Do you FULLY support the 2nd amendment?

[infidel]

Meh... I suppose that if you're going to get down to the nitty-gritty, there would have to be a major reform on the current laws before I can get down with what you're proposing.

First and foremost. Violent felonies should incur a far harsher penalty than they do now. No "5 years with good behavior" crap. They should be looking at much, much longer sentences for anything. If they manage to get out, then fine. I'm all for non-violent felons having all afforded rights to them as is. I'm not even going to get started on the drug war, but the same principle applies. Legalize the drugs, you drop the problems, and you have more room in prison for the people who deserve to be there.

I'm all for the uninhibited purchase of all firearms, although I'm not entirely sure about explosive ordinances. It's not a matter of keeping them from the general public, but a matter of use. Now, I understand that the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from a tyrannical government in particular, but we just get the added benefit of self-defense. And I know that many people who buy grenades would be absolutely responsible with them. But why would you need a grenade, just curious.

Also... I don't know what's considered on the NFA list and all the extra taxation, but I'm definitely down to repeal taxation and permit restrictions on a everything I know that is on that list.

I'm just curious what you propose, or would say to my few doubts about a "full" 2nd Amendment rights.

I do believe that if people are not fit to exercise all of their rights, then they are not fit to be in society - as in punish violent criminals so effectively that if they are turned loose, that they won't be a threat to anyone.

A out the grenades, which I was only using as an off the wall example to help emphasize my point, I want some so I can blow (my) stuff up, I think it would be fun. Punish those that use ANY weapon in a violent crime, instead of preemptively punishing everyone that is innocent.

 

[PatriotPride]

You're right. No FFL---I meant a gunshop.

The Feds use the Interstate Commerce Clause to regulate firearms.

I'm all for the uninhibited purchase of all firearms, although I'm not entirely sure about explosive ordinances. It's not a matter of keeping them from the general public, but a matter of use. Now, I understand that the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from a tyrannical government in particular, but we just get the added benefit of self-defense. And I know that many people who buy grenades would be absolutely responsible with them. But why would you need a grenade, just curious.

Careful with your line of logic. Using your reasoning; it can apply to these just as easily:


ARs

AKs

Shotguns

Suppressors


Look at California

 

[henktermaat]

Unqualified yes! The fallacy in bigus_D's reservation is that violent criminals are exactly the type who will get "unfettered access" to firearms anyway. Why should any of the rest of us be restricted. Believe me, if everyone who wished to do so were carrying a firearm, violent criminals would start to disappear. Edit: Child molesters wouldn't last very long either.

Yeah- they would soon be extinct- just like in the old days. To be clear, they would be shot by any number of other citizens.

 

[mrjarrell]

I want an artillery piece to celebrate the Fourth. Shoot, I'll even shoot blanks, out of respect for my neighbours.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I want an artillery piece to celebrate the Fourth. Shoot, I'll even shoot blanks, out of respect for my neighbours.

And to avoid civil suits for damages caused by a live shell landing in a neighbor's garage...

 

[Archaic_Entity]

I do believe that if people are not fit to exercise all of their rights, then they are not fit to be in society - as in punish violent criminals so effectively that if they are turned loose, that they won't be a threat to anyone.

A out the grenades, which I was only using as an off the wall example to help emphasize my point, I want some so I can blow (my) stuff up, I think it would be fun. Punish those that use ANY weapon in a violent crime, instead of preemptively punishing everyone that is innocent.

Fair enough. I was just curious. I certainly agree that people should not be preemptively punished, because we are all innocent unless proven otherwise. I really have no problems with the ownership of grenades or other ordinances, especially if the laws for illegal use of these items were drastically harshened.

You're right. No FFL---I meant a gunshop.

The Feds use the Interstate Commerce Clause to regulate firearms.



Careful with your line of logic. Using your reasoning; it can apply to these just as easily:


ARs

AKs

Shotguns

Suppressors


Look at California

I know about that argument. But all of those weapons are still easily designed for home-defense. Grenades are, in no way, home-defense weapons. But, as I already stated, I'm well aware that home-defense isn't the point of the 2nd Amendment. Which is why I'm not actually arguing for the necessity of laws against the purchase of grenades, but somewhat reserved about it. Overall, I'm definitely for unfettered ownership and purchase without regulation.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Fair enough. I was just curious. I certainly agree that people should not be preemptively punished, because we are all innocent unless proven otherwise. I really have no problems with the ownership of grenades or other ordinances, especially if the laws for illegal use of these items were drastically harshened.



I know about that argument. But all of those weapons are still easily designed for home-defense. Grenades are, in no way, home-defense weapons.
Snipped

.

I think that those who would misuse weapons would get the "harshest penalty" (death) on a pretty regular basis. As for grenades being in no way a home-defense weapon: depends upon whom you're defending your home against, doesn't it?

 

[Mike_Indy]

Yes, BUT...
As others have said, lawbreakers need to be treated as such and law abiding citizens that defend themselves need to be treated as defenders, not criminals.

Criminals have far too many freedoms and not enough punishment.

 

[Lex Concord]

Slam me if you will, but some people simply should be allowed to have guns, IMO.

Violent criminals would be one group I'd prefer not to have unfettered access to guns.

I also think that child molesters shouldn't be allowed to be teachers. Call me crazy.

Again, if they (whoever the disfavored "they" of the moment are) are not to be trusted with their rights, why are they out of prison?

Selective rights based on a criminal history was probably one of the earlier acceptable selective encroachments of rights sold in this country.

Now one has to "prove" he is not a criminal to exercise a privilege for which countless died to secure as a right.

We've come a long way, baby.

 

[bigus_D]

Again, if they (whoever the disfavored "they" of the moment are) are not to be trusted with their rights, why are they out of prison?

Selective rights based on a criminal history was probably one of the earlier acceptable selective encroachments of rights sold in this country.

Now one has to "prove" he is not a criminal to exercise a privilege for which countless died to secure as a right.

We've come a long way, baby.

Well... we could just keep violent criminals locked up for life. Would that be better? Or just kill them straight away...

If you commit a crime and are convicted, you lose some rights. Perhaps you lose your freedom and get locked up. Perhaps you lose your right to vote, or your right to bear arms. Consequences.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Slam me if you will, but some people simply should be allowed to have guns, IMO.

Violent criminals would be one group I'd prefer not to have unfettered access to guns.

I also think that child molesters shouldn't be allowed to be teachers. Call me crazy.

Then keep the violent criminals locked up. Matters not to me whether you do so in a cell or a coffin, because nothing else is going to stop them if they decide to do violence to someone else.

Control the violent felons and you don't need to control the guns... there are fewer violent felons, too, so it makes the job easier. As it stands now, though, we keep the violent felons in a place called prison, a veritable utopia of non-violence because the environment is tightly controlled and no weapons are allowed. Oh wait.....

As for child molesters... Might I modify your statement?

I also think that child molesters shouldn't be allowed to [STRIKE]be teachers[/STRIKE] breathe.

If they're not breathing, they're not in classrooms with children. Problem solved.

Control the criminals and the good people will need no artificial controls placed on them.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[theweakerbrother]

Infidel for president.

 

[PatriotPride]

Fair enough. I was just curious. I certainly agree that people should not be preemptively punished, because we are all innocent unless proven otherwise. I really have no problems with the ownership of grenades or other ordinances, especially if the laws for illegal use of these items were drastically harshened.



I know about that argument. But all of those weapons are still easily designed for home-defense. Grenades are, in no way, home-defense weapons. But, as I already stated, I'm well aware that home-defense isn't the point of the 2nd Amendment. Which is why I'm not actually arguing for the necessity of laws against the purchase of grenades, but somewhat reserved about it. Overall, I'm definitely for unfettered ownership and purchase without regulation.

Well...since you asked. I'm certain I could clear my living room and dining room and kitchen with a hand grenade if need be. The layout is certainly conducive to maximum spread of shrapnel and blast force. I know I may be coming across as a sarcastic ass, but I'm trying to make a valid point: everything has it's use, and even if it doesn't, we should still be allowed access to it per the 2nd Amendment.

What needs to be taken into account is this: just because hand grenade would be legal, that does not mean that everyone will have them. Look at .50 BMG sniper rifles. Legal? Yes. Affordable to the average person? Hell no. I'm just a firm advocate for allowing people to have the chance to purchase them.

 

[eldirector]

A) Shall not be infringed is pretty clear

B) If the "convicted felon" is still a danger, keep 'em in prison. Once out, you are a full citizen again. None of this "we can't afford to keep you, so we'll just warn your new neighbors".

C) We have other laws that deal with you hurting someone else or damaging property. If you want a Howitzer, go for it! If you have a ND and blow up a neighbor's house, THEN we'll deal with you. This nanny-state stuff is for the birds.

 

[PatriotPride]

As for child molesters... Might I modify your statement?



If they're not breathing, they're not in classrooms with children. Problem solved.

Control the criminals and the good people will need no artificial controls placed on them.

Blessings,
Bill

I couldn't have said it better myself. +1

 

[buckstopshere]

First and foremost. Violent felonies should incur a far harsher penalty than they do now. No "5 years with good behavior" crap. They should be looking at much, much longer sentences for anything.

Just piggy-backing off of this thought a little. If we have the freedom that should be awarded under 2A, I think you would see a huge rise initially in harsher punishment for violent offenders. An immediate death penalty with two to the chest and one to the head (if needed) because more people would be carrying.

If that isn't the case then I think you're definitely right about violent offenders should be locked up a helluva lot longer than the 5 years and out on good behavior.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Well... we could just keep violent criminals locked up for life. Would that be better? Or just kill them straight away...

If you commit a crime and are convicted, you lose some rights. Perhaps you lose your freedom and get locked up. Perhaps you lose your right to vote, or your right to bear arms. Consequences.

I've asked this question before and I don't recall anyone answering it without crossing the "prior restraint" line.

If, as a young man of 18, you got in with the wrong crowd and did some stupid things (like maybe being present when they were out boosting stereos, etc... not doing anything but just being there... and you were caught, tried, convicted, and sentenced... Let's say the judge was lenient and only sentenced you to 370 days in jail. You're now 20, by the time the case comes to trial and the sentence is handed down and served, and you're out, now with a criminal record. While you were in, you had time to reflect on what your so-called friends did and now, more mature, you know that you should have gotten out of the car and walked home, if that's what it took... should have called the cops, whatever. Fast forward four years. You've gone to college and earned your associates degree in something or other and had time to meet a nice young lady, settle down, buy a home, maybe even have a baby or just one on the way.

Why should you not have the right to protect and defend yourself and your family from those who might do you or them harm?

Granted, this is a "perfect" example, and all, hell, even most cases will not be so obvious. In addition, after some period of time, I'm not sure how long, you can petition the court to reduce your listed crime to a misdemeanor or can petition for a full pardon. All that said, though, when you first left prison, you had made the decision to turn your life around, but your former buddies might not have done so. Why should you be defenseless when they show up? THEY sure won't be!

It should be defined on what you do with the gun, not just that you have it. I'd take no issue at all with a former felon owning a firearm and using it to defend himself or his family. Maybe to ease into it, we could define that they can't yet qualify for a LTCH, but can have one at home lawfully, but the goal, IMHO, should be to move toward the removal of regulations that bind only those who obey the law.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

I want an artillery piece to celebrate the Fourth. Shoot, I'll even shoot blanks, out of respect for my neighbours.

And if your neighbors (note American spelling ) were to come over and nicely, politely ask you not to fire it... would you comply?

(no laws figured into this, just voluntary cooperation between neighbors bein' neighborly)

Just curious.

 

[bigus_D]

I've asked this question before and I don't recall anyone answering it without crossing the "prior restraint" line.

If, as a young man of 18, you got in with the wrong crowd and did some stupid things (like maybe being present when they were out boosting stereos, etc... not doing anything but just being there... and you were caught, tried, convicted, and sentenced... Let's say the judge was lenient and only sentenced you to 370 days in jail. You're now 20, by the time the case comes to trial and the sentence is handed down and served, and you're out, now with a criminal record. While you were in, you had time to reflect on what your so-called friends did and now, more mature, you know that you should have gotten out of the car and walked home, if that's what it took... should have called the cops, whatever. Fast forward four years. You've gone to college and earned your associates degree in something or other and had time to meet a nice young lady, settle down, buy a home, maybe even have a baby or just one on the way.

Why should you not have the right to protect and defend yourself and your family from those who might do you or them harm?

Granted, this is a "perfect" example, and all, hell, even most cases will not be so obvious. In addition, after some period of time, I'm not sure how long, you can petition the court to reduce your listed crime to a misdemeanor or can petition for a full pardon. All that said, though, when you first left prison, you had made the decision to turn your life around, but your former buddies might not have done so. Why should you be defenseless when they show up? THEY sure won't be!

It should be defined on what you do with the gun, not just that you have it. I'd take no issue at all with a former felon owning a firearm and using it to defend himself or his family. Maybe to ease into it, we could define that they can't yet qualify for a LTCH, but can have one at home lawfully, but the goal, IMHO, should be to move toward the removal of regulations that bind only those who obey the law.



Blessings,
Bill

(I'm not sure what the "prior restraint" line is)...


That said, where I shake out on this, using your example, is as follows:

The 18 year old broke the law and was convicted. He should be punished. Punishment comes in many forms. One is imprisonment. Another is home detention. Another is probation. Part of any/all of these could be the loss of rights and priveleges.

Some say, once out of prison, the ex-con should regain all rights. If that is going to be the case, then perhaps longer prison sentences would be better. In my opinion, this would just make the criminal a bigger drain on society for a longer period of time. I'd rather see other punishments (including the loss of the right to bear arms perhaps) that allow the criminal a chance at a new life.

I simply don't draw a line between being in/out of prison as the required line at which all rights must be returned. Some rights and freedoms can be granted back on a graduated scale...

I can agree with your suggestion in the example above that after years of re-building an upstanding life, the ex-con/convicted felon should be returned his full rights. After X days/months/years, depending on conviction and behavior, having proven rehabilitation... but in the phrasing of the poll question, this still leaves me on the side of not FULLY supporting the 2nd.

 

[Bill of Rights]

(I'm not sure what the "prior restraint" line is)...


That said, where I shake out on this, using your example, is as follows:

The 18 year old broke the law and was convicted. He should be punished. Punishment comes in many forms. One is imprisonment. Another is home detention. Another is probation. Part of any/all of these could be the loss of rights and priveleges.

Some say, once out of prison, the ex-con should regain all rights. If that is going to be the case, then perhaps longer prison sentences would be better. In my opinion, this would just make the criminal a bigger drain on society for a longer period of time. I'd rather see other punishments (including the loss of the right to bear arms perhaps) that allow the criminal a chance at a new life.

I simply don't draw a line between being in/out of prison as the required line at which all rights must be returned. Some rights and freedoms can be granted back on a graduated scale...

I can agree with your suggestion in the example above that after years of re-building an upstanding life, the ex-con/convicted felon should be returned his full rights. After X days/months/years, depending on conviction and behavior, having proven rehabilitation... but in the phrasing of the poll question, this still leaves me on the side of not FULLY supporting the 2nd.

The prior restraint line of which I spoke restricts someone's lawful actions based on what they might do, a la Minority Report. The usual example is the old saw about yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Any of us might do so, but we are not required to be gagged or to have our tongues cut out prior to entering to prevent us from that action, we are simply held accountable for our actions if we do. Prior restraint, by definition, is restraining you before you do anything wrong.

A child knocks over a vase. His mother spanks him and tells him that he will pay for it out of his allowance. Once it's paid for, he is told he's not allowed to play in the house because of the vase he broke. A month later, the circus comes to town, but he's not allowed to go because he broke that vase. The next summer....etc., etc., etc. You get the idea. To continue punishing someone interminably because of a single past misdeed is wrong. Set the punishment and carry it out, and when it's done, it's done. When the boy broke the vase, he got spanked, an immediate punishment, and made to pay restitution, a long-term punishment, the theoretical goal being that he remember the immediate pain and that in the future he be more careful, knowing how long it takes to earn the money to pay for what you've done wrong. Punishments after that are solely based in vengeance.

So it is with the criminal. Yes, he did wrong by being in the wrong place at the wrong time and not being bold enough to separate himself from the situation and do the right thing. Is that really a reason to continually deny him his God-given rights, or is that just being vengeful?

I still don't have an answer to why the released ex-con should be made defenseless before his former friends who if they choose to do so will be armed, the law notwithstanding, when they come calling?

Again, why have laws that restrict only those who choose to obey them?

I think the day he's released is when he's most vulnerable. That's when his former friends will want to come by...maybe just to shoot the bull, maybe to rope him into another crime, maybe to do him harm, but IMHO, that's when he needs to be able to be armed in his own defense. If he uses his weapon to stop a crime, he should be praised. If he misuses his weapon and goes to commit another crime, when he's caught, he can expect to be in longer or to face a more permanent solution, one from which he will never be released. You don't get paroled from a coffin.

To limit them and make them vulnerable on release sounds to me like "A Clockwork Orange". I'm OK with them having to check in with a parole officer periodically as a condition of the initial sentence, but that has a clearly defined end date. The restoration of someone's ability to lawfully exercise his RKBA or the restoration of his good name is nebulous and undefined and may not happen at all, despite no further wrongdoing. It is that with which I disagree.

Blessings,
Bill