I've changed my mind about the Second Amendment

[Laufen]

It sounds like you are making an argument for penalizing future Crime, No reasonable person should find that to be ok and that is not whats going on here. You commit a felony you loose your 2nd amendment rights permanently end of story.

Now some may ask what is preventing government to lower the threshold of felony to speeding so it could disarm us all? and the answer is same thing that prevents them from just banning and confiscating all guns.

As pointed out by bc, there are MISDEMEANOR crimes that already carry with it forfeiture of the right to bear arms....scary precedent indeed....but hey it's in the name of public safety and predicting and preventing crimes that haven't happened based on fear.

 

[Laufen]

Once again, my friend, an inalienable right cannot be surrendered. This isn't like going to work for a company. The worst they can do is reprimand or fire you. The military can incarcerate you for exercising these rights while you are enlisted.

I understand that. I do. We can move on.
What I'm asking is do you think that is legal within the definition of "rights" and constitutional law. Think outside of current legal parameters to see if you agree with them.

 

[FrogMan]

As pointed out by bc, there are MISDEMEANOR crimes that already carry with it forfeiture of the right to bear arms....scary precedent indeed....but hey it's in the name of public safety and predicting and preventing crimes that haven't happened based on fear.

Well then maybe the right approach is to address that problem rather than taking an extreme stance of giving guns to all felons right?

 

[Laufen]

Well then maybe the right approach is to address that problem rather than taking an extreme stance of giving guns to all felons right?

As far as I'm concerned, if you are released from prison you retain all of your rights as a citizen of the US. There are certainly many problems that need to be addressed though. Many have already been discussed in this thread.

Secondly, I'm not for GIVING felons guns, I'm for them retaining their right to bear arms.

 

[Gigabyte71]

Well then maybe the right approach is to address that problem rather than taking an extreme stance of giving guns to all felons right?

So you don't think the Gun Control Act of 68 was a bad thing?

 

[Hasselhoss]

I understand that. I do. We can move on.
What I'm asking is do you think that is legal within the definition of "rights" and constitutional law. Think outside of current legal parameters to see if you agree with them.

I keep starting a reply only to find that the liberals have hijacked so many of the phrases that I want to use. It makes my reply sound "different" than I meant for it to. So, please indulge me a little and read past the "new definition" of some of my reply.

I think that common sense must be used in regards to any and all rights. For instance, I feel that a person is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers because that sounds good and all. However, if the neighbor is arrested for aggravated child molestation and kidnapping, I will not allow my family anywhere near him simply because he hasn't faced a jury of his peers yet. Similarly, the judge in the case may allow him to bond out until his trial but will usually strip him of his 4th, 2nd and portions of the 1st. And while I know the previous scenario is unrelated to the 2A discussion it does show an instance when a person's rights can and should be taken away until such time as a judgement can be made.

Similarly, if an individual waves a gun around a shopping mall he has shown that he does not possess the mental capacity to exercise his right to bear arms and I have no problem stripping him of that right until such time as that mental capacity returns. That's the way the system works now in that a convicted felon can petition to have his 2A rights restored. A judge will look at his crimes and make a judgement based on the nature of said crime and the person's behavior since the conviction.

 

[bc]

As far as I'm concerned, if you are released from prison you retail all of your rights as a citizen of the US. There are certainly many problems that need to be addressed though. Many have already been discussed in this thread.

Secondly, I'm not for GIVING felons guns, I'm for them retaining their right to bear arms.

Bingo! The way to legally prohibit offenders from being in possession of a weapon is to keep them under court supervision, not by unconstitutionally stripping them of their rights.

 

[Laufen]

I keep starting a reply only to find that the liberals have hijacked so many of the phrases that I want to use. It makes my reply sound "different" than I meant for it to. So, please indulge me a little and read past the "new definition" of some of my reply.

I think that common sense must be used in regards to any and all rights. For instance, I feel that a person is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers because that sounds good and all. However, if the neighbor is arrested for aggravated child molestation and kidnapping, I will not allow my family anywhere near him simply because he hasn't faced a jury of his peers yet. Similarly, the judge in the case may allow him to bond out until his trial but will usually strip him of his 4th, 2nd and portions of the 1st. And while I know the previous scenario is unrelated to the 2A discussion it does show an instance when a person's rights can and should be taken away until such time as a judgement can be made.

Similarly, if an individual waves a gun around a shopping mall he has shown that he does not possess the mental capacity to exercise his right to bear arms and I have no problem stripping him of that right until such time as that mental capacity returns. That's the way the system works now in that a convicted felon can petition to have his 2A rights restored. A judge will look at his crimes and make a judgement based on the nature of said crime and the person's behavior since the conviction.

The issue is whose common sense do we use as a metric? The President? The WHO? The voting public?

Naw, the common sense argument has been used way to often to mean, "a fluctuating way to evaluate and/or eliminate the rights of people with whom I disagree.

 

[Hasselhoss]

The issue is whose common sense do we use as a metric? The President? The WHO? The voting public?

Naw, the common sense argument has been used way to often to mean, "a fluctuating way to evaluate and/or eliminate the rights of people with whom I disagree.

Exactly why I prefaced my comments the way I did. At some point we do have to elect people that get to make decisions based on law and common sense. Without common sense we end up with "Zero-Tolerance".

 

[Proximal]

The number one book in the Guantanamo Bay prison. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...uantanamo-bay-prisoners-congressman-v19779821

If I was locked up that would be the last book I'd want to read.