Then you think citizen on citizen homicide with firearms is of greater consequence than democide?
"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.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?
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.
"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.
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?
Please elaborate
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
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.
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.Don't let them integrate into society then.
Keep them in prison.
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: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.
Reading this sentence it really is the militia that's the focus. Bearing arms is then relevant to the militia.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.
So if we read the first it is clear that religion, speech/press, and assembly are explicitly separated.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.
The third makes it clear that it is just quartering that is restricted (no semi-colons).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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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:To kick this off then, do you make a distinction between the militia and the people? Do you think the FFs did?
"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.
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
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.
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.
Basic human rights is owning guns but not universal Healthcare
Basic human rights is owning guns but not universal Healthcare
Basic human rights is owning guns but not universal Healthcare
Owning a gun a privilege (just like owning a car), not a right