Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

Ikari · Sep 22, 2009

Bodhisattva said:
If you can prove that jail rehibilitates criminals so that they are no longer a threat and prove that the revolving door issue is untrue, thus indicating that they should be able to have fire arms that simply make it even easier for them to rape and murder again, then your statement would merit any type of reasonable response, until then though, think whatever you like buddy...

One of the reasons of jail is supposedly rehabilitation. Regardless, incarceration is government force against the rights and liberties of the individual practiced through due process of law. It is the only legitimate way by which the government may infringe upon the rights of the individual. People are sent away to prison for X amount of time as their punishment. During this X amount of time, the government may use its force to suppress the exercise of rights by the individual. However, upon completion of the specified time, probation, etc. the full of the rights of that individual need to once again be recognized. If you want infinite punishment, you must move for life in prison. Otherwise, at some point the individual must be free to exercise their rights and liberties once again.

Goobieman · Sep 22, 2009

Bodhisattva said:
Once a person has shown that they are untrustworthy, committing a rape, murder or other felony, then it is literally illogical and insane to allow them legal access to fire arms...

Agreed -- violent offenders, at best, should have to EARN back their right.

Ikari · Sep 22, 2009

On a side note, will Plaxico Burress be allowed to carry a gun once his punishment is over?

OxymoronP · Sep 22, 2009

Reasonable regulations are ok, but they should be mandated by each individual state. These regulations should in no way restrict the carrying or possesion of a gun for a citizen with no criminal record.

Goobieman · Sep 22, 2009

OxymoronP said:
Reasonable regulations are ok, but they should be mandated by each individual state. These regulations should in no way restrict the carrying or possesion of a gun for a citizen with no criminal record.

Just out of curiosity - what do -you- consider 'reasonable' restrictions?

Bodi · Sep 22, 2009

Goobieman said:
Agreed -- violent offenders, at best, should have to EARN back their right.

I agree with that, through any number of ways they might do this. It would be much better to see them earn their right to some things rather than just handing it to them since they did X amount of time. IMO, the penalty for a crime is not only the X amount of prison time that a person gets... the penalty can and does extend beyond prison time, such as with sexual offenders being watched and monitored.

Voidwar · Sep 22, 2009

Bodhisattva said:
IMO, the penalty for a crime is not only the X amount of prison time that a person gets... the penalty can and does extend beyond prison time, such as with sexual offenders being watched and monitored.

The fact that we currently punish citizens after release does not justify itself.

Its just what we are doing now, and that does not add in to a discussion of whether it is the right thing to do or not.

I disagree with the practice, completely.

A free citizen has the right to weapons for self defense.
This need does not go away just because the citizen did time.

Sex offenders ? What a joke, unnecessarily hassling most, ineffectively ignored in cases where it might really matter.

Bodi · Sep 22, 2009

Voidwar said:
The fact that we currently punish citizens after release does not justify itself.

Its just what we are doing now, and that does not add in to a discussion of whether it is the right thing to do or not.

I disagree with the practice, completely.

A free citizen has the right to weapons for self defense.
This need does not go away just because the citizen did time.

Sex offenders ? What a joke, unnecessarily hassling most, ineffectively ignored in cases where it might really matter.

It absolutely justifies itself since it is another aspect of a consequence. The point is that the consequence of committing the crime has multiple aspects to it, not simply one. The point is that prison is but one aspect of the consequence, not the only aspect. Doing time in prison is the biggest and most serious aspect, but that does not negate the seriousness of any of the other aspects, of which might include loss of certain rights. I am not sure why this is not understood, but to say that, "gee, the guy did 15 years for murder already, let him have a gun now that he is out" is dismissing the rest of the consequence for murder, and that is to lose certain rights, one of which might be gun ownership... others can be voting or getting a job in a school or being monitored. This is how it is. This is logical. This is how it should be. :2razz:

repeter · Sep 22, 2009

Goobieman said:
Just out of curiosity - what do -you- consider 'reasonable' restrictions?

Minimum background checks, and not allowing anyone with a felony or something like that to get a gun. Somethiing like that.

Voidwar · Sep 23, 2009

Bodhisattva said:
It absolutely justifies itself since it is another aspect of a consequence.

As I explained, NO , IT DOES NOT.

IT is just how we have been doing it so far.

Your "Consequence", is a violation of the Second Amendment, since we end up with a member of "the people" who's right to keep and bear arms is permanently infringed.

Bodhisattva said:
Doing time in prison is the biggest and most serious aspect, but that does not negate the seriousness of any of the other aspects, of which might include loss of certain rights.

If you can lose em, THEY ARE PRIVELEGES.

Bodhisattva said:
This is how it is. This is logical. This is how it should be. :2razz:

It is merely how it has been, and it has been an ongoing violation of our constitution. It is not logical to release a man but release him as a second class citizen with a neutered set of rights. We are supposed to have one set of equal rights for all citizens. Citizens convicted of crimes are still citizens. As such, denying them their rights, whether they be suffrage, or the right to keep and bear, or the right to buy a home for sale in an overzealous sex offender bailiwick, is unconstitutional.

Goobieman · Sep 23, 2009

Voidwar said:
The fact that we currently punish citizens after release does not justify itself.

This is only viable if the only legitimate consequence of comitting a crime is imprisonment. So long as due proces is followed, a criminal can have any number of his rights taken away, before during or after any imprisonment.

"Doing his time" means more than the time he is in prison.

Goobieman · Sep 23, 2009

repeter said:
Minimum background checks...

Do you know what prior restraint is?
Background checks fall under its broader definition.

Voidwar · Sep 23, 2009

Goobieman said:
This is only viable if the only legitimate consequence of comitting a crime is imprisonment.

It is. Ya got fines, ya got imprisonment. Anything else is cruel and unusual.

Goobieman said:
So long as due proces is followed, a criminal can have any number of his rights taken away, before during or after any imprisonment.

I disagree, and as I stated previously, if you can lose em, they are priveleges.

Goobieman said:
"Doing his time" means more than the time he is in prison.

Appeal to tradition. Just because we have been doing it wrong is no good reason to continue doing it wrong.

Goobieman · Sep 23, 2009

Voidwar said:
It is. Ya got fines, ya got imprisonment. Anything else is cruel and unusual.

Show that to be true, that punishment other than fines/imprisonment violate the 8th amendment.

I disagree, and as I stated previously, if you can lose em, they are priveleges.

So, your right to life is a privelege?
You can disagree all you want, but the fact remains that the the 5th amendment -specifically- states that the -right- to life liberty and property may be deprived so long as due process is given.

Appeal to tradition. Just because we have been doing it wrong is no good reason to continue doing it wrong.

You'll have to address the responses, above, to show that we have been doing it wrong.

Voidwar · Sep 23, 2009

Goobieman said:
Show that to be true, that punishment other than fines/imprisonment violate the 8th amendment.

I already did.

Voidwar said:
It is. Ya got fines, ya got imprisonment. Anything else is cruel and unusual.

Goobieman said:
So, your right to life is a privelege?

"Right to Life" is in the Declaration of Independance, not the Constitution, and thus carries no legal weight.

Goobieman said:
You can disagree all you want, but the fact remains that the the 5th amendment -speficially- states that the -right- to life liberty and property may be deprived so long as due process is given.

Incorrect. The word "right" does not appear in the fifth amendment. It also pretty much limits one to fines and imprisonment, as I stated above, and as the Eighth Amendment reinforces, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.

Goobieman said:
You'll have to address the responses, above, to show that we have been doing it wrong.

I already have shown it. Releasing a citizen with a neutered set of rights is inconsistant with our sytem of law. Citizens have the right to self defense, and the right to use weapons to succeed in that end. Suffrage ? To borrow your tactic of quoting the Declaration, , No Taxation without Representation !! Sex offender crap ? OBVIOUS violation of the fifth and the fourteenth.

Goobieman · Sep 23, 2009

Voidwar said:
I already did.

Hate to break it to you, but you making a statement does not qualify as showing that your statement is true. You'll have to do far better than that.

"Right to Life" is in the Declaration of Independance, not the Constitution, and thus carries no legal weight.
Incorrect. The word "right" does not appear in the fifth amendment.

So, again, you have no right to life, liberty or property?

It also pretty much limits one to fines and imprisonment as I stated above, and as the Eighth Amendment reinforces, prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.

Explain then the clause "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property...", when any and all of these things may be something other than fines or imprisonment?

I already have shown it. Releasing a citizen with a neutered set of rights is inconsistant with our sytem of law.

You have STATED this, you have not SHOWN this.

Citizens have the right to self defense, and the right to use weapons to succeed in that end... sufferage...

These are liberties. The government, may, according to the 5th amendment, deprive criminals of their liberties, so long as due process is followed.

Voidwar · Sep 23, 2009

Goobieman said:
Hate to break it to you, but you making a statement does not qualify as showing that your statement is true. You'll have to do far better than that.

No, I don't. Fines or imprisonment (or execution) are delineated by the fifth, and the Eighth pretty much prohibits anything else. Its the constitution man.

Goobieman said:
So, again, you have no right to life, liberty or property?

Loaded crap, rejected on its face.

Goobieman said:
Explain then the clause "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property...", when any and all of these things may be something other than fines or imprisonment?

Um, no, they're not. Fines = property, Imprisonment = Liberty.

Goobieman said:
You have STATED this, you have not SHOWN this.

Sure I did, right here where you editted :

Voidwar said:
I already have shown it. Releasing a citizen with a neutered set of rights is inconsistant with our sytem of law. Citizens have the right to self defense, and the right to use weapons to succeed in that end. Suffrage ? To borrow your tactic of quoting the Declaration, , No Taxation without Representation !! Sex offender crap ? OBVIOUS violation of the fifth and the fourteenth.

Goobieman · Sep 23, 2009

Voidwar said:
No, I don't. Fines or imprisonement (or execution) are delineated by the fifth and the Eighth pretty much prohibits anything else. Its the constitution man.

Please cite any SCotuS decision that rules that the only constitutionally valid penalties are fines and/or imprisonment, with all others violating the 5th and 8th amendments.

Loaded crap, rejected on its face.

I asked you a question, pursunt to -your- statement.
So, again: you have no right to life, liberty or property?

Um, no, they're not. Fines = property, Imprisonment = Liberty.

You have many liberties other than freedom from incarceration, and there are any number of other "properties" that can be taken from you as punishemnt for a crime other than simple money.
And...what about "life"?

Sure I did, right here where you editted

I addessed this; YOU did not address my response to that effect:

These are liberties. The government, may, according to the 5th amendment, deprive criminals of their liberties, so long as due process is followed.

And so, again:
You have STATED this, you have not SHOWN this
Hate to break it to you, but you making a statement does not qualify as showing that your statement is true.

Voidwar · Sep 23, 2009

Goobieman said:
Please cite any SCotuS decision that rules that the only constitutionally valid penalties are fines and/or imprisonment, with all others violating the 5th and 8th amendments.

NO. You go do your own homework. See if you can find an incidence of fines or imprisonment being found in violation of the 8th.

Goobieman said:
I asked you a question, pursunt to -your- statement.
So, again: you have no right to life, liberty or property?

Whatever you say Goobie. Its a red herring. Do you think the state has the right to execute a freed criminal at any arbitrary time after his release ? Note the loaded question, wallow in it yourself.

Goobieman said:
You have many liberties other than freedom from incarceration,

Bull. You are twisting terminology. Liberty = freedom from incarceration in this context.

Goobieman said:
and there are any number of other "properties" that can be taken from you as punishemnt for a crime other than simple money.

Bull. Fines = property.

Goobieman said:
And...what about "life"?

To be completely accurate, I think the founders meant to leave capital punishment up to the states, with the exception of treason. I don't think the constitution was an accident.

Goobieman said:
These are liberties.

No, they are rights, and they cannot be violated after incarceration is over.

Goobieman · Sep 23, 2009

Also, lets take note of the 14th amendment, section 2:

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

So, according to the 14th amendment, people who do not have the right to vote because of their having committed a crime, are not counted as those whose rights have been 'abridged'.

This destroys any argument that depriving felons the right to vote violates the Constitution, under the 5th, 8th or otherwise.

Goobieman · Sep 23, 2009

Voidwar said:
NO. You go do your own homework.

Ah. You concede the argument in that you refuse to back up your position with anything other than you saying that your position is correct.
Figured as much

Whatever you say Goobie. Its a red herring.

Its YOUR herring.
YOU said "'[the] Right to Life' is in the Declaration of Independance, not the Constitution, and thus carries no legal weight"
and "The word 'right' does not appear in the fifth amendment"

So, I ask again:
You have no right to life, liberty or property?

Bull. You are twisting terminology. Liberty = freedom from incarceration in this context. Bull. Fines = property.

Show this to be true.
Please cite any SCotuS decision that rules that the only constitutionally valid penalties are fines and/or imprisonment, with all others violating the 5th and 8th amendments.

To be completely accurate, I think the founders meant to leave capital punishment up to the states, with the exception of treason. I don't think the constitution was an accident.

And so, you DO agree that there ARE punishments other than fines and imprisonment that do NOT violate the 5th and 8th amendments.

No, they are rights, and they cannot be violated after incarceration is over.

Which is a valid point ONLY if you can show that the ONLY constitutionally acceptabe punishments are fines/improsonments.

So, when you do that -- actually SHOW it rather than simplay make the statement and demand that it is true -- you'll have a leg to stand on.

Goobieman · Sep 23, 2009

Goobieman said:
This destroys any argument that depriving felons the right to vote violates the Constitution, under the 5th, 8th or otherwise.

To this end:

Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974)

2. California, in disenfranchising convicted felons who have completed their sentences and paroles, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Pp. 418 U. S. 41-56.

(a) The understanding of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, as reflected in the express language of § 2 of the Amendment, which exempts from the sanction of reduced congressional representation resulting from the denial of citizens' right to vote the denial of such right for "participation in rebellion, or other crime," and in the historical and judicial interpretation of the Amendment's applicability to state laws disenfranchising felons, is of controlling significance in distinguishing such laws from those other state limitations on the franchise that this Court has held invalid under the Equal Protection Clause. Pp. 418 U. S. 54-55.

(b) Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which contains the Equal Protection Clause, in dealing with voting rights as it does, could not have been meant to bar outright a form of disenfranchisement that was expressly exempted from the less drastic sanction of reduced representation that § 2 imposed for other forms of disenfranchisement. P. 418 U. S. 55.

(c) Even if § 2 was made part of the Amendment "largely through the accident of political exigency, rather than for the relation which it bore to the other sections of Amendment,'" as respondents contend, this does not preclude looking to it for guidance in interpreting § 1, since § 2 is as much a part of the Amendment

Voidwar · Sep 23, 2009

Goobieman said:
Ah. You concede the argument

I don't concede a thing. You didn't provide the incident I asked for, but you remembered to edit it out of your response, didn't ya ?

Go do your own homework, I'm not your law clerk.

Goobieman said:
in that you refuse to back up your position with anything other than you saying that your position is correct.

False. My reasoning may be simple, but that does not make it unsound. My reasons are mostly quoted directly from the Bill of Rights, or other Constitutional Amendments, but also from documents like the Declaration, and even possibly subjective notions about the spirit of this country :

Voidwar said:
It is not logical to release a man but release him as a second class citizen with a neutered set of rights. We are supposed to have one set of equal rights for all citizens.

Goobieman said:
Its YOUR herring.

Naw, it is your, ad hominem, red herring, loaded question.

Its not relevant to the discussion, as I am not a felon, nor incarcerated.

Thanks for playing.

Goobieman said:
Show this to be true.
Please cite any SCotuS decision that rules that the only constitutionally valid penalties are fines and/or imprisonment, with all others violating the 5th and 8th amendments.

Right after you show me an incident where fines and punishment were found to be in violation of the eighth.

I am not your law clerk.

Goobieman said:
And so, you DO agree that there ARE punishments other than fines and imprisonment that do NOT violate the 5th and 8th amendments.

Sure. Do they have to do with this topic tho ?

Do you think a dead man can vote ?

Do you think a dead man can exercise second amendment rights ?

Perhaps I discussed the topic as I would with a grown up who can see one step down the road, and this was my error.

Goobieman said:
Which is a valid point ONLY if you can show that the ONLY constitutionally acceptabe punishments are fines/improsonments.

Show me another one mentioned in the fifth

Other than execution, which I believe I have covered.

Bodi · Sep 23, 2009

Voidwar said:
As I explained, NO , IT DOES NOT.

You don't explain why it isn't, you just say it isn't and expect us to think that since you said it, you are correct... you aren't.

Your "Consequence", is a violation of the Second Amendment, since we end up with a member of "the people" who's right to keep and bear arms is permanently infringed.

Minors are citizens too, apparently you think that a five year-old should be able to carry around an AK-47?

It is merely how it has been, and it has been an ongoing violation of our constitution. It is not logical to release a man but release him as a second class citizen with a neutered set of rights. We are supposed to have one set of equal rights for all citizens. Citizens convicted of crimes are still citizens. As such, denying them their rights, whether they be suffrage, or the right to keep and bear, or the right to buy a home for sale in an overzealous sex offender bailiwick, is unconstitutional.

A person that commits murder and is imprisoned is still a citizen. Logic would dictate that you feel that convicted felons, while in prison, should be able to own and carry guns. This is where your logic is flawed...

Nope, once we restrict certain rights, that bridge is already crossed and then it is logical to follow that course of action once it has been deemed appropriate.

Bodi · Sep 23, 2009

Voidwar said:
Sex offender crap ? OBVIOUS violation of the fifth and the fourteenth.

You think that sex offenders should have all rights and privileges that everybody else has? The right to work in a preschool and be alone with 4 year-olds? I seriously hope this is not what you are saying because it is disgusting.

Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

Are ANY government regulations of the 2nd Amendment acceptable?

No. It's a Constitutional Right & no regulatioins are acceptable.

Yes. Reasonable regulations are acceptable.

A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry full auto weapons.

A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry flame throwers.

A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry tactical nukes.

gun restrictions are necessary to prevent unauthorized use by nuts.

More options

Ikari

Goobieman

Ikari

OxymoronP

Goobieman

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...

Voidwar

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...

repeter

Voidwar

Goobieman

Goobieman

Voidwar

Goobieman

Voidwar

Goobieman

Voidwar

Goobieman

Voidwar

Goobieman

Goobieman

Goobieman

Voidwar

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...