General Categories > Newsworthy

Trump releases his stand on guns,

<< < (3/4) > >>

Mntnman:
I was just quicky listing some things. I am still sure a large part of this group agrees with some of the things that are infringements, especially felon's rights being infringed.

Mudinyeri:

--- Quote from: Mntnman on September 25, 2015, 10:13:32 AM ---I was just quicky listing some things. I am still sure a large part of this group agrees with some of the things that are infringements, especially felon's rights being infringed.

--- End quote ---

Do you believe that the framers of the Second Amendment believed that "shall not be infringed" applied to felons (or the equivalent at the time)?

Mntnman:
I believe that allowing the rights of someone else to be subverted will only lead to the escalation to you losing your rights. We already have an example with the poor fella from Lincoln and his knife.

Don't you believe that once your debt to society is paid you should have your unalienabe rights restored? Not being able to purchase firearms after a felony conviction is a relatively new development in the history of this country. If a prohibited person wants to obtain a gun, they still will. The more likely result in such legislation is that a good person will be left without defensive arms, or worse, wrongfully prosecuted. There are ways to address people wishing to do harm and acquiring weapons that don't weaken the protections that the Constitution provides us.

depserv:

--- Quote from: Mudinyeri on September 25, 2015, 12:12:43 PM ---Do you believe that the framers of the Second Amendment believed that "shall not be infringed" applied to felons (or the equivalent at the time)?


--- End quote ---
I think it makes as much sense for a felon to lose his 4th and 5th Amendment rights as it does for him to lose his 2nd Amendment rights, and I think that should make sense to one who believes that the criminal is the problem, not the device he uses.  I also think that the one being lost but not the others is one of the things that set the 2nd Amendment on a slippery slope that led to things like losing the right even for a misdemeanor charge of domestic assault.  A misdemeanor is like a speeding ticket, and in fact speeders probably cause at least as much death as domestic abusers, but you don't lose your right to drive for getting a speeding ticket (thank God), even though there's no right to drive, but there is a right to have a gun.  The point to this is that these kinds of things are based in the premise that the 2nd Amendment is a privilege, not a right.  If it's a right, it should carry as much weight as other rights, like the two I mentioned.  So if you lose the one, you should lose the others; if you keep the others, you should keep the one.

There has to be such a thing as reasonable restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms: no one would want a rich traitor like George Soros to be able to legally own atom bombs, for example, and we don't want people being able to buy nerve gas over the internet.  But we are now very far onto the unreasonable side of any realistic definition of reasonable.     

farmerbob:
  :o

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page