Second-Amendment Setup What They Say Isn't What You Get

Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc. ^ | 2002 | Aaron Zelman and Claire Wolfe

[LouD]

you can't take a broad approach to other rights, such as First Amendment rights, and then interpret the Second Amendment so narrowly that it could fit in a thimble.

Brilliantly stated.

[He Rides A White Horse]

2. "While some have argued that the Second Amendment guarantees only a 'collective' right of the States to maintain militias, I believe the Amendment's plain meaning and original intent prove otherwise. Like the First and Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment protects the rights of 'the people,' which the Supreme Court has noted is a term of art that should be interpreted consistently throughout the Bill of Rights.

Ashcroft is not the enemy of the second amendment that many would portray him as.

[He Rides A White Horse]

... Of course, the individual rights view of the Second Amendment does not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for compelling state interests

I don't think pedophiles are entitled to operate day care centers either.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Dane Yirkovsky came across a single .22 cartridge while laying carpet, pocketed it, and apparently forgot it. Because he had previous burglary convictions, he was a "felon in possession of ammunition." Fifteen years of his life are being wiped away by a mandatory minimum federal sentence.

Katica Crippen went to federal prison for posing for photos holding her boyfriend's firearm. Crippen, with a previous drug conviction, was another "felon in possession."

A qualified 'yes' to the first; a qualified 'no' to the second.

[Auntie Mame]

Great post!

[Atlas Sneezed]

Bang

[DugwayDuke]

So, in your opinion, felons have as much right to own a firearm as any one else? Would you be willing to take the position that "compelling state interests in restricting firearms ownership" just do not exist?

[Jubal Harshaw]

In my opinion, felons fall into two categories: those that are dangerous, and those that are not. Those who are dangerous (committed a violent crime, and are still violent) should not be out on the street at all. Putting them among us, and giving them “firearm restrictions” turns the rest of society into an ultra-low security prison. Cheap for the prison system, potentially deadly for us.

People who are not violent have the same rights as the rest of us. If they are safe enough to be among the rest of us, then they are safe enough to defend themselves (and us) with weapons. Why would you assume that someone convicted of felonious marijuana cultivation (again, assuming no violence) would be less likely than anyone else to help you if you needed help? And if he’s not less likely to help you, why would you restrict the tools at his disposal?

[Cato]

Day care centers are not mentioned in the Constitution, firearms are and the Second comes with no qualifications. Read it. Unless people means people who are licensed and CONNECTED or the police/military. What is it?? People means people or people means what The Government says it means. LOL!

I trust the dictionary over any government. Who do you trust?

"......The Right OF "THE PEOPLE" to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS Shall not be infringed." says it all.

But then you could be one of those who Confuse RIGHTS with PRIVILEGE. You one of those people?? If so, England wants you. They dole out privilege to the Nobles and rights(easily legilated away as we have witnessed) to the People.

Such rights as the right Not to be killed UNLESS it is by a policeman or an aristocrat. OR the right to FREE SPEECH as long as you are not dumb enough to use it.

CATO

[He Rides A White Horse]

Day care centers are not mentioned in the Constitution, firearms are and the Second comes with no qualifications. Read it.

I have read it......'live it, learn it, love it'..........and I do. Unless people means people who are licensed and CONNECTED or the police/military.

I am not arguing that, and to imply that I am is disingenuous..........after all, who were the Minutemen.....;)

People means people or people means what The Government says it means.

People are the People, such as you and I........no doubt here in my mind.

But then you could be one of those who Confuse RIGHTS with PRIVILEGE. You one of those people??

Driving is a privilege......bearing arms is a RIGHT............you are welcome to test that theory at any time. (laughing)

[DugwayDuke]

Do you believe non-violent felons should have the right to vote?

[Jubal Harshaw]

Do you believe non-violent felons should have the right to vote?

If they pay taxes, then they should have the right to decide on the government supported by those taxes. Any other system is taxation without representation, and against the spirit of our country. BTW, I also think that people who, on net, don't pay taxes (i.e. people whose taxes paid are less than welfare benefits received) should also not vote.

I'm still trying to figure out whether or not violent felons should have the right to vote, assuming that they pay taxes. If there are few violent felons, then their voting patterns won't matter much. If there are so many violent felons that their votes can sway elections, then perhaps the definition of "violent felon" should be changed. I can envision a government which classifies the thoughts of it's opponents as "violent" and its opponents as "violent felons," and restricts their right to vote with no actual violence involved. Allowing "violent felons" the right to vote might diminish the government incentives for such distortions. Your thoughts on this are welcome; flames are NOT. I repeat the first sentence of this paragraph: I'm still trying to figure [this] out.

Thank you for your question.

[DugwayDuke]

I may perhaps have a solution to your dilemma. Let's let everyone vote, but they get as many votes as the net taxes they pay. I rather doubt felons with a violent past would pay many taxes.

Or, more to the point, perhaps a probationary period following release for non-violent felons after which all their rights are restored.

I'm sure you understand why I raised the issue of voting felons. Gun rights or voting rights, let's be consistent.

I'm not sure why you mentioned flames.

[Jubal Harshaw]

The comment about flames was not to you in particular, but to any of the hotheaded freepers who sometimes seize upon a controversial issue and respond with ad hominem attacks. Sorry, I’ve seen it happen too often, and I just wished to avoid such attacks. I apologize if I offended you.

Your system makes perfect sense. I respond with my own political system. In my perfect system, we have two legislative houses, one elected by “one man one vote” the other elected by “one dollar one vote.” The “one man one vote” house is responsible for acts that affect everyone: criminal laws, and for the declaration of war. The “one dollar one vote” house has to approve the budget, but cannot create criminal laws or declare war. The President is still elected by an electoral college, preserving the republican nature of the government, and the bill of rights remains the same.

[Dr. Frank fan]

So, in your opinion, felons have as much right to own a firearm as any one else?

Don't be ridiculous. Felons are in prison; giving firearms to prisoners is just crazy, and also would endanger the prison guards.

[Cato]

Turret sealed. Engine running. bombed up and ready to roll.

So, in your opinion, felons have as much right to own a firearm as any one else?

Ready?? Really Ready?? Ok Then!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I THINK that a felon who has served their sentence and who has no valid(that means jury) orders written into their sentencing order barring them from buying & owning & shooting & hunting & plinking or target shooting with any firearm or even specific firearms then they would have a Constitutional and a God-given right to defend themself, provide game for themself, and to sport shoot with a firearm they bought, owned, kept, cleaned and shot.

Of course, they would be expected to abide by the laws that GWB abides by.

snicker

And this would be Constitutional. As it is, the Present Punishment is Legislative and IF you know law punishment comes from and Must come from the Judiciary for our Three Branch System of government to SURVIVE.

Ride the Wind,
CATO

[teeman8r]

well said, the fact that a convicted felon is out on the street, should mean that he has served his time and paid his debt to society and now can partake in all the unalienable rights he is bestowed by his creator... if he is still a threat to society, then he should still be incarcerated...

[DugwayDuke]

Your system is not unlike the one we first had. I believe the two biggest mistakes we made were the imposition of the income tax and the direct election of Senators. Prior to these two amendments, the federal government could only rely upon various tarrifs and fees for it's income. If that were not enough, it was required to levy assessments on the various states in proportion to their population. The state legislatures were required to raise the money. Since these legislatures also selected the Senators, one of the jobs of the Senators was to ensure that budgets did not exceed the revenues from tarrifs and fees. Otherwise, the state legislators would have to make up the difference, something that could make them quite unpopular.

I apologize if this was tedious or repitious, it happens to be one of my pet peeves.

[DugwayDuke]

I didn't say convicts should have weapons. I apologize if my use of the term "felons" was confusing. BTW, to those who say that 2nd Amendment rights may not be infringed in any case, I like to ask about convicts, those actually in prison.