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.
Is gun ownership really a right?
- Thread starter Fat B
- Start date
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.
mg357
Absent Comrade
Yes gun ownership is a right and many good men and women have given their lives to protect and defend that right.
McBear
Member
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.
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*
JJEH
Member
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...
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.
charlesPOSTLEwade
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2012
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 0
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 .
It Seems most senators and congress people think that are Constitutional Rights are Granted not Guaranteed. I think they are Guaranteed .
SicSemper
Member
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?
AZretired
Member
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
Sent from my Ally
JJEH
Member
I can agree to that.
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.
This is as another poster mentioned a function of money and politics.
joespapa
Member
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?
629Deerslayer
Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 2
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.
NFrameFred
Member
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.
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?
AZretired
Member
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
quneur
Member
Every citizen in the United States are Constitutionally guaranteed the right to bear arms. It is when a person decides to break a law of the States is when they give up their rights. Whether the particular law broken should warrant denying the felon their 2A or not is where this discussion should be.
In Katrina, civil rights were suspended due to it being an emergency situation and under Marshall law. If the civil authorities over stepped their position then because of the 2A, you would have something to revolt with which is the purpose of the 2A.
If I don't have a conviction, no restrictive disabilities and a citizen of the U.S., I do have right to own a firearm. It is when people start looking treating it like a privilege is when that right is threatened. There are no exams or competency tests or license to owning a firearm and there should be none.
The 2A was written to protect the People from a corrupt or despotic government. If the founding fathers were referring to the formation of the National Guard, then they would have written it as such. The US was designed and built to divide governmental powers between the State and National (Federal) for a purpose which are outside of this discussion. But the US Armed Forces are under the command of the Federal government and the National Guard is under the command of the State. The 2A is for any corrupt government, State or Federal.
Edit: I apologize to NFrameFred. It was not his quote but responding to 629Deerslayer.
In Katrina, civil rights were suspended due to it being an emergency situation and under Marshall law. If the civil authorities over stepped their position then because of the 2A, you would have something to revolt with which is the purpose of the 2A.
If I don't have a conviction, no restrictive disabilities and a citizen of the U.S., I do have right to own a firearm. It is when people start looking treating it like a privilege is when that right is threatened. There are no exams or competency tests or license to owning a firearm and there should be none.
629Deerslayer said:
The 2A was written to protect the People from a corrupt or despotic government. If the founding fathers were referring to the formation of the National Guard, then they would have written it as such. The US was designed and built to divide governmental powers between the State and National (Federal) for a purpose which are outside of this discussion. But the US Armed Forces are under the command of the Federal government and the National Guard is under the command of the State. The 2A is for any corrupt government, State or Federal.
Edit: I apologize to NFrameFred. It was not his quote but responding to 629Deerslayer.
Last edited:
