Violent Felons and the Second Amendment

Quipling

Quipling

classical conservative
@Silver
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Messages
10,949
Reaction score
1,331
I'm somewhere in the middle on gun rights/regulation. Frequently, I see the argument posted by some gun rights advocates that not to be infringed means that all gun regulations are facially invalid. (If this is not what is meant, please post such). I am aware that not all gun rights advocates take this position, but there are some who certainly appear to do so, and this is elaborated into an inalienable right to firearm possession under a wide variety of circumstances.

So, for people who hold this position: Should violent felons be allowed to have firearms - even after being released from prison and serving out their parole?

I'm predicting a common claim is that felons lose their other rights, but that isn't really true, is it? They don't lose first amendment rights. They might be subjected to stricter searches, but they aren't completely without privacy rights or due process protections. So if that is a right they lose, why is it ok for them to lose this constitutional right?
Click to expand...
 
Dochter said:
That's a reasonable interpretation. Too often I've heard people point at that comma and state that the right to bear arms was the point. Your argument, that the militia is the point and the right is simply necessary to allow it, makes far more sense. The conventional interpretation makes little grammatical sense to me.
Click to expand...

It's been discussed, debated, and explained for hundreds of years.

You can't play grammar police on this one, chap.
 
It would simplify matters to follow the letter of the law by not separating felons from their rights. To offset this I'd suggest longer sentences for first-time violent offenders and then really throwing the book at them on a second violent-crime conviction.
 
They should have the right to bear arms. If they are that violent, they should still be in prison.
 
Byron Carter said:
It's been discussed, debated, and explained for hundreds of years.

You can't play grammar police on this one, chap.
Click to expand...
Yes one can play grammar police, the fact that the phrasing has been debated for hundreds of years--debate which continues--demonstrates that to be the case. Moreover, read the posts you're responding to.
 
panamaican said:
In my opinion, I think violent felons should be allowed to obtain firearms after they've served their time.

It's not a 2nd Amendment issue to me, rather it's that the point of serving prison time is to serve your debt to society. If you are perpetually punished by losing access to rights (as opposed to privileges) after incarceration then what is the point of limiting jail time?
Click to expand...

I thought about this sone more. I still think even if bearing arms is a right in the USA, this should only be true for unconditional release from jail. I personally would favor something like 'Serve time x, be on parole for time y'. And not being allowed to bear guns should absolutely be part of probation terms for violent felons. Especially if they used one in the crime.
 
Cubo de Sangre said:
It would simplify matters to follow the letter of the law by not separating felons from their rights. To offset this I'd suggest longer sentences for first-time violent offenders and then really throwing the book at them on a second violent-crime conviction.
Click to expand...

exactly. TWO strikes only on v.o's. - fuck a third chance.
 
JDragon said:
I thought about this sone more. I still think even if bearing arms is a right in the USA, this should only be true for unconditional release from jail. I personally would favor something like 'Serve time x, be on parole for time y'. And not being allowed to bear guns should absolutely be part of probation terms for violent felons. Especially if they used one in the crime.
Click to expand...
Probation is a conditional release. While under probation you're still actually under punishment and monitoring. I was not, and I'd assume the same for pan, arguing that someone on probation should be able to legally own guns.

If such restrictions extend for the lifetime of an individual you're effectively levying a life sentence. Sex offender lists etc. are life sentences. Maybe you're fine with that but to me it begs the question of if you're still a pronounced danger, why were you released.
 
JDragon said:
I thought about this sone more. I still think even if bearing arms is a right in the USA, this should only be true for unconditional release from jail. I personally would favor something like 'Serve time x, be on parole for time y'. And not being allowed to bear guns should absolutely be part of probation terms for violent felons. Especially if they used one in the crime.
Click to expand...

To me, it's either a right or it's not.
 
ripskater said:
They should have the right to bear arms. If they are that violent, they should still be in prison.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dochter said:
Probation is a conditional release. While under probation you're still actually under punishment and monitoring. I was not, and I'd assume the same for pan, arguing that someone on probation should be able to legally own guns.

If such restrictions extend for the lifetime of an individual you're effectively levying a life sentence. Sex offender lists etc. are life sentences. Maybe you're fine with that but to me it begs the question of if you're still a pronounced danger, why were you released.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree. While I personally think it's a big, big mistake that owning guns is a right in the US, I also agree that there always needs to be a way to rehabilitation. But e.g. someone with several armed robberies on his record should not necessarily get a life sentence (depending on the circumstances). But that person should absolutely have to serve a certain probationary period once out of jail.

So I should re-word my opinion: I do not believe violent felons should get out of jail without a subsequent probationary period EVER. Especially if you have abused your right to bear arms.
 
Dochter said:
Yes one can play grammar police, the fact that the phrasing has been debated for hundreds of years--debate which continues--demonstrates that to be the case. Moreover, read the posts you're responding to.
Click to expand...

Right, just like the people who believe the earth is flat.

I guess you can keep debating, and losing, my apologies.
 
Byron Carter said:
Right, just like the people who believe the earth is flat.

I guess you can keep debating, and losing, my apologies.
Click to expand...
You clearly don't have any clue what my position on this issue is. I guess you can keep assuming, and being wrong, my apologies.
 
ripskater said:
Yeah they're cool to shoot. I also like to do a little archery. My 2nd grader likes to shoot (archery) with me.
Click to expand...

What do you think Jesus would of thought about guns?


Archery is fun, I agree.
 
Dochter said:
You clearly don't have any clue what my position on this issue is. I guess you can keep assuming, and being wrong, my apologies.
Click to expand...

You think the wording of the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted differently than it has been since it was written.

You're wrong. You're a traitor and a communist.
 
JudoThrowFiasco said:
What do you think Jesus would of thought about guns?


Archery is fun, I agree.
Click to expand...

I think Jesus wants me to be ready to protect my family.

1 Timothy 5

8But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
 
Byron Carter said:
You think the wording of the 2nd Amendment can be interpreted differently than it has been since it was written.
Click to expand...
You're pretending there has been a single monolithic interpretation. That's clearly not the case. Hell, it has only been incorporated for about a decade.
Byron Carter said:
You're wrong. You're a traitor and a communist.
Click to expand...
Uhm... no, but whatever.
 
ripskater said:
I think Jesus wants me to be ready to protect my family.

1 Timothy 5

8But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
Click to expand...

LOL - always good for a chuckle, thanks rip.

jesus.jpg
 
Much like someone who thinks the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, evolution is a lie, or vaccines don't work --- I really can't argue with you.

Your mind isn't based in reality.

You want to take guns away from people, and you will go to any lengths to do it. Keep desperately reaching and picking at the grammar of the 2A. You know damned well you won't be the one going door-to-door to disarm the people, coward.
 
Now we just need Jesus on a dinosaur with an m-16.
 
Serve your time, get your rights back. If you are deemed to be a danger to the public, you shouldn't be outside of prison.
 
I don't like the current system of releasing violent/at-risk people, and then attempting to place restrictions on them.

Either keep them behind bars, or give them freedom. In most cases, keep them behind bars.

But if someone is free to go out on the street, they should be free to have their 2nd Amendment Rights.
 
WorldofWarcraft said:
Serve your time, get your rights back. If you are deemed to be a danger to the public, you shouldn't be outside of prison.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This whole notion of "any felony (violent or not) disqualifies your natural rights, oh and by the way, we're making just about everything a felony" is nothing more than disarmament one citizen at a time.
 
ripskater said:
Wait til we see Jesus come back. Next time it will be to battle.
Click to expand...

That is an odd fantasy, Rip.

But then again, I have a daydream in which I have the powers of Dr Manhattan from Watchmen - so, to each their own.
 
Dochter said:
Yes one can play grammar police, the fact that the phrasing has been debated for hundreds of years--debate which continues--demonstrates that to be the case. Moreover, read the posts you're responding to.
Click to expand...

The only people who ever seem to "debate" or "have a hard time understanding" the meaning and grammar of the 2nd Amendment are the same people who always want less guns in civilian hands................

Isn't it funny how that work.......
 
JudoThrowFiasco said:
That is an odd fantasy, Rip.

But then again, I have a daydream in which I have the powers of Dr Manhattan from Watchmen - so, to each their own.
Click to expand...

I just want a glowing Weiner. Is that too much to ask?
 
Byron Carter said:
Much like someone who thinks the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, evolution is a lie, or vaccines don't work --- I really can't argue with you.

Your mind isn't based in reality.

You want to take guns away from people, and you will go to any lengths to do it. Keep desperately reaching and picking at the grammar of the 2A. You know damned well you won't be the one going door-to-door to disarm the people, coward.
Click to expand...
Like I said, you've no idea what my position is. I don't support additional gun control. I don't support banning guns for cosmetic reasons. I don't support magazine restrictions, etc. I've actually been fairly consistent on this issue for the last 5+ years. Even the post to which you were responding was simply me appreciating a slightly more nuanced argument than I'd come across previously. You can also see that in this very thread I'm advocating protecting the second amendment rights of felons.

I have, at times, criticized gun lobbies and people on the pro-gun side of discussions for dishonesty and paranoia but I've also criticized people on the gun control side for the same.

Tell me again how I'm the one not rooted in reality.
 
Farmer Br0wn said:
The only people who ever seem to "debate" or "have a hard time understanding" the meaning and grammar of the 2nd Amendment are the same people who always want less guns in civilian hands................

Isn't it funny how that work.......
Click to expand...
Well given that I don't think we should restrict ownership that is indeed funny.
 
JDragon said:
Oh, I agree. While I personally think it's a big, big mistake that owning guns is a right in the US
Click to expand...

Then you think citizen on citizen homicide with firearms is of greater consequence than democide?
 
If they do their time, I don't think they should have restrictions on their rights afterwards. If they do something stupid after they're released, then lock em up for good.
 
Dochter said:
Well given that I don't think we should restrict ownership that is indeed funny.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,054
Messages
55,464,040
Members
174,785
Latest member
JoyceOuthw

Share this page

Back
Top