what is your thoughts on this

[willy]

Felons aren't allowed to vote either. I don't know what point you are making.

Your right.
About the voting issue.
They are not allowed to vote.
The same as they are not allowed to bare arms.
But as free men ,,this is wrong according to the constitution!
Where does congress get the right or power to take a free mans rights?
The taking of the right to vote, or the right to keep and bare arms is unconstitutional.
The government has no more right to take rights from felons than they do taking rights from any of us.
If a felon can lose his rights, show me where they are not returned upon release of prison.
And if he can lose some rights ,why not ALL of his rights?
And if breaking a law is a reason to take away your rights forever.
Then how long will it be before ANY infraction of the law will brand you untrustworthy and a danger to society with your rights of gun ownership?
A speeding ticket? ( Shows proof that you have no respect of the law of the land)
Sounds a little far fetched for sure ,--but-- at one time the (thought) of not being allowed to bare arms would have been unheard of.

 

[photocosmo]

Since a militia consists of citizen soldiers, the framers of the Constitution clearly intended for any and all said citizens to be armed to the teeth in the eventuality of any threat to the union. What that passage does not provide for is the ability to carry concealed weapons in public. Not that I'm against it; it (Constitution) just doesn't address that. The great thing about our Constitution is it's elastisity!

 

[HKSmith]

The constitution only protects loss of life or liberty without due process of law. A convicted felon has gone through a trial and therefore has had due process. Some convicted felons lose their lives as a result of due process, most lose their liberty for some time, and all of them lose their right to possess firearms and (in some states) to vote. I don't have a problem with that.

There even exists a mechanism for restoration of 2nd Amendment rights to felons by due process. This all sounds fair and constitutional.

 

[willy]

and all of them lose their right to possess firearms and (in some states) to vote.

I don't have a problem with that.

QUOTE]

Alot of people have the same view as you.
And some would (have no problem with the loss of firearm rights) for even the smallest of offences.
Such as a verbal fight with a family member (domestic violence)
A guy I work with was charged with domestic violence for making a threatening gesture at his wife as she was screaming at him in a bar parking lot.(he gave her the finger while the cops were there!)
So if we don't do anything when rights are taken away from others ,then we can't hope for much when the government decides to take the rest of our rights through due process for our own well being!
While It doesn't bother me if felons can have a firearm or not.
I don't really care if they take the rights from the black race or muslims or any other group that I'm not a part of.
What does bother me is if the government CAN take rights from (anyone)
then they can take them from me also.
So for that reason I will stand up for ANYONE's rights.

 

[M&P777]

Those who argue the the 2nd Amendment only authorizes a militia or national guard miss the historical context in which the Constitution & the Bill of Rights were written. The authors had just finished a bloody overthrow of a despotic English king. The 2nd Amendment is clearly not simply about militias or even personal self-defense (although it authorizes both). The Amendment is about giving American citizens the power to overthrow any despots who ever come to power on our shores.

This is why American politicians with a despotic bent are inclined to denegrate the right to bear arms. Amendment 2 excercised against Washington by a disgruntled and unified electorate truly places the ultimate power in the hands of the people.

God bless the memory of our founding fathers. May their spirit live again in the hearts of more Americans before everything the fathers built is squandered by a generation of unappreciative and self-obsessed children.

 

[Dennis The B]

That is incorrect. The BoR initially restricted the federal gov't from doing those things. States were free to do so. And I think many states had religious qualifications for state office. You are right the 13th A and principle of incorporation put an end to that.

States already had provisions in their constitutions protecting individual rights. This was one of the arguments against a "bill of rights", as enumerated by Alexander Hamilton. It was Madison who, based on Mason's work, and at Jefferson's behest, drafted the first twelve amendments, ten of which were ratified.

The fact that some states may have had religious qualifications for state office was one of the reasons for the First Amendment. It restricted the Congress from establishing a national religion. There was no prohibition of an individual state from establishing any religion or religious requirements for state office.

 

[HKSmith]

and all of them lose their right to possess firearms and (in some states) to vote.

I don't have a problem with that.

QUOTE]

Alot of people have the same view as you.
And some would (have no problem with the loss of firearm rights) for even the smallest of offences.
Such as a verbal fight with a family member (domestic violence)
A guy I work with was charged with domestic violence for making a threatening gesture at his wife as she was screaming at him in a bar parking lot.(he gave her the finger while the cops were there!)
So if we don't do anything when rights are taken away from others ,then we can't hope for much when the government decides to take the rest of our rights through due process for our own well being!
While It doesn't bother me if felons can have a firearm or not.
I don't really care if they take the rights from the black race or muslims or any other group that I'm not a part of.
What does bother me is if the government CAN take rights from (anyone)
then they can take them from me also.
So for that reason I will stand up for ANYONE's rights.

Willy:

I don't think your argument is reasonable. You could just as well say "If they can put me away for 10 years for armed robbery, what prevents them from changing the law to 10 years in prison for not putting a dime in the parking meter?". What prevents totally unreasonable laws is that we live in a democracy with 3 branches of government and frequent elections. It's not perfect, but it's the best system we've developed in human history.

I don't believe taking away firearms rights from convicted felons is an abuse of government power, especially when there's a remedy for restoring them through due process. Taken to its extreme, your argument would prevent felons from being imprisoned because "what if they imprisoned me?".

 

[willy]

Willy:

(1)-I don't think your argument is reasonable. You could just as well say "If they can put me away for 10 years for armed robbery, what prevents them from changing the law to 10 years in prison for not putting a dime in the parking meter?".

(2)- What prevents totally unreasonable laws is that we live in a democracy with 3 branches of government and frequent elections. It's not perfect, but it's the best system we've developed in human history.

(3)-I don't believe taking away firearms rights from convicted felons is an abuse of government power, especially when there's a remedy for restoring them through due process.

(4)Taken to its extreme, your argument would prevent felons from being imprisoned because "what if they imprisoned me?".

Ok here goes--

(1)-You will lose your gun rights if you are charged with domestic violence for beating your wife with a baseball bat.
I have a friend who lost his gun rights because of a domestic violence charge.(He gave his wife the finger while she was screaming at him in the parking lot of a bar.-The cops said he made a threatening gesture by flipping her the finger!)
Sound unreasonable? It's true.

(2)We don't live in a democracy.
A democracy is where the majority rules ( mob rule)
We live in a Republic.
We have rights that can not be voted away or lost to even through-due process.

(3) Once out of prison they are free.
Free to attend and worship anywhere they want.
Free to speak their mind to anyone.
They are as free as you or I.
And you don't think it's an abuse of government power to take the rights from a free man?
How would you like it if you said anything obama didn't approve of and was taken to court over it.
Then lost your right to free speech through -due process?
Would you be ok with that?


(4)There's nothing in my argument that would prevent sending criminals to jail for fear that (that would give them the right to imprison me too )
Felons are sent to prison for breaking the law.
And if I would break the law, then I to would be rightfuly jailed.

 

[The Rabbi]

(3) Once out of prison they are free.
Free to attend and worship anywhere they want.
Free to speak their mind to anyone.
They are as free as you or I.
And you don't think it's an abuse of government power to take the rights from a free man?
How would you like it if you said anything obama didn't approve of and was taken to court over it.
Then lost your right to free speech through -due process?
Would you be ok with that?

This is simply untrue. Jail does not wash away all sins, nor is it the end of punishment. White color felons are routinely barred for life from working in whatever field they worked in. Child abusers are routinely barred from working with children.
Your example is absurd. There has never been such a case, nor will there in the foreseeable future.

 

[wbraswell]

Bingo! We have a winner. M&P777, you get it. In the discussion about the rights of people who have lost the right to vote and keep guns, I think too many times the individual is not considered. A man could be brought up in a bad situation, and by the time he really comes of age, say around 25, he could have quite a criminal record and have served some time in prison. If this man begins a proper and legal life, and is a provider for his family, he should be able to protect his family just like anybody else. He could be a victim just like any one of us. He shouldn't have to break the law to take care of his family. He should also be allowed to cast a ballot for the leaders of his community and country just like anyone else. I just don't get the idea of taking away the vote.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bingo! We have a winner. M&P777, you get it. In the discussion about the rights of people who have lost the right to vote and keep guns, I think too many times the individual is not considered. A man could be brought up in a bad situation, and by the time he really comes of age, say around 25, he could have quite a criminal record and have served some time in prison. If this man begins a proper and legal life, and is a provider for his family, he should be able to protect his family just like anybody else. He could be a victim just like any one of us. He shouldn't have to break the law to take care of his family. He should also be allowed to cast a ballot for the leaders of his community and country just like anyone else. I just don't get the idea of taking away the vote.

I never thought I'd see the argument of "he isn't bad, he just had a bad childhood" used on a gun forum.
Anyway, if he's really reformed himself he can apply to have his rights restored. That's what that mechanism is there for.
As for protecting his family, he can still do that. Blackpowder guns, knives, baseball bats--all work OK.

 

[willy]

As for protecting his family, he can still do that. Blackpowder guns, knives, baseball bats--all work OK.

Good point.
Infact I think they work so well that everyone except the military and law enforcement should be banned from any guns that fire fixed ammunition.
There is no reason or need for any gun other than blackpowder weapons in the hands of any LAW ABIDING subject.

Why are sheeple so scared of other people with guns?
Do you all really think outlawing guns from felons will stop them from committing a crime because they can't legally have a gun?

 

[willy]

[]

This is simply untrue. Jail does not wash away all sins, nor is it the end of punishment. White color felons are routinely barred for life from working in whatever field they worked in. Child abusers are routinely barred from working with children.
Your example is absurd. There has never been such a case, nor will there in the foreseeable future.

Why does it have to just be felons who color is white?

Just kidding!

Those who's punishment follows them when they leave prison are being wronged.
If they can't be trusted on the street with their freedom then they should have been kept in prison.
BTW-I'm talking about inalienable rights.

 

[The Rabbi]

Good point.
Infact I think they work so well that everyone except the military and law enforcement should be banned from any guns that fire fixed ammunition.
There is no reason or need for any gun other than blackpowder weapons in the hands of any LAW ABIDING subject.

Why are sheeple so scared of other people with guns?
Do you all really think outlawing guns from felons will stop them from committing a crime because they can't legally have a gun?

I'm glad you think that. Please send your cartridge firing guns to me for safe keeping.

 

[willy]

I'm glad you think that. Please send your cartridge firing guns to me for safe keeping.

Ok, but first you have to prove that you never broke any laws(speeding and parking tickets are good reason to ban your guns)
Also you will have to prove that you are not on the Government watch list.
OOPS!
Being on this site more than likely has put you on the list already!
----SORRY NO GUNS FOR YOU----

 

[G-Mac]

White color felons are routinely barred for life from working in whatever field they worked in.

Do you mean "white collar" felons? Or did you mean white color as opposed to black color felons?

 

[The Rabbi]

White collar. Temporary brain shutdown. I blame the economy for it.

 

[G-Mac]

White collar. Temporary brain shutdown. I blame the economy for it.

At least you're not blaming Bush.

 

[The Rabbi]

At least you're not blaming Bush.

If I were a liberal I'd blame Bush.
Besides, blaming Bush is so last year.

 

[wbraswell]

Quote: I never thought I'd see the argument of "he isn't bad, he just had a bad childhood" used on a gun forum.

That's not the argument. The argument is that a foolish, even vile, young person can mature and become a good citizen with high morals and values. He may become a pillar of his community. A community that may still be blighted with crime and vice, where a person could really need a firearm.