Who should be denied the right to own guns?

[Kynoch]

I've always found it odd that dishonorable discharge permanently bars you from passing a background check.

My personal opinion on the "no fly" list is:

Violent crime convictions in which there are weapons or serious injuries involved.
An actual conviction related to domestic violence.
People with certain mental disorders making them potentially unsafe.
People here illegally (since we can't verify history).
People who abuse substances that alter your mind or make people dangerously paranoid.

DD = felony.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Mike by the Numbers: You are not comprehending my complete statement. Any President or lawmaker that defends the Second Amendment for the citizen would also have complete Second Amendment rights. That is the chief reason that reasoned discussions cannot take place on the internet. People do not comprehend a complete written statement, just the portion that catches their eye or the portion they want to debate. I am not throwing stones at you because I have done the same thing myself as it is a common human failure.

 

[buck460XVR]

Were guns a big problem in our country for its first almost 200 years? No? That suggests it was a politically manufactured problem in the 1960's.

I wonder then about the National Firearms Act of 1938. Or why Wyatt Earp banned firearms from the town of Tombstone in the 1880s. Guns have always been an issue in this country.....one reason we HAVE the 2nd Amendment.

The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been agrued at lenght since it's inception. Regardless of how anyone here interprets it, the only one that really counts, as long as this country continues to run under our current Constitution, like it or not, is the one made by the SC.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

I actually think that it's more important, rather than nitpicking about categories of prohibited persons, to have a clearly defined legal path to regaining those rights.

Violent misdemeanors? Somebody who got into a drunken shoving match at a bar 20 years ago and someone who habitually beats his wife and kids but knows enough to game the system so he's never charged at the felony level have both committed violent misdemeanors, but they're not at all the same thing.

Mental illness? Somebody with clinical depression or PTSD who seeks treatment and/or is compliant with medications is not the same as a violent paranoid schizophrenic.

Felons? If the crime wasn't violent or related to firearms, I don't see why their rights can't be restored.

I think I could support a system where deprivation of rights is a separate part of the sentencing process instead of a blanket punishment attached to all crimes of a certain category. I.e. a prosecutor can charge for misdemeanor assault, but there must be a separate hearing on whether it is necessary to suspend the offender's 2A rights.

Just as important would be a system whereby a person could reestablish his rights as a matter of routine- with the burden of proof on the offender, but with clearly established process and requirements not subject to local discretional abuse.

 

[Midwest]

Felons? If the crime wasn't violent or related to firearms, I don't see why their rights can't be restored.

I think I could support a system where deprivation of rights is a separate part of the sentencing process instead of a blanket punishment attached to all crimes of a certain category. I.e. a prosecutor can charge for misdemeanor assault, but there must be a separate hearing on whether it is necessary to suspend the offender's 2A rights.

Just as important would be a system whereby a person could reestablish his rights as a matter of routine- with the burden of proof on the offender, but with clearly established process and requirements not subject to local discretional abuse.

There WAS such a system in place. Since October 1992 that hasn't been the case.

http://www.atf.gov/content/how-can-person-apply-relief-federal-firearms-disabilities

"How can a person apply for relief from Federal firearms disabilities?

Under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), convicted felons and certain other persons are prohibited from possessing or receiving firearms. The GCA provides the Attorney General with the authority to grant relief from this disability where the Attorney General determines that the person is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety and granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest. The Attorney General delegated this authority to ATF.

Since October 1992, however, ATF’s annual appropriation has prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. As long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, the Bureau cannot act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals.

[18 U.S.C. 922(g), 922(n) and 925(c)]"

Now if that isn't a infringement, then I don't know what is. There is a law in place, but 'no money' for it's implementation. Somehow that needs to be challenged, why hasn't it been challenged since October 1992?
.

 

[NoVA Shooter]

Everyone else seems to have interpreted this as "ANY specific mental illness".
I interpreted this as: some mental illnesses are worse than others. The SPECIFIC mental illness that would disqualify might include: delusions, hallucinations, schizophrenia, psychotic breaks, etc.

This is a prime example of the danger in ‘common sense’ gun control.

You interpreted a vague restriction in a way that was benign and would only affect individuals that most would agree should not have a gun. However, you just agreed to a statement that could/will lead to many people unjustly denied their rights to a gun. Who controls the list of ‘specific mental illnesses’? How hard/easy is it to change that list? What if there’s a misdiagnosis? Be very careful in your rush to support regulations that, on the surface, sound like a good idea. Just ask Marissa Alexander about the ‘10-20-life’ law and how a ‘good’ idea turned into a nightmare.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...warning-shot-bill-revising-self-defense-laws/

“NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer and supporters said "10-20-life" wasn't intended to be used in self-defense cases.”

"This is an important bill because it stops the abuse of 10-20-life and keeps prosecutors from using it against people who use lawful self-defense," Hammer said. She added that "10-20-life is not about self-defense. Self-defense is a constitutional right. 10-20-life was passed to stop prosecutors and judges from slapping gun-wielding criminals on the wrist and giving them reduced sentences or probation.”

Like I said before, unintended consequences are the bane of good intentions.

 

[Bexar]

There WAS such a system in place. Since October 1992 that hasn't been the case.

http://www.atf.gov/content/how-can-person-apply-relief-federal-firearms-disabilities

"How can a person apply for relief from Federal firearms disabilities?

Under the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), convicted felons and certain other persons are prohibited from possessing or receiving firearms. The GCA provides the Attorney General with the authority to grant relief from this disability where the Attorney General determines that the person is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to the public safety and granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest. The Attorney General delegated this authority to ATF.

Since October 1992, however, ATF’s annual appropriation has prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. As long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, [B]the Bureau cannot act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals[/B].

[18 U.S.C. 922(g), 922(n) and 925(c)]"

Now if that isn't a infringement, then I don't know what is. There is a law in place, but 'no money' for it's implementation. Somehow that needs to be challenged, why hasn't it been challenged since October 1992?
.

I don't understand the different legal systems in play with Administrative...Agency...Judicial law but it would seem a "Prohibited person" could challenge the government and then if the government refused to respond then the PP would win. Just an armchair curiosity.

 

[Flechette]

I guess I am a "gun rights extremist" as I voted for "absolutely no one" should be denied the right to own a gun.

Here's why: Keeping and bearing an arm is a right, just like Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Religion. Would we think it is acceptable to censor someone or deny them the right to practice their religion if they committed a felony, was dishonorably discharged from the military or any other of the choices in the poll? I think (at least hope) not.

Remember, these rights are endowed to us by the Creator. They can NEVER be taken away by man. They can only be lawfully repressed according to the Constitution, by being found guilty by a jury of their peers through Due Process.

This is why you can have other rights lawfully repressed (not taken away) when in prison. But once you are released, the state can no longer lawfully repress one's fundamental rights. That's why they are called "fundamental rights".

To do so would create a caste society. There would be different levels of citizenship. Can you imagine a society where you would have to prove which caste you belonged to before you could attend church? How about the need to prove that you are a "citizen, Caste 6 or above" before you write a letter to the editor?

If you want to be "free" then you should be able to exercise any of the rights delineated in the Constitution (and according to the Ninth Amendment, possibly more than those listed). Period. Anything less and you are not a free person.

Does this mean that people that are potentially dangerous will be able to carry a gun? Yes. Welcome to reality.

 

[Midwest]

I don't understand the different legal systems in play with Administrative...Agency...Judicial law but it would seem a "Prohibited person" could challenge the government and then if the government refused to respond then the PP would win. Just an armchair curiosity.

That is a great question which I cannot answer. Maybe someone here can explain it?
There is a process to restore rights according to the 1968 GCA, yet there is no funding for it? Suppose the defendant has a lot a money and CAN pay for the funding for his/her case?
.

 

[JN01]

Remember, these rights are endowed to us by the Creator. They can NEVER be taken away by man. They can only be lawfully repressed according to the Constitution, by being found guilty by a jury of their peers through Due Process.

This is why you can have other rights lawfully repressed (not taken away) when in prison. But once you are released, the state can no longer lawfully repress one's fundamental rights. That's why they are called "fundamental rights".

The Constitution says you cannot be denied your rights without due process. It says nothing about that denial being restricted to periods of physical incarceration. I still contend that post release sanctions can be considered as part of the penalty. On the other hand there are also rights that may be infringed upon in only a minimal way (for legitimate security concerns) even while you are IN prison such as religion, right to petition, access to courts, etc.

To do so would create a caste society. There would be different levels of citizenship. Can you imagine a society where you would have to prove which caste you belonged to before you could attend church? How about the need to prove that you are a "citizen, Caste 6 or above" before you write a letter to the editor?

No, you are born into a caste. Criminals put themselves into their own situations due to their own ACTIONS.

If you want to be "free" then you should be able to exercise any of the rights delineated in the Constitution (and according to the Ninth Amendment, possibly more than those listed). Period. Anything less and you are not a free person.

Does this mean that people that are potentially dangerous will be able to carry a gun? Yes. Welcome to reality.

I don't care what a thug "wants". I don't WANT them to be a free person. But reality is, we can't/won't keep them locked up forever.

Reality is that inmates are released under parole with all kinds of restrictions on what they can do, where they can go, who they can associate with- because they are not trustworthy (and yet we release them anyway). Convicted pedophiles are prohibited from working around children even though it may deny them gainful employment or inconvenience them. So what?

If someone who has been convicted of murder, aggravated assault, aggravated rape, or robbery is walking around with a gun, most likely he is up to no good. Put them back in a cage where they belong. (Innocent until proven guilty you say? Well, they have proven what they are by virtue of their previous conviction)

If they can demonstrate that they truly have changed their ways, then there should be a mandatory, fully funded process in place to restore ALL their rights.

 

[Flechette]

Reality is that inmates are released under parole with all kinds of restrictions on what they can do, where they can go, who they can associate with- because they are not trustworthy (and yet we release them anyway). Convicted pedophiles are prohibited from working around children even though it may deny them gainful employment or inconvenience them. So what?

The "so what?" is that we then create a caste (or if you insist on using that term to be restricted to those who are born into such a system) a stratified system where we no longer have equal rights.

Using the pedophile example is classic as it is always brought up as rationale to restrict our rights as people tend to lose any sense of logic when it comes to the safety of their children. I suspect that the majority of Americans would agree to the repeal of the entire Constitution if it was sold to them as somehow making it safer for their children.

The truth of the matter is that your children (and all adults) cannot be made perfectly safe no matter what type of government we have. There are pedophiles that have never been caught that legally can go near children. There are people that have never committed any sort of crime that then commit their first crime. Are we going to restrict potential criminals?

That's how the government sees us, by the way. We are all potential criminals and therefore need to be disarmed.

 

[buck460XVR]

I guess I am a "gun rights extremist" as I voted for "absolutely no one" should be denied the right to own a gun.

Here's why: Keeping and bearing an arm is a right, just like Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Religion. Would we think it is acceptable to censor someone or deny them the right to practice their religion if they committed a felony,

The right to vote and the right to hold public office are also "rights" taken away because one does not follow the rules. Kinda the game we play as Americans. One has the right to free speech, but that does not give them the right to go to a Kindergarden class and use sexually explicit terms during storytime. One has the right to practice the religion of their choice, but it does not give them the right to murder children because their religion believes in child sacrifices. In both scenarios, the censoring happens even without a felony being committed previously.

This is why you can have other rights lawfully repressed (not taken away) when in prison. But once you are released, the state can no longer lawfully repress one's fundamental rights. That's why they are called "fundamental rights".

Fundemental Rights are legal protections given to us by our legal system. They are also rights that are the ideals of the majority of folks that live under our legal system and within our society. That is why some of them are only reconized in America. Since it is our legal sytem, our society and our constitution that gives us those rights, so can they take them away. Once the majority of folks here have a different set of ideals, things can and will change. Again, kinda they way ot works here. One cannot scream 2nd Amendment and then disregard the legal system that gives it to us. Rememeber, the same founding fathers that gave us the 2nd Amendment gave us the SC, the legislative system and the office of President.....and the way those folks receive that power. Pickin and choosing which ones are "Fundamental" to you and disregarding the wishes of the majority of other folks in America, ain't what our constitution is about. As you said, welcome to reality.

Allowing covicted violent felons to legally possess firearms is like freely and openly allowing folks that are continuously excessively drunk to drive. While no law in itself can stop either from doing what they are prohibited from doing, at least it gives the law a chance to stop them before they may hurt another innocent victim. It at least doesn't make it easy for them. Prohibiting drunks from driving does not stop you or I from driving or enjoying alchohol in moderation. Why do folks fear that prohibiting violent felons from legally possesing guns is gonna take theirs away too?


I don't like gun control any more that the next guy. But I'm a realist, and I also feel those folks that are habitual violent felons don't need a legal gun for any good reason, nor do I feel they are being repressed because they can't go to Wal-Mart and buy a gun.

 

[barnbwt]

"One has the right to free speech, but that does not give them the right to go to a Kindergarden class and use sexually explicit terms during storytime. One has the right to practice the religion of their choice, but it does not give them the right to murder children because their religion believes in child sacrifices."

In neither case would one be prosecuted for exercising their 1st amendment rights; they would be prosecuted for upsetting children (which is what our 'decency' laws are ostensibly for) and murder. No for speech, not for faith. This is like the old saw about yelling 'fire' in a theatre; the panic you induce maliciously is the crime; not the word.

"Since it is our legal sytem, our society and our constitution that gives us those rights, so can they take them away."
If you believe in nothing grander than human constructs, then yes. If you truly believe, for whatever reason, that certain rights are inalienable from a proper human existence (that is to say, they are intrinsic to a decent life, rather than merely conducive to an organized and efficient society), there is more backing your faith in those institutions than just everybody's agreement.

If not, then yes, the world is a Hobbesian hell-hole in which everyone's freedom ultimately stems from 'only what they can get away with' and the best course of action is to subvert and manipulate the current paradigm to your advantage.

"So what?"
Equal protection under the law is what. Well, it turns out that freedom and equality have certain ramifications that large chunks of our nation just can't deal with (and they secretly wish were organized by an easily-understood caste or patronage system) so they elected representatives to codify inequality into the law. Bing! No more legal contradiction

(one wonders what portion of black freemen are still disenfranchised, or indentured laborers...)

"Using the pedophile example is classic as it is always brought up as rationale to restrict our rights as people tend to lose any sense of logic when it comes to the safety of their children. I suspect that the majority of Americans would agree to the repeal of the entire Constitution if it was sold to them as somehow making it safer for their children."
Yup, pretty much every restriction we currently have was put in place at least in part "for the children"(gun control, federalized education, drug war(s), terrorism paranoia, environmental, labor regulations, food/drug, automotive, travel...the list goes on). That line about Fascism carrying a Bible and waving a flag missed 'and crying about the children'

"The Constitution says you cannot be denied your rights without due process. It says nothing about that denial being restricted to periods of physical incarceration. I still contend that post release sanctions can be considered as part of the penalty."
Absolutely true, they do have that authority. The authority to make felons of huge tracts of the population with repugnant laws, then deign to set us 'free' to live our lives as 'free men' without basic human rights or dignity.

"I don't care what a thug "wants". I don't WANT them to be a free person. But reality is, we can't/won't keep them locked up forever."
There is a third option, which goody-two-shoes always love to tip-toe around, pretending their alternative it doesn't have exactly the same outcome, but with enormous unintended consequences

"Innocent until proven guilty you say? Well, they have proven what they are by virtue of their previous conviction"
Double jeopardy. This nation's justice system is founded in Judeo-Christian forgiveness; otherwise we'd either have no need for prisons, or end up with nothing but. Also ___-cide of 'criminally-prone' groups.

"If they can demonstrate that they truly have changed their ways, then there should be a mandatory, fully funded process in place to restore ALL their rights. "
Should be. Isn't. Won't be. These people have no rights. Thus, they have no hold on their government to treat them justly (that responsibility is on us free men, should we bother to accept it). The only reason Holder's agitating for restoration of felons' voting rights is because there's no such thing without the others (Speak up? back in the clink, you dirty felon. Organize your fellows against us? Get back in your cage, you animal. Demand representation beyond what we pretend to grant you? You only have a voice because we granted you one, and it had better sing in tune)

TCB

 

[vaupet]

First, i didn't read through all the posts.

I must say i'm shocked that almost 60% would deny non US citizens the RTKBA.

This would mean A European executive, living, working and paying taxes in the US of A would be denied the possibility to defend his family and home, not to mention , a beautifull hobby.
If we turn this around, it would mean a US general, serving at Nato headquarters in Brussels, would'nt be able to become member of a shooting club.

Why?

 

[rdhood]

ou interpreted a vague restriction in a way that was benign and would only affect individuals that most would agree should not have a gun. However, you just agreed to a statement that could/will lead to many people unjustly denied their rights to a gun. Who controls the list of ‘specific mental illnesses’? How hard/easy is it to change that list? What if there’s a misdiagnosis? Be very careful in your rush to support regulations that, on the surface, sound like a good idea. Just ask Marissa Alexander about the ‘10-20-life’ law and how a ‘good’ idea turned into a nightmare.

First, I did not agree to anything or rush to support anything. This is not a law I am voting for. I don't play your little semantic internet games. I pointed out that the offending sentence had TWO meanings. And I gave the meaning that I supported. I said PLAINLY that if we can't figure out a way to get the Adam Lanzas from getting a gun, then there will always be trouble. Now instead of just poo-pooing all over what I said, why dont YOU explain how to get these people from getting a gun?

Yes, I believe that those with the specific mental illnesses, including hallucinations, schizophrenia, etc, should be excluded from gaining access to firearms. THAT is what I said. Do not try to put words in my mouth. ANYONE who doesn't agree with this is asking, sooner or later, for their guns to be confiscated.

You can argue "which mental illnesses" all day long, but it doesn't change a thing. That is nothing more than obfuscation of the real point: that there are mentally ill people out there that need to be relieved of and prevented in getting a firearm. Instead of crapping all over any suggestion of the sort, how about offering an intelligent thought-out response instead of a reflex?

 

[Sam1911]

I said PLAINLY that if we can't figure out a way to get the Adam Lanzas from getting a gun, then there will always be trouble. Now instead of just poo-pooing all over what I said, why dont YOU explain how to get these people from getting a gun?

We can't. We won't. The attempt will turn out to be a bazillion-dollar infringement of and intrusion on the rights and lives of hundreds of millions of perfectly innocent people just to -- NOT -- sweep up the statistically non-significant micro-number of dangerous potential mass-killers.

As I said in another thread:

Billions of people interacting in trillions of ways every day. And a microscopically small percentage of them -- so tiny a percentage that no statistical model would ever make note of it -- kill 5-25 people at once in some spectacular way.

It is very attention-grabbing and makes everyone who hears about it feel shocked and horrified. But a "solution" is a very tall order. Imagine standing on the edge of a corn field stretching to the horizon, and being told, "There are a couple hundred kernels on every ear of corn in this field, and ten of those kernels -- 10, between here and the horizon -- have a boring worm inside. Find them before they infect another kernel!

You can't write a program or pass a law that will hope to locate those hidden horrors, the needle-in-a-thousand-haystacks. And whatever law or program you DO institute to try is going to have to disrupt, infringe, intrude upon, and generally make life that much more unpleasant for ALL, in the absurdly hopeless quest to blindly stumble onto any one of that which you were searching for.

It is simply another facet of "security theater." Trust us, we can make you safe... Life doesn't have to be unfair, and dangerous, and capricious, and occasionally tragic without reason.

But like the lottery, folks just don't generally have the understanding of mathematical SCALE to understand why they're being sold a ridiculous false promise.

 

[zxcvbob]

We're about 2 1/2 generations* past GCA'68 and now even gun enthusiasts have embraced this whole notion of "prohibited persons". That in itself should be a warning to us.

*a generation being 20 years; it has to do with birth rates rather than life expediencies

 

[gym]

Can we put an end to this, there are always going to be a few people who keep a thread like this going. We all know it goes no ware, nor does anyone alter their view. For the few who think either extreme is correct, like just giving alcohol to the Indians, or taking away the invention of the knife because some oriental kid stabbed 20 or more, kids in his High school, a day or two ago, "no Gun" "he was a quiet boy", there is no getting through to people who blame objects for death, when it is man, that does these things.

 

[itsa pain]

We can't. We won't. The attempt will turn out to be a bazillion-dollar infringement of and intrusion on the rights and lives of hundreds of millions of perfectly innocent people just to -- NOT -- sweep up the statistically non-significant micro-number of dangerous potential mass-killers.

As I said in another thread:

100% right. With the tiny minuscule % of violent criminals around we still see fit to have police spending billions on tanks APC's machine guns grenade launchers etc. Does not make sense the more crime goes down the more military hardware they get

 

[itsa pain]

I'm honestly a little flabbergasted that nearly 20% of the respondents to the poll would be happy to see my 2nd amendments rights stripped for a fistfight 15 years ago.

You are right and I think this all stems from all the carry permits given out which makes a lot of guys think they are elitists above other gun owners and they think they are secret agents for the govt. I would really rather deal with the anti gunners then at least half of the gun owners, have to flip a coin to see who is worse

 

[NoVA Shooter]

...

First, let me say that most of what I was saying wasn't directed specifically at you, rdhood, but to people in general. I know that didn't come across as much I hoped, so for that, I apologize.

Second, how you* vote in a poll is a microcosm of how people get duped into agreeing to truly meaningful decisions such as voting for your gov officials. My meaning; if you* are careless enough to accept a position in a simple poll or forum discussion on gun control that is ill-defined and based on a ‘common sense’ understanding, then you* are probably careless enough to support a congressman/senator, that has campaigned saying the same. Would you* vote for Senator ABC who campaigned for prohibiting people with specific mental illnesses? Especially if he never clarified or quantified what he mean by ‘specific’? If yes, then you* prove my point. If not, then why would you* vote for that in a poll or argue for it in a forum?
*(again all uses of the word you refers to people in general, no you rdhood)

Third, I wasn't ‘poo-pooing’ your ideas. I was expressing my concern for the emotional rush to pass new laws (or advocate the passing of laws) that, on the surface, seem like a good way to prevent Adam Lanza (and others) from obtaining a gun, but will actually infringe on millions of American’s right to get a gun. A free society where rights are derived from the people is not for the faint of heart. Free societies will always have to suffer the recklessness of a minute few that abuse the freedom they are given. I have the freedom of speech, but with that right, I have to suffer the fact that someone will abuse that right to insight evil. I have the right to keep and bear arms, but with that right, I have to suffer the fact that some madman will use a gun to kill an innocent person. It is something I am will to live with because the alternative is abhorrent.

Forth, I never put any words in your mouth, I simply pointed out how a rush exclude people from gaining access to firearms will lead to unintended consequences. These type of laws that gun control advocate try to pass are what’s really the reflex. Myself and others HAVE suggested alternatives and have offered intelligent, though-out responses, but when the emotions of the gun control crowd come into play, logic is the first thing to get lost.

 

[buck460XVR]

"Since it is our legal sytem, our society and our constitution that gives us those rights, so can they take them away."
If you believe in nothing grander than human constructs, then yes. If you truly believe, for whatever reason, that certain rights are inalienable from a proper human existence (that is to say, they are intrinsic to a decent life, rather than merely conducive to an organized and efficient society), there is more backing your faith in those institutions than just everybody's agreement.

If not, then yes, the world is a Hobbesian hell-hole in which everyone's freedom ultimately stems from 'only what they can get away with' and the best course of action is to subvert and manipulate the current paradigm to your advantage.


TCB

My point was that when folks use the 2nd Amendment as a basis for gun ownership, they have admitted that the guarantees granted by it are a social right. Because the guarantees are protected by the state, they are also subject to the restrctions of the state. IOWs, while one can argue that the state should have no control over inalienable rights, the minute they quote the 2nd Amendment, they are no longer speaking about a classic right, but a social right, and thus open to restictions dictated by the same legal/social system that gives the right. Seems so many folks that wave the 2nd Amendment flag are the same ones that despise the system that gives them the Second Amendment. It just don't make sense to me.

I agree that finding a way to accurately determine 100% who and who shouldn't possess firearms is an impossible task. Too many variables. While we all know there are certain individuals that should not have access to firearms, we all are afraid that in doing so, we too may have restrictions put on us. I don't know what the answer is, but I really don't believe giving repeat violent criminals and those that have made threats against others easy access to them is the answer either.

 

[Bexar]

We're about 2 1/2 generations* past GCA'68 and now even gun enthusiasts have embraced this whole notion of "prohibited persons". That in itself should be a warning to us.

*a generation being 20 years; it has to do with birth rates rather than life expediencies

Thumbs up icon here.

 

[JN01]

Using the pedophile example is classic as it is always brought up as rationale to restrict our rights as people tend to lose any sense of logic when it comes to the safety of their children. I suspect that the majority of Americans would agree to the repeal of the entire Constitution if it was sold to them as somehow making it safer for their children.

The truth of the matter is that your children (and all adults) cannot be made perfectly safe no matter what type of government we have. There are pedophiles that have never been caught that legally can go near children. There are people that have never committed any sort of crime that then commit their first crime. Are we going to restrict potential criminals?

So are you saying that since an undetected molester COULD be working with children, there is no reason to prevent a KNOWN molester from working with them? I don't see the logic there.

I don't want to restrict potential criminals, just the proven ones.

Absolutely true, they do have that authority. The authority to make felons of huge tracts of the population with repugnant laws, then deign to set us 'free' to live our lives as 'free men' without basic human rights or dignity.

If you are saying that we have too many criminal laws, I would agree.

There is a third option, which goody-two-shoes always love to tip-toe around, pretending their alternative it doesn't have exactly the same outcome, but with enormous unintended consequences

I would be surprised if the death penalty is even an option very much longer with the lethal injection drug supply being curtailed- the remaining options will be deemed "cruel".

Double jeopardy. This nation's justice system is founded in Judeo-Christian forgiveness; otherwise we'd either have no need for prisons, or end up with nothing but. Also ___-cide of 'criminally-prone' groups.

Not double jeopardy. I don't want them tried again, I want them to continue to receive their penalties. When they prove they are responsible (much the same way they are supposed to do to earn parole) the penalty ends. And I don't think we have a justice system, we have a legal system.

Should be. Isn't. Won't be. These people have no rights. Thus, they have no hold on their government to treat them justly (that responsibility is on us free men, should we bother to accept it). The only reason Holder's agitating for restoration of felons' voting rights is because there's no such thing without the others (Speak up? back in the clink, you dirty felon. Organize your fellows against us? Get back in your cage, you animal. Demand representation beyond what we pretend to grant you? You only have a voice because we granted you one, and it had better sing in tune)

I don't know, maybe not. Seems like it would be politically more feasible to enact a system to petition for rights restoration than it would for an immediate wholesale restoration. Or I could be wrong, there are a lot of folks out there with warm fuzzy feelings for thugs, maybe they could make them a protected class.

 

[itsa pain]

I wonder then about the National Firearms Act of 1938. Or why Wyatt Earp banned firearms from the town of Tombstone in the 1880s. Guns have always been an issue in this country.....one reason we HAVE the 2nd Amendment.

The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been agrued at lenght since it's inception. Regardless of how anyone here interprets it, the only one that really counts, as long as this country continues to run under our current Constitution, like it or not, is the one made by the SC.

Wyatt Earp and his brothers were gangsters that wore badges. They ran the town like Al Capone did in Chicago. They murdered the Clantons because they were competition. The Earps along with the govt don't like anyone horning in on their racket