Violent Felons and the Second Amendment

On the fence here. Willing to listen to both sides of the argument.
 
Your rights are limited in some circumstances even after your sentence. Sex offenders have to register for the list and stay a certain distance from schools and playgrounds for instance.

In the case of violent felons I don't think they should be able to get a firearm though a more lenient alternative could be to find out the time period where recidivism is most likely and allowing violent felons their 2nd amendment right after that period. So lets say 95% of violent offenders re-offend within 5 years you could allow those who've committed such acts their 2nd amendment rights back 5 years after they've been released.
 
If you're not in favor of restricting ownership, then why the try-hard attempt at nitpicking holes in the spirit or wording of the 2A?
"Try-hard attempt"? Can you read? My entire post on the wording of the 2A was to say that I appreciated oldshadow's paraphrased interpretation better than others I've read.

Then Byron objected to my comment, apparently without reading it, to state that there was no room for disagreement. Byron is obviously wrong since people have legitimately disagreed and at times made valid arguments as to other interpretations. I was responding to someone derping out, not nitpicking the 2A.
 
Your rights are limited in some circumstances even after your sentence. Sex offenders have to register for the list and stay a certain distance from schools and playgrounds for instance.

In the case of violent felons I don't think they should be able to get a firearm though a more lenient alternative could be to find out the time period where recidivism is most likely and allowing violent felons their 2nd amendment right after that period. So lets say 95% of violent offenders re-offend within 5 years you could allow those who've committed such acts their 2nd amendment rights back 5 years after they've been released.




Either you're free to live in public, or you're not.


Same goes for sex offenders. If you need a sign in your yard, or you can't go within X yards of a school/playground safely, why the fuck are you out of prison?
 
"Try-hard attempt"? Can you read? My entire post on the wording of the 2A was to say that I appreciated oldshadow's paraphrased interpretation better than others I've read.

Then Byron objected to my comment, apparently without reading it, to state that there was no room for disagreement. Byron is obviously wrong since people have legitimately disagreed and at times made valid arguments as to other interpretations. I was responding to someone derping out, not nitpicking the 2A.

Ok yeah, I just reread your post. I think I see where you're at. But to be clear, those people who "disagreed" weren't doing it legitimately. That's just an obvious motive to usurp a very clear amendment. The idea that it says anything other than individual citizens having a right to defend themselves because of the placement of a comma is nefarious at worst and disingenuous at best.
 
Either you're free to live in public, or you're not.


Same goes for sex offenders. If you need a sign in your yard, or you can't go within X yards of a school/playground safely, why the fuck are you out of prison?

Not necessarily. If you have a restraining order you're not allowed to breach it. That is an infringement on that applies to those outside of prison.

I understand the sentiment behind allowing felons to won guns. If you've done your time then why continue to be punished? But from a pragmatic perspective I have trouble accepting that given the high recidivism rate. I don't know if its higher or lower for violent felons but I would imagine someone who has committed aggravated assault would find it harder to reintegrate into society than a nonviolent drug offender and thus increase their chances of recidivism
 
Please elaborate

I'm just asking you if you think murder by private citizens because of access to firearms is of greater consequence than murder by government (democide) if they don't.
 
Not necessarily. If you have a restraining order you're not allowed to breach it. That is an infringement on that applies to those outside of prison.

I understand the sentiment behind allowing felons to won guns. If you've done your time then why continue to be punished? But from a pragmatic perspective I have trouble accepting that given the high recidivism rate. I don't know if its higher or lower for violent felons but I would imagine someone who has committed aggravated assault would find it harder to reintegrate into society than a nonviolent drug offender and thus increase their chances of recidivism

Don't let them integrate into society then.

Keep them in prison.
 
I'm just asking you if you think murder by private citizens because of access to firearms is of greater consequence than murder by government (democide) if they don't.

Sorry, I really do not understand what point you are trying to make. It may be me, but maybe you can try and lead me through your thought process.
 
Don't let them integrate into society then.

Keep them in prison.
Honestly that's a terrible solution. Just locking people up for life because they may re-offend is a much more perverse infringement of freedom and our values than keeping them from owning a gun a few years after they get out.

Instead of responding to high recidivism rates by clogging our prisons more perhaps we should be trying to find out how to lower it? Wouldn't that be better than making the already largest prison population larger and letting our already runaway prison-industrial complex go even further off the rails?
 
Ok yeah, I just reread your post. I think I see where you're at. But to be clear, those people who "disagreed" weren't doing it legitimately. That's just an obvious motive to usurp a very clear amendment. The idea that it says anything other than individual citizens having a right to defend themselves because of the placement of a coma is nefarious at worst and disingenuous at best.
My understanding is that it actually the placement of those comas that's used to support a right to individual ownership. Anyway, I don't really think that's the case (just nefariousness), even not knowing the case law it's an oddly structured sentence if the aim was purely about carte blanche individual ownership:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Reading this sentence it really is the militia that's the focus. Bearing arms is then relevant to the militia.

If we read the other amendments semi-colons are used to delineate specific restrictions on government action:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So if we read the first it is clear that religion, speech/press, and assembly are explicitly separated.
The second, structurally, is written in a manner more similar to the third:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The third makes it clear that it is just quartering that is restricted (no semi-colons).
If you look at the rest of the BoR's it generally follows the same type of structure: multiple protections within the same amendment are separated out by semi-colons. This is all just a lay interpretation of course.

So I think there are legitimate arguments to be made that the intention of the 2nd wasn't unlimited gun ownership. Maybe some of those doing that questioning had ulterior motives but that's a different issue.

Regardless, oldshadow's interpretation makes a lot more sense to me, even though the general issue has already been well settled by precedent and conventional interpretation.
 
The real question is what about nonviolent felons? People with marijuana/tax evasion charges or the like. They should def be able to arm themselves.
 
Sorry, I really do not understand what point you are trying to make. It may be me, but maybe you can try and lead me through your thought process.

Alright. You said it was a big mistake that America made it a right for citizens to be able to own firearms privately. Most importantly with this issue is that the US didn't make it a right at all. That right to choose how you or anyone else wants to defend themselves is independent of whether or not a government allows you to do it.

With that said, I want to get right into the spirit of why the American founding fathers recognized the right to own arms. Without googling it or anything, give me your best guess at how many people governments killed in the last century alone outside of war....
 
Agree, sort of. If someone is too violent to trust out in public, kill them. Don't make a show of it, don't torture them, just end them and move on.

We are agreeing way to often lately;)
 
My understanding is that it actually the placement of those comas that's used to support a right to individual ownership. Anyway, I don't really think that's the case (just nefariousness), even not knowing the case law it's an oddly structured sentence if the aim was purely about carte blanche individual ownership:
Reading this sentence it really is the militia that's the focus. Bearing arms is then relevant to the militia.

If we read the other amendments semi-colons are used to delineate specific restrictions on government action:
So if we read the first it is clear that religion, speech/press, and assembly are explicitly separated.
The second, structurally, is written in a manner more similar to the third:
The third makes it clear that it is just quartering that is restricted (no semi-colons).
If you look at the rest of the BoR's it generally follows the same type of structure: multiple protections within the same amendment are separated out by semi-colons. This is all just a lay interpretation of course.

So I think there are legitimate arguments to be made that the intention of the 2nd wasn't unlimited gun ownership. Maybe some of those doing that questioning had ulterior motives but that's a different issue.

Regardless, oldshadow's interpretation makes a lot more sense to me, even though the general issue has already been well settled by precedent and conventional interpretation.

To kick this off then, do you make a distinction between the militia and the people? Do you think the FFs did?
 
At a glance, I misread the thread as being about these guys:

violentfemmes_1.jpg


But it's interesting to see how many hardcore authoritarians there are here.
 
Alright. You said it was a big mistake that America made it a right for citizens to be able to own firearms privately. Most importantly with this issue is that the US didn't make it a right at all. That right to choose how you or anyone else wants to defend themselves is independent of whether or not a government allows you to do it.

In most jurisdictions in the world self defense is fair game. If someone attacks me and I see a bazooka on the street, I can use it.

Owning weapons is not the same though.

With that said, I want to get right into the spirit of why the American founding fathers recognized the right to own arms. Without googling it or anything, give me your best guess at how many people governments killed in the last century alone outside of war....

So in effect you are arguing for allowing violent felons to bear guns because you fear their contribution might be needed in an uprising?

P.s. off to bed now
 
f that, if you committed a crime that was bad enough to be a felony that involved violence, prison certainly is going to rehabilitate you (unless it was like a nic cage incident in Con Air or some other unlikely shit).

you absolutely shouldn't be owning a gun, some of you people are insane. the requirements are a joke as it is for the most part, how easy should it be? It's a lethal weapon...
 
To kick this off then, do you make a distinction between the militia and the people? Do you think the FFs did?
Gotta go but this is exactly why I appreciated oldshadow's argument, it reconciled all of this and the associated writings of the founding fathers and the idea of the general populace comprising the militia:
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is the right not the Militia, a peoples Militia (which was what was intended) would not be possible unless this right was protected.

Of course me liking this interpretation was somehow interpreted as me being a gun grabber.
 
Allowing violent felons to have guns is just stupid. There is no argument for it.
 
In most jurisdictions in the world self defense is fair game. If someone attacks me and I see a bazooka on the street, I can use it.

Owning weapons is not the same though.

So in effect you are arguing for allowing violent felons to bear guns because you fear their contribution might be needed in an uprising?

P.s. off to bed now

Why is not owning a firearm not the same? Why won't you let a 100lb girl make the decision for herself how she can best defend herself against a 240lb 6'3" trained attacker? Do you think she has much choice if the government outlaws her ownership of a weapon?

Concerning your third comment, don't try and straw man this. Just give me your best guess at how many people governments have killed in the 20th century.
 
Allowing violent felons to have guns is just stupid. There is no argument for it.

You need to provide an argument that allows for them to be released from prison, and still denied of basic human rights.

I'll wait.
 
You need to provide an argument that allows for them to be released from prison, and still denied of basic human rights.

I'll wait.

Basic human rights is owning guns but not universal Healthcare
 
Gotta go but this is exactly why I appreciated oldshadow's argument, it reconciled all of this and the associated writings of the founding fathers and the idea of the general populace comprising the militia:

Of course me liking this interpretation was somehow interpreted as me being a gun grabber.

Gotcha. Have a good one then.
 
Basic human rights is owning guns but not universal Healthcare

He has a right to pay for and choose his healthcare. Why does it have to be paid for by the government?

We don't ask for universal guns to be passed out like Obamaphones.
 
Basic human rights is owning guns but not universal Healthcare

Self-defense is a basic human right, that we all naturally know and recognize. I'd hope no one would dispute that.

Firearms, and the right to own them are the modern form of self-defense.

Free healthcare is not a right, I'm sorry to inform you.
 
It depends on the nature of the crime, but I don't see how you would regulate that. Anything like attempted murder or even armed robbery, I think you forfeit your right to have a gun.

But my uncle is a lawyer and was rejected for his CCL over an old boat rage incident where he was charged with battery for punching a doushbag who had it coming. If that were me, I would be pissed.

Now I haven't been in a fight since middle-school, or even near getting in one, but it makes me think twice going to bars because you never know when you get stuck in the middle of something and you forfeit basic rights over some nebulous bullshit.
 
Owning a gun a privilege (just like owning a car), not a right

You don't seem to be familiar with the 2nd Amendment. It's not the privilege to bear arms.

If we're going to be a society that wants guns to permeate into every aspect of our lives on the basis of individual protection, we sure as shit better ensure that all our citizens are able to provide themselves with that protection. The idea that ex-convicts should be thrown back into the world toothless with no prospects is insane to me.
 
Americans please correct me if I am wrong but I don't think the 2nd was meant for your personal protection. I think it was meant for tyrannical governments.

You also need to take a step back and think long and hard why guns are more important than healthcare. I know its part of your ideology but maybe ideology isn't as important as practical life.
 
Back
Top