- Joined
- Jun 11, 2011
- Messages
- 31,089
- Reaction score
- 4,384
- Location
- The greatest city on Earth
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I like the background checks to prevent felons and crazy people from getting guns, and I like the waiting periods so that no one can purchase a gun in the heat of passion, or especially to kill themselves in the depths of depression. Beyond that, it's illegal guns that need to be the focus of our efforts. Lawful gun owners are actually pretty responsible people, though many illegal guns are stolen from those lawful owners....
Andalublue said:How? If a convicted felon has served their sentence then denying them the same access to self-defence as other citizens is unconstitutional. If an individual has been certified insane, then they should be institutionalised. If they are not so seriously disturbed as to require care and institutionalisation, then denying them the same self-defence as other citizens is unconstitutional.
Then you need a constitutional amendment to state that, don't you?
So, does that exception exist?
The People put in new laws. The People have spoken, and they don't want convicted felons, children, non-citizens, folks under indictment, or folks who have been institutionalized in the past, owning firarms.
why would you?
Then why are none of these exceptions mentioned in the constitution? Why has no amendment been effected?
I'm sure that's true, but why has there not therefore been a constitutional amendment? Either the constitution is the ultimate statement of rights or it isn't, surely.
Good question, Andy. My answer is because these days the Constitution is only used when it is convenient. The federal government is not about to give Americans more power. Once they take it away, it isn't coming back.
because most people understand that some laws are basic common sense, and don't need an Amendment to the Constitution to justify them. The Supreme Court agrees.
that's fine. the thread asked my opinion and I gave it.
I'm not saying you can't express your opinion, I was merely posting as to why your opinion was wrong. Hehehe
Opinions are NEVER wrong.
I don't think felons who are released, even if time is served, should get free access to guns. The truth is that criminal recidivism is way too high to entrust these people with a tool that can help them commit crimes they are known to commit. Obvious exceptions can be made, such as if you're in prison for insurance fraud or some non-violent crime, but if someone was sent away for assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated anything, rape, etc. your right to ever touch a weapon is forfeit, in my opinion. You are demonstrably untrustworthy for it.
Then this seems to significantly undermine the authority of the constitution, doesn't it? This being the case then how can one argue that other constitutional rights cannot be conditioned by the application of subsequent legislation? A Bill of Rights doesn't seem to mean so much in that case.
lizzie said:Then that is a malfunction of the justice system. If felons are violent, then they should be kept in custody. If they have paid their debt to society, then the debt should be considered *paid in full*, and they should regain their constitutional rights as free citizens.
Opinions are NEVER wrong.
They can be wrong.....
In that case, all violent and drug-related crimes should involve life imprisonment.
In addition, parole should be eliminated, since it's basically just a "second chance" system that says you have the right to obey more strict guidelines or face advanced punishment.
You may be able to put a static figure on "paid in full", but humanism defies the most elementary concept of that.
Then this seems to significantly undermine the authority of the constitution, doesn't it? This being the case then how can one argue that other constitutional rights cannot be conditioned by the application of subsequent legislation? A Bill of Rights doesn't seem to mean so much in that case.
This is exactly how I see it. I feel our rights should be unconditional.....
so you are against speed limit laws, seatbelt laws, j-walking laws, red-light laws, stop sign laws?
Those are not covered in the BOR.
This is exactly how I see it. I feel our rights should be unconditional....
I'm sure that's true, but why has there not therefore been a constitutional amendment? Either the constitution is the ultimate statement of rights or it isn't, surely.
Because the right that's guaranteed is the right to "keep and bear arms". Not to do so conveniently, and not without any exceptions at all. There are many laws enacted by congress limiting the freedom of speech, some of which were enacted by the founders. Everything is subject to some kind of reasoned examination, and no right is 100% ironclad. Even the people who wrote the bill of rights did not adhere to the idea that no exceptions were permitted.
if you have committed a felony and a judge has not reinstituted your right to possess firearms, or if you have been institutionalized by a judge.
the background check is to make sure you don't fall under one of these two categories.
many folks in this country believe that if you have a history of criminal activity, your right to own a firearm should be suspended..until you can prove that you are no longer a danger to society.
I agree with this stand.
Because the right that's guaranteed is the right to "keep and bear arms". Not to do so conveniently, and not without any exceptions at all. There are many laws enacted by congress limiting the freedom of speech, some of which were enacted by the founders. Everything is subject to some kind of reasoned examination, and no right is 100% ironclad. Even the people who wrote the bill of rights did not adhere to the idea that no exceptions were permitted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?