Firearms Talk banner
61 - 80 of 125 Posts
Agreed. People can debate special situations or reasons why any certain felon should enjoy the rights of law abiding citizens and it won't change my mind either. Commit a felony, get convicted of said felony, lose many rights that citizens who obey the law enjoy.
Absolutely.

But felons do go through a process to become "free". If they serve their time and satisfactorily complete their probation, they are "free men". Should that title not ensure that they enjoy the rights extended to all "free men"? If they are not worthy of that title, then why are they "free"?
 
How many believe this is a violation of the second amendment as read by the constitution. I think it is a total violation of the 2nd,but I believe some should not own weapons.
Amendment II

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 is no question that it is. It doesn't say "the goody two shoes" or "the law abiding citizen" or even "the mental healthy" it says "the people."

Ever wonder why so many young boys are diagnosed with ADD - ADHD? Our founding fathers would be ashamed of every single one of us.
 
Absolutely.

But felons do go through a process to become "free". If they serve their time and satisfactorily complete their probation, they are "free men". Should that title not ensure that they enjoy the rights extended to all "free men"? If they are not worthy of that title, then why are they "free"?
Personally I think it should depend on the crime committed. If you robbed someone at gun point or used a gun in your crime or if it was a violent crime, then you should lose the right for life. But if your crime was insurance fraud or electronic bank theft or something, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to own a gun after you have served your sentence/probation. In fact if it was electronic bank theft or online fraud of some sort, I'm ok with not allowing them to own a computer or use one for non-official reasons.

Saying that no felons should ever be able to own a gun again is a 0 tolerance policy. There are always exceptions or there should be.
 
Discussion starter · #64 ·
There is no question that it is. It doesn't say "the goody two shoes" or "the law abiding citizen" or even "the mental healthy" it says "the people."

Ever wonder why so many young boys are diagnosed with ADD - ADHD? Our founding fathers would be ashamed of every single one of us.
I Would beg to differ,Wouldn't "the people" mean the very society that the constitution was writen to defend?
The constitution provides for the institution of laws and the enforcment thereof.
Most laws are writen to protect "the people" from those who don't play by the rules (hence the criminal justice system)and punishment for those who don"t.One of those punishments is Felony=no gun.
If you don't like it the good news is the constitution gives you the right to challenge the laws you think are unfair and try to change them.
While I think the 3 lic. suspensions = felony in Fla. is a bit harsh the law is the law.
 
Absolutely.

But felons do go through a process to become "free". If they serve their time and satisfactorily complete their probation, they are "free men". Should that title not ensure that they enjoy the rights extended to all "free men"? If they are not worthy of that title, then why are they "free"?
Let's see, a person know when commiting a felony what the possible outcome is. Prison time and loss of certain rights, but they commit that felony anyway. Nope, they should lose those rights for life.

They can try to have their rights restored through legal process once thier pennance is served. It is then up to the legal system if those rights will be restored or not. They should not be reinstated because of time served and released. How many felons are repeat offenders? More move on to commit other crimes than those who don't.
 
I'll take over Robo's job on this one:

If you want to own guns then you don't commit felonies. If you want to commit felonies then you don't own guns. Your choice. 'Nuff said.
 
There is no question that it is. It doesn't say "the goody two shoes" or "the law abiding citizen" or even "the mental healthy" it says "the people."

Ever wonder why so many young boys are diagnosed with ADD - ADHD? Our founding fathers would be ashamed of every single one of us.

That's right kid the 2nd amendment doesn’t say "the goody two shoes" or "law abiding citizen" BUT at the time the 2nd amendment was written people who committed the crimes we have met a vast different penalty then prison.. Most met the end of a short rope after a long fall or were found guilty at the time of the crime and died of lead poisoning. The basics of the 2nd amendment are more valid today then 200 years ago but morons are more numerous now then then. Just goes to show what happens when you remove nature’s checks and balances and screw with natural selection. You know some animal mothers eat their children..... And that's not necessarily a bad thing. :D
 
Personally I think it should depend on the crime committed. If you robbed someone at gun point or used a gun in your crime or if it was a violent crime, then you should lose the right for life. But if your crime was insurance fraud or electronic bank theft or something, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to own a gun after you have served your sentence/probation. In fact if it was electronic bank theft or online fraud of some sort, I'm ok with not allowing them to own a computer or use one for non-official reasons.

Saying that no felons should ever be able to own a gun again is a 0 tolerance policy. There are always exceptions or there should be.
While i basically agree with the first part of your statement here & whole-freakin heartedly agree with the statement on zero tolerance policies, a question does come to mind: what about a youngster who tortures and kills an animal in a manner the courts hold to be a felony crime? We have heard time & time again that children who abuse animals are very likely to go on to mistreat people in serious manner, a potential outcome that could be made more unpleasant by the abuser having access to a firearm.

It would be difficult to do the picking and choosing the felony crimes that warrant a permanent removal of that individual criminal's second amendment rights. Who would do that--a President, a "Czar", a governor, or congress? I wonder, would congress be more likely to come down hard on crimes that garner voter support like the recently increased penalties for DUI/DWI offenses; i think they probably would. Much has been made of the DUI charge against former President Bush; had that happened today, would it have been more than a $150 fine and a suspended driver's license, probably so. I doubt it would've been a felony, but it would have certainly been treated more harshly due to laws enacted in my lifetime to appease voter groups upset about a crime they consider particularly heinous (MADD etal). The fickle nature of the desires of the voting public might cause a criminal convicted of a first-offense DUI to be denied their right to KBA during the reign of one administration or majority in the legislature but be considered only a minor traffic offender by a later administration.

I think a judicial review of a felon's progress toward rehabilitation would be a more fair & even-handed answer.

In the end there is a conflict here between different theories on crime & punishment. One theory is that the punishment should reform or rehabilitate the criminal, like when a young Bush was fined & temporarily denied his driving priveledges to teach him that he had exercised poor judgement and to help him exercise better judgement in his future (looks like it worked in that case, haven't heard of any other DUI's) or state-ordered chemical rehabilitation. An alternative theory doesn't really consider punishment for the sake of rehabilitation, and instead considers punishments to be more the end rather than the means using punishments that protect or isolate society from a dangerous criminal by executing that criminal, confining that criminal permanently, or denying that criminal the ability, at least in theory, to reoffend by eliminating their access to things that could allow them to reoffend like driving priveledges, access to firearms, maybe the ability to buy alcohol one day (bet MADD would loooove that). Those who support a permanent and irreversable denial of constitutional rights to convicted criminals would seem to me to be following the second theory that doesn't consider rehabilitation of the criminal so much.
 
If you don't like it the good news is the constitution gives you the right to challenge the laws you think are unfair and try to change them.
While I think the 3 lic. suspensions = felony in Fla. is a bit harsh the law is the law.
Yes it does, you don't like the 2nd Amendment,the only way to get rid of it is outlined in...

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


Additional laws do not trump the constitution only Amendments do.

If you don't like it the good news is
It isn't a question of whether I like it or not. It is a question if I am correct in answering the question.
How many believe this is a violation of the second amendment as read by the constitution.
Absolutely!
 
I think a judicial review of a felon's progress toward rehabilitation would be a more fair & even-handed answer.
I can live with that as a solution. I guess really all I would like to see is have it as a process that happens automatically or is not to difficult for the person to initiate. Currently you have to spend lots of money on a lawyer to even have a chance and that chance is small unless you are someone famous or with political power.
 
I can understand what you are saying. But the way I see it, they broke the law and violated someone's rights. There is no reason that we should make it easier for them to get their rights back.
 
Discussion starter · #72 ·
Whats your point? So you believe it's infringement but thats all it is ,your belief.

A federal law Banning Felons from gun ownership went through all the hoops debates and was passed.
As for the constitutionallity of said law it is clear the ban is legal,Just read the opening line of the amendment
A well REGULATED militia.
What is your understanding of the word regulated?I would belive it was put there to oversee and and maintain order in said Militia,and how do you think they would go about doing that? With rules and law LIKE THE ONE THAT KEEPS GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF FELONS while not infringing on the rights of those who play by the rules!
 
Whats your point? So you believe it's infringement but thats all it is ,your belief.

A federal law Banning Felons from gun ownership went through all the hoops debates and was passed.
As for the constitutionallity of said law it is clear the ban is legal,Just read the opening line of the amendment
A well REGULATED militia.
What is your understanding of the word regulated?I would belive it was put there to oversee and and maintain order in said Militia,and how do you think they would go about doing that? With rules and law LIKE THE ONE THAT KEEPS GUNS OUT OF THE HANDS OF FELONS while not infringing on the rights of those who play by the rules!

You really can't stand that my "belief" is rock solid.

"it is clear the ban is legal"
Um... I know many people that were forced to join the military for committing felonies or go to jail. "REGULATED militia" means they should be schooled in the legalities of war, have a command structure, in order to be accountable for their actions as a militia.

I've never been to a firearms site that was anti-2nd Amendment. I am truly amazed!. And to think I've been contributing to such a site. That is easily remedied.
 
You really can't stand that my "belief" is rock solid.

"it is clear the ban is legal"
Um... I know many people that were forced to join the military for committing felonies or go to jail. "REGULATED militia" means they should be schooled in the legalities of war, have a command structure, in order to be accountable for their actions as a militia.

I've never been to a firearms site that was anti-2nd Amendment. I am truly amazed!. And to think I've been contributing to such a site. That is easily remedied.

Your comment on "know" many people that were forced into the military for committing felonies or go to jail is Bull Pucky. No one has been forced into the military in lieu of jail time for over 30+ years and unless you have a court order to authenticate your statement I’m saying you’re blowing smoke up our butt. The military has not been a dumping ground for criminals and has had standards for probably longer than you have been alive.

As for your statements that this site is anti-2nd amendment well son you have your opinion and I have mine and my opinion is you don’t really know jack about what the 2nd amendment really means. You have this idea that if people don’t believe like you do then they are wrong, at least that’s the way you come across. So please do yourself and us a favor and take yourself somewhere else and everyone will be happy.
 
A well REGULATED militia.
Just hold on a second.

What is your understanding of the word regulated?I would belive it was put there to oversee and and maintain order in said Militia,
In-frigging-correct. Please learn a little something about the use of the English language at the time it was written. All regulated meant at the time, is they are properly trained and equipped.
 
You really can't stand that my "belief" is rock solid.

"it is clear the ban is legal"
Um... I know many people that were forced to join the military for committing felonies or go to jail. "REGULATED militia" means they should be schooled in the legalities of war, have a command structure, in order to be accountable for their actions as a militia.

I've never been to a firearms site that was anti-2nd Amendment. I am truly amazed!. And to think I've been contributing to such a site. That is easily remedied.
Freedom of speech is in the constitution, but you do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. There are limitations.
 
Your comment on "know" many people that were forced into the military for committing felonies or go to jail is Bull Pucky. No one has been forced into the military in lieu of jail time for over 30+ years and unless you have a court order to authenticate your statement I’m saying you’re blowing smoke up our butt. The military has not been a dumping ground for criminals and has had standards for probably longer than you have been alive.
That depends on your definition of "forced". I know an idiot personally who was caught pulling an armed robbery (of a Dollar General, :rolleyes: ), and his lawyer got him the option of joining the National Guard rather than going to the pokey for a few years. He joined the Guard, hung in a couple of years & then failed a few drug tests to get some kind of administrative discharge. It is my understanding that there are not many people who are offered the option of military service rather than jail time. This particular guy will end up in the pen at some point; he is an idiot with horrible luck.
 
Discussion starter · #78 ·
Just hold on a second.



In-frigging-correct. Please learn a little something about the use of the English language at the time it was written. All regulated meant at the time, is they are properly trained and equipped.
As taken from Johnsons Dictionary of the English Language. 1799
to REGULATE.
1.To adjust by rule or method.
2.To direct
Regulate seems to have meant the same back then as it does now.

As taken from "Citizens in arms:The Army and the Militia in American society to the War of 1812" by Lawrence Cress.
"Resolving "that a well-regulated Militia, composed of the gentlemen, freeholders, and other freemen, is the natural strength and only stable security of a free Government," the Maryland convention acted in December 1774 to reorganize its militia under a popularly elected officers corp. ...Six month later, in an effort to provide a source of manpower for the newly formed Continental army, Congress recommended that all states adopt the republican principles embodied in the Massachusetts militia structure. ...By early fall [1775] provincial assemblies in Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Hampshire, and North Carolina had taken steps to comply with the congressional recommendations. - Cress, pp. 48-49

So they let EVERYONE in,huh.Didn't exclude anybody,did they?
Mabye I'm just thinking a little too modern here but wouldn't listing those who were allowed (or were mandated,yes all FREE men were mandated) to serve mean that those who were not listed could't?I/E Regulating who can and cannot serve.


Not for nothing,I would have thought that one supporting member would have a little more respect toward another. To try and prove a point with cuss words the suggestion that I learn a little about the english language and its use "back then" sounds a little 7 post troll-ish.
 
This particular guy will end up in the pen at some point; he is an idiot with horrible luck.
It's not "luck", it's decisions. He sounds like someone with poor decision making skills. The military randomly drug tests, the solution is not to gamble that it will be out of your system before the next time your popped for a test, it's to avoid drugs until your out of the military.
 
As taken from Johnsons Dictionary of the English Language. 1799
to REGULATE.
1.To adjust by rule or method.
2.To direct
Regulate seems to have meant the same back then as it does now.
You left one out. Either it did not come up in your search, or if you are looking at a hard copy, it was removed from the dictionary in reprint.

3. To bring order, method, or uniformity to.
 
61 - 80 of 125 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top