Is gun ownership really a right?

[JJEH]

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.

 

[highbrass]

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.

 

[jrod]

+ 1 for what P & R FAN said!

 

[WrongWay]

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!!

 

[joespapa]

"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?

 

[629Deerslayer]

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]

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.

 

[Fat B]

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?

 

[AZretired]

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

 

[ladder13]

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.

 

[quneur]

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.

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.

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.