PDA

View Full Version : The right to keep and bear arms???


honduh_head
04-11-2007, 03:40 PM
Discuss:

Here's something that has been bothering me for a long time.

The Bill of Rights enumerates those rights that are inherent to us by virtue of being human. It does not "give" or "grant" us any rights, it merely lists those that our government most certainly may not infringe upon.

Now, why is it that gun owners largely support the denial of the right to keep and bear arms to felons?

Bring the point up on any online gun forum, and the assembly will tell you, by a margin of ten to one, that felons ought to lose the right to own a gun for life, yessiree, and if you don't want to lose that right, you have the option not to commit any felonies.

There are two major problems with that line of reasoning.

First, it plays right into the hands of those who would love to see the Second Amendment gone, and with it all ownership of private arms. It's exactly the argument they use: the Second Amendment is somehow more dangerous than the other ones, and the exercise of that particular right, out of all the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, can and should be infringed upon by the government.

Once a felon has served his time, we don't deny him the right to free speech, or the right to exercise the religion of his choice. He doesn't lose the right to jury trial, nor the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. So why on earth should he lose the right to defend himself? Have the gun banners been right all along? Is the Second Amendment really a privilege, not a right? And if that's the case, what's to keep the Nine Bench-Wraiths from turning the rest of the Bill of Rights into privileges as well?

I fear that the majority of gun owners actively assists in the negation of the Bill of Rights when they use the arguments of their opponents just because it is emotionally convenient. I mean, who would want to live next to a convicted felon with a gun, right?

The problem, of course, is that no laws keep anyone from having a gun if they really want one. (Isn't that what we've been arguing when we complained about the onerous "assault weapons ban", and when we rail against state legislatures who deny their citizens the right to carry a gun in public?) Moreover, one man's gun is as much offense to some as another man's religion is to others, and if you make one part of the Bill of Rights a conditional "privilege", then the parchment is rendered worthless in its entirety.

The second major problem with the "no guns for felons" approach is that the definition of "felony" has been expanded to the point of ludicrousness. These days, nobody can live their lives anymore without committing several felonies a week, mostly without even knowing it. In some states, having the wrong piece of metal at the muzzle of your rifle is a felony. Taking a whiz by the side of the road can get you a felony sex offender conviction. The people in charge, conservatives and liberals alike, are fully aware of the fact that the only true power of the state is to crack down on lawbreakers, and they are sticking the label of "felony" on as many acts as possible.

If you support the abrogation of a released felon's right to keep and bear arms, the anti-gun movement doesn't need to have a President Hillary signing any sort of draconian universal gun ban like they have in the UK. The Second Amendment will simply die a quiet death while the folks in charge steadily expand the definition of "felon". Sooner or later, we'll be a nation of felons--disarmed by our own assent.

In fact, what keeps them from limiting the disqualifying factor to felony convictions? Why not make it misdemeanors, too...and maybe even consider convictions retroactively? If SCOTUS lets the government determine one particular misdemeanor as a disqualifying offense, the legal precedent is already set, and there's absolutely nothing except the court of public opinion to keep them from making any misdemeanor a disqualifying offense. Oh, sure, they'll start with really unpopular and abhorrent behavior first, like domestic violence or DUI, but let the camel's nose into the tent, and you lose your right to complain when you end up sleeping outside in the sandstorm.

And once they've eviscerated the right to bear arms in that fashion, think about what other inconvenient part of the Bill of Rights can be negated using the same precedent. After all, if even gun owners agree that the right to arms is a.) the linchpin of the Bill of Rights, and b.) can be denied completely in case of felony or even misdemeanor conviction, how can they argue against others doing the same to the other, "lesser" rights?

The Bill of Rights is not a menu; you can't pick and choose according to your emotional whims. You have to treat all the Amendments the same. If one is inviolable and irrevocable, they all are. If one is a revocable privilege that can be denied to felons and misdemeanor offenders, the same holds true for the rest of them.

RHDDonnieee
04-11-2007, 03:42 PM
tooooo muchhhh tooooo readddd b---rad

eviilboy
04-11-2007, 03:46 PM
My point as a legal and law abiding citizen and potential gun owner.


I do believe that if you've been convicted of a felony involving a weapon.. be it, a hammer, knife, gun... You should no longer be allowed to carry a gun.

For reasons, you already have shown you're not responsible enough to carry a weapon.

There are a lot of high up people chipping away at the second amendment. Setting us up for a dictatorship that we won't be able to fight against.

Long ago.. they asked one of the top generals in the russian army why they'd never invade the United States. His response was... "We'd take too much small arms fire from civilians" -- which is fucking spot on. There are millions of registered guns in this country.. god only knows how many unregistered guns there are.

HEADSHOT
04-11-2007, 03:51 PM
just because you take my right away to bear arms... do you seriously think i can get my hands on a gun? when you commit a felony it is usually a fairly bad charge.(not always) the real question is. do you want to give someone a firearm, in which the firearms purpose is to kill people, to someone that has commited a bank robbery,carjacking,attepted murder,murder, or numerous other crimes where a gun may further facilitate in the crime? if a kid whacks someone with a bat. what do you do? you take the bat away from them( stupid example i know)

EvilSol
04-11-2007, 03:51 PM
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/128834/family_guy_right_to_bear_arms/ :wave:

HEADSHOT
04-11-2007, 03:56 PM
ok your post makes mine irrelavent. but the idea of the right to bear arms comes from a time where militia was common and doesnt apply to our current situation. there is much debate about this but since we are already giving people arms when according to our founding fathers they are not needed(again the interpretation is debatable) why let someon have one that has fucked up? i aggree there are some stips out there that seem rediculas to lose the right of gun ownership but when you think about its kinda rediculas that we have guns in the firstplace....according to the constituion.


im all for guns

eviilboy
04-11-2007, 04:02 PM
I can't find the penn and teller episode on gun control.

It brought up a lot of good points on gun control.

if you can find it.. you should watch it.

EvolEvo
04-11-2007, 04:07 PM
ok your post makes mine irrelavent. but the idea of the right to bear arms comes from a time where militia was common and doesnt apply to our current situation. there is much debate about this but since we are already giving people arms when according to our founding fathers they are not needed(again the interpretation is debatable) why let someon have one that has fucked up? i aggree there are some stips out there that seem rediculas to lose the right of gun ownership but when you think about its kinda rediculas that we have guns in the firstplace....according to the constituion.


im all for guns

Only law abiding citizens have "rights" the bottom line is some of those things really arent rights, as much as they are tolerances.

You have the "right" to bear arms....as long as you dont pose a threat to everyone around you. Your "right" to own a firearm, is overpowered by everyone elses right to live safely around you.
If your a convict, or a felon. Youve committed some crime against society, you have pretty much proven that you couldnt be trusted. That being said. If some idiot did something against the law, but didnt hurt anyone, and went to jail for 5 years when he/she was 20, and never, ever, ever committs another crime, not even a speeding ticket, and when he/she turns 40 if they wanted to purchase a firearm, I dont see why not.

eviilboy
04-11-2007, 04:07 PM
ok your post makes mine irrelavent. but the idea of the right to bear arms comes from a time where militia was common and doesnt apply to our current situation. there is much debate about this but since we are already giving people arms when according to our founding fathers they are not needed(again the interpretation is debatable) why let someon have one that has fucked up? i aggree there are some stips out there that seem rediculas to lose the right of gun ownership but when you think about its kinda rediculas that we have guns in the firstplace....according to the constituion.


im all for guns


The second amendment:


Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



There has been debate over the "militia" part.

Gun control freaks try and say that the second amendment is to allow militias to have weapons.

But the second portion of that statement EXPLICITLY calls for people to keep and bear arms. They didn't give us the right to bear arms to go hunting, or target shooting. Our forefathers put this in there, because they had just got done fighting a war for their rights against a government / king that specifically forbid them from owning weapons. They knew that some day the citizens of the united states might have to once again rise up against a dictator... or opressive government.

HEADSHOT
04-11-2007, 04:15 PM
The second amendment:




There has been debate over the "militia" part.

Gun control freaks try and say that the second amendment is to allow militias to have weapons.

But the second portion of that statement EXPLICITLY calls for people to keep and bear arms. They didn't give us the right to bear arms to go hunting, or target shooting. Our forefathers put this in there, because they had just got done fighting a war for their rights against a government / king that specifically forbid them from owning weapons. They knew that some day the citizens of the united states might have to once again rise up against a dictator... or opressive government.
right so they wanna control guns by taking it away from people that have commited crimes... even though they have paid for it from serving time. which is bs in some situations

JDMitation
04-11-2007, 04:16 PM
can we get some cliffs in this bitch?

auex
04-11-2007, 04:16 PM
but the idea of the right to bear arms comes from a time where militia was common and doesnt apply to our current situation.

Yup. There is more too it but I just can't put it into words correctly.

HEADSHOT
04-11-2007, 04:19 PM
Yup. There is more too it but I just can't put it into words correctly.

thats what politics are arguing... not me. i think it clearly says

" when yer old enuff you gets a gun yo"

crzy_one
04-11-2007, 04:21 PM
http://www.arizonashooting.com

Felons have the ability to get their rights restored, but it all depends on what they did...

eviilboy
04-11-2007, 04:22 PM
right so they wanna control guns by taking it away from people that have commited crimes... even though they have paid for it from serving time. which is bs in some situations



Yeah it's a slippery slope.

Gun control has proven to be majorly ineffective.

Take a look at columbine, and the other infamous shootings.

They occurred in "gun free zones"... where guns were prohibited...

How'd the gun laws help them?

Also.. look at Washington's death rate / murder rate... they are the most stringent gun control state in the US.. and they have the worst gun related crime.

Gun control work? Nope.

As penn and teller put it.. give all women guns... say even half of them don't want one.. and they give it to another... 50% of the women of the world won't be armed... but.. do you think your common rapist is going to want to chance a 1 in 2 encounter with a woman who might be armed? Do you think if the teachers would have been armed in the columbine shootings.. the incident would have claimed so many lives?

The fact of the matter is.. if you outlaw guns, only outlaws and criminals will have them. And since they don't give a shit about the law.. they don't give a shit what kinda gun laws you create.

auex
04-11-2007, 04:25 PM
It was meant to prevent the government from disarming citizens thus preventing them from protecting the country in the event of invasion or even overturning a corrupt government. The amendment has little to nothing to do with personal defense.

With that being said I have owned at least 1 weapon since I turned 18.

This is going to be heated little thread.

HEADSHOT
04-11-2007, 04:26 PM
here is an fact that speaks for its self


states with an open carry law (such as az) have 18 percent less occurances of "violent crimes". based on a annual number

auex
04-11-2007, 04:27 PM
thats what politics are arguing... not me. i think it clearly says

" when yer old enuff you gets a gun yo"

Also technicaly they are arguing on your behalf. They are elected by the people and techniaclly supposed to serve the people.

HEADSHOT
04-11-2007, 04:28 PM
Also technicaly they are arguing on your behalf. They are elected by the people and techniaclly supposed to serve the people.

tell them bitches to wash my car!!

imm0rtal
04-11-2007, 06:37 PM
My point as a legal and law abiding citizen and potential gun owner.


I do believe that if you've been convicted of a felony involving a weapon.. be it, a hammer, knife, gun... You should no longer be allowed to carry a gun.

For reasons, you already have shown you're not responsible enough to carry a weapon.

There are a lot of high up people chipping away at the second amendment. Setting us up for a dictatorship that we won't be able to fight against.

Long ago.. they asked one of the top generals in the russian army why they'd never invade the United States. His response was... "We'd take too much small arms fire from civilians" -- which is fucking spot on. There are millions of registered guns in this country.. god only knows how many unregistered guns there are.So for being convicted of vandalism when I was 13 I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun later on in life for self-defense purposes? Sounds like a bit of a stretch to me.

I agree with the OP. The Bill of Rights is not an all-you-can-eat buffet and you can't pick and choose which Rights apply. They are all granted equally to citizens of this country.

Besides, some wording in the Second Ammendment is vague, and could be interpreted to say that a citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for militia purposes or for sustenance purposes only. So to say every American should be allowed to keep a shotty under the bed and a 9 on their hip is also a bit of a stretch.

eviilboy
04-11-2007, 06:59 PM
So for being convicted of vandalism when I was 13 I shouldn't be allowed to own a gun later on in life for self-defense purposes? Sounds like a bit of a stretch to me.

I agree with the OP. The Bill of Rights is not an all-you-can-eat buffet and you can't pick and choose which Rights apply. They are all granted equally to citizens of this country.

Besides, some wording in the Second Ammendment is vague, and could be interpreted to say that a citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for militia purposes or for sustenance purposes only. So to say every American should be allowed to keep a shotty under the bed and a 9 on their hip is also a bit of a stretch.


Did you read my other posts?

I don't believe that felons that were convicted of violent crimes involving a weapon of any sort should be allowed to own a firearm. Does that make any difference anyway... not really.. because a criminal isn't going to obey they law anyway.

As far as your interpretation of the second amendment.. they were stating that every state should have a militia.

Then in another statement saying that every person should be entitled to bear arms.

imm0rtal
04-11-2007, 07:19 PM
Did you read my other posts?

I don't believe that felons that were convicted of violent crimes involving a weapon of any sort should be allowed to own a firearm. Does that make any difference anyway... not really.. because a criminal isn't going to obey they law anyway.

As far as your interpretation of the second amendment.. they were stating that every state should have a militia.

Then in another statement saying that every person should be entitled to bear arms.Just saying that technically I'm a criminal having been convicted of a crime. If anything your wording made it seem like you were referring to a much more broad spectrum of people.

auex
04-11-2007, 08:34 PM
My point as a legal and law abiding citizen and potential gun owner.
I do believe that if you've been convicted of a felony involving a weapon.. be it, a hammer, knife, gun... You should no longer be allowed to carry a gun.


Easy enough for me to understand.

eviilboy
04-11-2007, 08:35 PM
Just saying that technically I'm a criminal having been convicted of a crime. If anything your wording made it seem like you were referring to a much more broad spectrum of people.

If my wording confused you I'm sorry.

No, I don't believe that criminals convicted of crimes that were committed with weapons should have the right to bear arms.

But I also think that's a POPULATION decision, not some artsy wartsy faggot in the senate or congress decision.

Owens
04-12-2007, 02:49 AM
I used to say that guns were unnecessary and that no one in this day in age should bear arms, but I've already had to use one twice to protect myself in necessary situations, and several occasions where a situation may have been more of a problem if I didn't have proof of defense. Now, I keep a weapon (maybe not a gun) in arms length of me at ALL times.

I agree with eviilboys take on it. Once convicted of a crime with any type of weapon, you should no longer be allowed to own one.

Relix
04-12-2007, 03:18 AM
Just a little taste...


















http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b368/Relix357/guns4.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b368/Relix357/guns3.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b368/Relix357/guns2.jpg

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b368/Relix357/guns1.jpg





Back to the subject...

The entire problem i have with the second amendment is, that the right to keep and bare arms was to prevent an unpopular government from taking advantage of the people... The problem with that is, I can't go out an buy a tank, even if i had the cash to do so.. I can't buy an M4 carbine even though I have the cash to buy one...

About gun laws... OMG I could go on and one for days about them... ENFORCE the ones already on the books before even considering passing new one..


Felons: Shouldn't be allowed to own firearms, just like they aren't allowed to vote..

DJ NeX
04-12-2007, 09:21 AM
http://www.discoverfun.com/freeinfo/cartoons/backgrounds/08armbearsDT800.jpg

funky_cornbread
04-14-2007, 04:30 PM
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y31/indianatwork/afuckyeah9ia.jpg

DrewDown
04-16-2007, 12:55 AM
Nice collection Relix, mines weak in comparison.
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/2821/gunshj9.jpg
Lookin to pick up one of these this week and also signing up for my concealed weapons class tomorrow.

http://nas4.atlanta.gbhinc.com/GB/070128000/70128210/pix4236966265.jpg

MSRP $1,069.95 :p I love guns though.

False is the idea of utility… that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it… The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity… will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty … and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. --Cesare Beccaria, father of modern criminology as qouted by Thomas Jefferson.