liked 79 Times in 59 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JJEH View Post
I understand where you coming from. But still, if somebody has such criminal mindset they shouldn't have a right to posess firearms. That's my opinion.

There is right and there is wrong! You can be the greatest guy/gal in the world, but if you do wrong you shouldn't cry about punishment.
So you feel free to take away the rights of others? Can I take away your right to free speech if you commit a crime? or I think your mindset is against public interest? Why should the right to bear arms be any different than freedom of speech or the right to a lawyer?

And since you think of gun rights as something that society can take away, then by definition, gun ownership is not a right to you, it's a privilage. Protecting the public interest is the argument used by many anti-gun activists.

JJEH, I'm not trying to pick on you and I understand where your argument is coming from, I just get discouraged when proponents of the 2nd amendment favor limiting the rights of others, which then puts the 2nd amendment in a class by itself- the only right that can be restricted for each individual that is not in jail, or on probation, etc... Too many people agree with you I'm afraid.

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" Unless you've demonstrated bad judgement, many times in areas that have nothing to do with guns or violence. Then we'll read that one as more of a suggestion then a direct statement.

*Sigh*
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-07-2012, 09:06 AM
JJEH's Avatar
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tornado Alley, OK
Posts: 3,592
Likes: 4,489
Liked 1,328 Times in 595 Posts
Default

Fat B, my only concern is to keep it realistic.
It's not just black and white... no. There is also some grey in between.

Criminals belong behind bars. And all law abiding citizens rely on the laws which punishes criminal people.

How would you feel if I break into your house, threatening you and your loved ones, rob you and put you through all this. And then, 10 years later (after incarceration) you meet me at the shooting range...
__________________
Jorge
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-07-2012, 02:17 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 375
Likes: 83
Liked 79 Times in 59 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JJEH View Post
Fat B, my only concern is to keep it realistic.
It's not just black and white... no. There is also some grey in between.

Criminals belong behind bars. And all law abiding citizens rely on the laws which punishes criminal people.

How would you feel if I break into your house, threatening you and your loved ones, rob you and put you through all this. And then, 10 years later (after incarceration) you meet me at the shooting range...
I wouldn't want to see them at a gas station or at Walmart!

Criminals do belong behind bars, I agree with you there. What I dislike is the way gun rights are treated as a tool for punishment. Are gun rights taken away as a public safety measure or as a deterrent for others? Either way, taking away one of our rights for breaking a law is contrary to it being a right and not just a law. Do we disregard the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) if your crime is horrific enough? I could list an example for each right. So why is the 2nd amendment treated that way?

I do not want dangerous criminals possessing guns. But I also don't want dangerous criminals out on the streets, they should be locked up. And I don't want to see the rights recognized by 2nd amendment used as a tool to prevent crime in the name of a better society.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-07-2012, 06:45 PM
charlesPOSTLEwade's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 8
Likes: 4
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

It depends on Whom you ask
It Seems most senators and congress people think that are Constitutional Rights are Granted not Guaranteed. I think they are Guaranteed .
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-08-2012, 12:48 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Hoscton GA
Posts: 49
Likes: 3
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

You have to first ask you self what is a criminal; Someone who break the law? Does that mean that the Founding Fathers are criminals?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-08-2012, 03:37 AM
AZretired's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: AZ/NM USA
Posts: 684
Likes: 123
Liked 175 Times in 111 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZretired
Default

For non-violent felonies your 2nd A. rights should be suspended until you've done your time (jail, parole, probation) then you get them back. For any violent felony and Domestic Violence you lose your right forever!

Sent from my Ally
__________________
Support the NRA!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #41  
Old 05-08-2012, 08:32 AM
JJEH's Avatar
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Tornado Alley, OK
Posts: 3,592
Likes: 4,489
Liked 1,328 Times in 595 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZretired View Post
For non-violent felonies your 2nd A. rights should be suspended until you've done your time (jail, parole, probation) then you get them back. For any violent felony and Domestic Violence you lose your right forever!

Sent from my Ally
I can agree to that.
__________________
Jorge
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-08-2012, 10:38 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 4
Likes: 1
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

I think that a fundamental dynamic that may be being overlooked, aside from the costs mentioned above is that to approach this from the only right that is denied a felon is somewhat flawed. Yes, it may be a "right" that is is ultimately not allowed to resume when the felon is released. But of all the rights that are suspended upon conviction, one could argue, that this is the only one that is controversial. A politician would/and probably did make a case for the return of the right to vote. No politician would sponsor a "guns for felons" campaign. Of all the rights limited in some way by a felony conviction including voting, holding public office, jury service, witnessing documents, immigration and military service, federal contract exclusion, one could argue bearing arms certainly is not particularly analogous to these, at least in terms of underlying policy today and as such this is not an appropriate metric to determine if it is a right.

This is as another poster mentioned a function of money and politics.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-10-2012, 07:46 PM
jrod's Avatar
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: California/Arizona
Posts: 86
Likes: 78
Liked 18 Times in 13 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to jrod
Default

+ 1 for what P & R FAN said!
__________________
Joshua 1:9
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-10-2012, 08:11 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Cincy, OH
Posts: 290
Likes: 294
Liked 89 Times in 53 Posts
Default

If gun ownership and protecting one's self is a right then it's in the same category as freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is no longer a right!!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-10-2012, 08:27 PM
joespapa's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Tulsa Oklahoma
Posts: 191
Likes: 18
Liked 38 Times in 26 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flathead View Post
"Shall not be infringed" means exactly that. Regardless of circumstances. Period! I may not like the idea that a felon or mentally incapable person can carry a gun, but who am I to deny a God given right? And who outranks God? Nobody on this planet. I know this will inflame some members but so be it.
What everyone fails to realize is that the felon or mentally incompetent person can get a firearm if he or she desires. Who are we kidding?some of us who own and carry firearms legally would STILL do so if it became illegal wouldn't we?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-11-2012, 10:25 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 8
Likes: 1
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

This won't be popular but here goes. I don't think there is any "individual right" to own firearms. It is a privilege that can be and is restricted by various laws. It has been this way throughout our nations history. The 2nd Ammendment refers to a "community right" (think National Guard) and has historically been interpreted that way by the courts.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-11-2012, 11:13 AM
NFrameFred's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WV
Posts: 2,756
Likes: 45
Liked 997 Times in 321 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 629Deerslayer View Post
This won't be popular but here goes. I don't think there is any "individual right" to own firearms. It is a privilege that can be and is restricted by various laws. It has been this way throughout our nations history. The 2nd Ammendment refers to a "community right" (think National Guard) and has historically been interpreted that way by the courts.
Totally bogus. Just because certain courts have tried to push that line doesn't mean that it's so. You cannot divorce the phrase "the people" in the other rights illuminated as individual and selectively apply as communal to the ones you don't like.

This is one area some people will never get. If someone operates on 'feelings' and what 'seems right to them' it's pointless to argue facts.

And for those whose education didn't include it, the Bill of Rights simply acknowledges rights we already had/have and grants nothing - it's not the government's to grant.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-13-2012, 10:58 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 375
Likes: 83
Liked 79 Times in 59 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZretired View Post
For non-violent felonies your 2nd A. rights should be suspended until you've done your time (jail, parole, probation) then you get them back. For any violent felony and Domestic Violence you lose your right forever!
The problem with that line of thinking gets us into the same trouble we're in. If you think that it's o.k. to strip people who commit domestic violence crimes of their 'rights', then it gives credibility to those that want to take it a step further. Why strip felons of their gun rights? To prevent future crimes of course. So a logical step would be that it's o.k. to strip everyone of their gun rights to prevent all sorts of future crimes. This is the line of thinking of all of the liberal nut jobs that want to erase the 2nd amendment. Slippery slope argument.

It's a double standard to allow society to limit the rights of certain individuals on one hand and on the other cry foul when liberals want to take away our "God-given rights" of gun ownership. Don't felons have the right to protect themselves too?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-14-2012, 12:03 AM
AZretired's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: AZ/NM USA
Posts: 684
Likes: 123
Liked 175 Times in 111 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZretired
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zoso View Post
I am not "articulate" as others, but i want to voice my gripe and point out an instance in our recent past that the "right", which you think you have, was taken away by the "controlling forces" during a time when that "right" was most needed.

After the hurricane that took a toll on New Orleans, there were videos on youtube about homes being entered and law abiding citizens being "forced" to hand over their firearms to "authorities".

That was a great example of what you "thought" was a "right" got turned into a "privilege" that can be forcefully taken away whenever the "authority" deems necessary.

So now when the bad guy comes along, i have to let him have is way with my family ?????
This irritates me to no end. Can i or can i not defend myself and my family with whatever force necessary to eliminate that danger ? Do i have that right ? or is it all a smoke screen and we are just sheeple believing in a false reality ?

Wake Up...... we have already lost the battle for the freedom to bear arms



zoso
Your right, what happened after Katrina was wrong. But that has been fixed so it won't happen again. Recently another state tried (NC?) Tried to do something similar and was shot down.

Sent from my Ally using Tapatalk 2
__________________
Support the NRA!
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-15-2012, 10:23 AM
ladder13's Avatar
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Great State of NY
Posts: 13,986
Likes: 9,423
Liked 7,560 Times in 3,170 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vytoland View Post
we have no "rights", just a bunch of temporary privileges………….with the stroke of a pen……..it all can and does change.
One SCOTUS appointment away from reality.
__________________
Pride go before the fall
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
concealed, military, nra

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
2nd Amendment Forum Thread, Is gun ownership really a right? in General Topics; This was the off-shoot of a different topic so instead of highjacking another thread I decided to make it it's ...
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Transfer ownership of 15-22 azmom Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 16 08-01-2011 02:09 PM
House insurance and gun ownership Marauder2003 The Lounge 11 01-15-2011 12:00 PM
A Champion of Gun Ownership florida1098 2nd Amendment Forum 0 02-02-2010 01:53 PM
gun ownership aids the economy marine2541 The Lounge 4 03-28-2009 08:16 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:39 AM.


© S-W Forum, LLC 2000-2015
Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)