Wildalaska
member
Time I guess to see where people stand
The Constitutionlity of Gun Control
- Thread starter Wildalaska
- Start date
- Status
Cosmoline
Member
It's my understanding that the prohibition on felon ownership of firearms predates the Constitution and those laws were never elminated because of the Second Amendment. The problem is we have a lot more felony crimes now than we did then. A felony, properly understood, is a crime serious enough to carry the death penalty.
Thumper
Member
I believe that Fed. 29 is pretty darn clear...plus that needling "shall not be infringed."
The whole 'reasonable restriction" thing is a can of worms.
Would it be safer to the ninnies to absolutely restrict the sale and ownership of arms? Maybe...but a certain Franklin quote comes to mind.
I believe that a certain dangers are part of the natural state of a free society.
The whole 'reasonable restriction" thing is a can of worms.
Would it be safer to the ninnies to absolutely restrict the sale and ownership of arms? Maybe...but a certain Franklin quote comes to mind.
I believe that a certain dangers are part of the natural state of a free society.
Wildalaska
member
Why not?
WildcuriousAlaska
Wildalaska
member
Is it really necessary to call your fellow citizens who happen not to agree with you "ninnies"
I expect that out of the far left, and am always saddened to see it here
WildguessimaproudninnieAlaska
Cool Hand Luke 22:36
member
I chose option number 2. My opinion is that restricting firearms ownership during probation for violent felons is constitutional but not afterwards.
Non-violent felons should have no restrictions placed on their firearms ownership. That's a restriction on the 2nd amendment that shouldn't pass judicial review at the Supreme Court under a strict scrutiny standard.
Non-violent felons should have no restrictions placed on their firearms ownership. That's a restriction on the 2nd amendment that shouldn't pass judicial review at the Supreme Court under a strict scrutiny standard.
spacemanspiff
Senior Member
if its "criminal" for a felon or mentally illl person to possess a firearm, it should also be "criminal" for them to possess an automobile, even a pair of scissors.
then again, if a person is convicted of a violent crime, such as rape/murder/assault, i dont think they should ever walk the streets or breathe oxygen anymore.
then again, if a person is convicted of a violent crime, such as rape/murder/assault, i dont think they should ever walk the streets or breathe oxygen anymore.
Langenator
Member
I voted on the 'criminals and mentally ill prohibition only' line, but I'm a bit wobbly on the concealed carry. When the Constitution was written, it was considered that only a criminal or dishonorable man would carry a concealed weapon, and then for criminal/dishonorable purposes. Today, walking around with a gun on your hip in plain view is likely to cause a minor panic, so carrying it concealed, for self protection, seems a much better choice.
MicroBalrog
member
Here goes.
Thumper
Member
It would be WAY to easy for someone to get their hands on a .50 BMG.
It would be WAY to easy for someone to get their hands on a sniper rifle.
It would be WAY to easy for someone to get their hands on a large capacity magazine.
It would be WAY to easy for someone to get their hands on hollow point ammo.
It would be WAY to easy for someone to get their hands on a gun.
Sounds pretty familiar to me.
ReadyontheRight
Member
Maybe someone more lawyer-ific than I can answer this, but doesn't the phrase "the people" eliminate some of the folks like criminals mentioned in the poll?
If not, I'd say that an infringement is an infringement. EIther way, I voted for the top line.
If not, I'd say that an infringement is an infringement. EIther way, I voted for the top line.
rock jock
Member
I can defend Option 3. Anything past that is iffy.
No surprise but I opted for the first one. I think the language is plain enough that it shouldn't be misunderstood.
BTW, to my knowledge felons weren't denied arms after their release until the 20th century (at least in this country) In fact Colorado was embarrassed as hell a few years back cause someone found a law on its books that required the state to provide a horse & a pistol upon his release to any convict who spent x amount of months or longer in jail.
& machine guns are easy to get now. Remember, laws only restrain people who would follow the law. They generally don't restrain people with harmful intent, otherwise a law banning possession of any arm would be made useless by the laws against murder, rape, robbery, etc... If a small percentage of people won't obey laws against harmful use, then what good does a law against mere possession do?
In any event the 2nd is pretty clear that no law interfering with a person's Right to own & possess & carry Arms is tolerable.
BTW, to my knowledge felons weren't denied arms after their release until the 20th century (at least in this country) In fact Colorado was embarrassed as hell a few years back cause someone found a law on its books that required the state to provide a horse & a pistol upon his release to any convict who spent x amount of months or longer in jail.
& machine guns are easy to get now. Remember, laws only restrain people who would follow the law. They generally don't restrain people with harmful intent, otherwise a law banning possession of any arm would be made useless by the laws against murder, rape, robbery, etc... If a small percentage of people won't obey laws against harmful use, then what good does a law against mere possession do?
In any event the 2nd is pretty clear that no law interfering with a person's Right to own & possess & carry Arms is tolerable.
NorthernExtreme
Member
It's funny how some people who "support" the 2nd Amendment somehow accept of give the same argument for " a felon or mentally ill person" that the Anti's use for the rest of us. "It's OK for some but not all."
With the Antis: some people (Police and Military) can/should have guns.
With the Pros: some people (every body but a felon or mentally ill person) can/should have guns.
I guess we're not all that different after all.
I would have liked to seen a choice more like [restrict only those who have proven they are a threat to society in a violent way, all others are protected.] I think it would have been the clear winner.
My $.02 worth!
With the Antis: some people (Police and Military) can/should have guns.
With the Pros: some people (every body but a felon or mentally ill person) can/should have guns.
I guess we're not all that different after all.
I would have liked to seen a choice more like [restrict only those who have proven they are a threat to society in a violent way, all others are protected.] I think it would have been the clear winner.
My $.02 worth!
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
It is an absolute right. 
biere
Member
I like the first one since it treats all fairly.
nualle
Member
Another vote for option one here. Not all felonies have to do with violence. Not all of the mentally ill are violent. Treat people according to their acts, not some category someone decides they fit in.
So????????
If someone wants to commit evil with a firearm they can do it whether the firearm is fully automatic or not. It'd just take longer with a semi or bolt action. On the other hand a guy with a scoped rifle capable of taking out targets at 600 to 1000 yards can do way more damage over the long run than a guy with a MG who's probably gonna get caught right away.
So I say
Let's not allow people to have them - oh wait - there's millions of 'em out there now in the hands of all those evil hunters and target shooters
. OH NO! Anarchy! The snipers are coming the snipers are coming - everyone run and HIDE! 
ctdonath
Member
What part of "shall not be infringed" do 30+% of the voters here have a problem understanding?
grampster
Member
#1
Being that self preservation is the #1 job of the aware human critter in any shape or form, freedom to keep and bear arms actually should be a non issue, period.
Goblins are less likely to do crimes if their self preservation is threatened. Crazy people are crazy....armed or unarmed. Most are harmless except to themselves. Law abiding people are no threat to anybody except a stupid goblin or a crazy man intent on harming others. (disclaimer: The use of crazy here is not intended to insult any of youens that are.....merely making conversation politically incorrectly,but with clarity.)
I'm with Mr. Franklin regarding the safety vis a vis freedom issue.
Grampster
Being that self preservation is the #1 job of the aware human critter in any shape or form, freedom to keep and bear arms actually should be a non issue, period.
Goblins are less likely to do crimes if their self preservation is threatened. Crazy people are crazy....armed or unarmed. Most are harmless except to themselves. Law abiding people are no threat to anybody except a stupid goblin or a crazy man intent on harming others. (disclaimer: The use of crazy here is not intended to insult any of youens that are.....merely making conversation politically incorrectly,but with clarity.)
I'm with Mr. Franklin regarding the safety vis a vis freedom issue.
Grampster
Werent felons prohibited from any further ownership, except after getting "relief from disability", by the GCA '68?
I picked the first one, also I agree Spacemanspiff and nualle. If a felon gets their right to vote back after they get off paper, they should also get their RKBA back at the same time. If they are still a threat to others, keep them behind bars. And just because someone has a felony doesnt mean anything. I've known guys that got popped for something really stupid when they were 18, 19 years old, and for the next 40 years, they MAYBE get a speeding ticket. They go to work, pay their taxes, and are good, productive members of society. And yet, they are still considered second class citizens, because of something that happened many years ago.
Maybe a good solution would be to have, say, a five year period after the felon gets off paper, and if they dont get any more charges aside from traffic stops, then they get their 2nd Amendment right back.
If its any consolation to the 30% of you, I also believe that the 1st Amendment means "Congress shall make no law....", exactly as it says. If you say something that is likely to provoke someone to beat your @$$, then you better be prepared to take your lumps.
I also dont believe that a broken tail light and being in the wrong neighborhood constitutes a 'reasonable' search of your vehicle.
I picked the first one, also I agree Spacemanspiff and nualle. If a felon gets their right to vote back after they get off paper, they should also get their RKBA back at the same time. If they are still a threat to others, keep them behind bars. And just because someone has a felony doesnt mean anything. I've known guys that got popped for something really stupid when they were 18, 19 years old, and for the next 40 years, they MAYBE get a speeding ticket. They go to work, pay their taxes, and are good, productive members of society. And yet, they are still considered second class citizens, because of something that happened many years ago.
Maybe a good solution would be to have, say, a five year period after the felon gets off paper, and if they dont get any more charges aside from traffic stops, then they get their 2nd Amendment right back.
If its any consolation to the 30% of you, I also believe that the 1st Amendment means "Congress shall make no law....", exactly as it says. If you say something that is likely to provoke someone to beat your @$$, then you better be prepared to take your lumps.
I also dont believe that a broken tail light and being in the wrong neighborhood constitutes a 'reasonable' search of your vehicle.
- Status