2 Questions For 2nd Amendment Fans

[MikeK]

Why infringe on the rights of felons? If the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, and the words express the original intent of the founders, shouldn't any infringement, control or regulation be unconstitutional?
["Yes, I'd like a a two megaton warhead on my mortor. Do you deliever?"]

Exactly. "Shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed." Once you've "infringed" the rights of felons, you've started down the road to tyranny.

I agree with the philosophical reasoning. But if you would watch a few episodes of the MSNBC series, Lockup, you would see that our prisons are in fact madhouses (in the Victorian sense of the word) in which a significant percentage of their populations are true psychopaths who should be permanently locked away in mental institutions and maintained on Thorazine sedation. However, they are committed to serve a specific period of time after which they will be released into mainstream society. To allow some of these aberrations to legally obtain firearms is analogous to releasing rabid dogs in an active school building. It should not be done.

While the original intent of the 2nd Amendment is noble and just, consideration must, in this and other exceptional situations, be given to the fact that if the Founders could have foreseen certain developments in the Nation's social problems, and in firearms technology, it is certain they would have allowed for a 2nd Amendment exception in the case of lunatics.

 

[M14 Shooter]

01. Do you agree that convicts should not have access, aka be allowed to own guns?

Yes, though an argument could be made that those convicted of certain crimes might have this right restored.
Generally, if you commot a felony, especially a crime of violence, you have shown yourself to be beyond the full trust of society.

02. Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?

No. This is a form of prior restraint; prior restraint is an infringement.

 

[M14 Shooter]

01. Do you agree that convicts should not have access, aka be allowed to own guns?
02. Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?
Why/why not?

Yes to both. Both seem like Reasonable Limitations to me.

Item 2 creates an infringement. The right shall not be infringed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why infringe on the rights of felons? If the Second Amendment is sacrosanct, and the words express the original intent of the founders, shouldn't any infringement, control or regulation be unconstitutional?

Any right may be stripped thru due process. See Amendment V.
Stripping felons of the right to arms does not violate the 2nd because it only protects those who have the right. You cannot protect a right that someone no longer has.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're just obsessed with the cryptic response, aren't you.

Don't keep me in suspense, how am I wrong?

Why is this right that you contend is not and individual right contained in the bill of rights with 9 other rights that enumerate rights that are reserved to individuals?

Except for the Third, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, the rights of the Bill of Rights are declared for "the People" not any person or group of persons or they are restrictions on the powers of Congress. They have become personal rights by judicial activism over the 200+ years since the Bill of Rights' adoption.

For instance, the First Amendment says Congress "shall make no law", etc. That's a restriction on the power of Congress which has been construed to be a right by various courts. On the other hand, the Fifth Amendment deals with rights of a "person" accused of a crime. That's a personal right. The Second Amendment deals the "right of the People." "People" is not the plural of person. It is a collective noun used to describe citizens in their sovereign capacity. The right of the Second Amendment is declared for the citizens, collectively, as sovereign but not for any person or group of persons.

Just for starters, you need to read the First amendment again...

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.
​

By your logic, Congress could make laws that infringe the right of a person to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Similarly, there is then no individual right to vote for Congressmen of either house.

Article I Sec 2:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Amendment XVII:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

 

[fr8dog]

Re: Question #1: It depends on the type of “felon”. So, yes. The comment that you paint with too broad a brush is correct. Please narrow your definition of “felon” and I’ll be happy to provide an appropriate answer.
Re: Question #2: If your question assumes government will administer and evaluate “mental competency” tests, then before I answer, please tell me if you trust government, either State or Federal, to do so fairly & confidentially. At issue here is that evaluation may be subject to arbitrary & capricious standards or affected by political bias for or against those being tested.
I await your comments

 

[Joe Steel]

Except for the Third, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, the rights of the Bill of Rights are declared for "the People" not any person or group of persons or they are restrictions on the powers of Congress. They have become personal rights by judicial activism over the 200+ years since the Bill of Rights' adoption.

For instance, the First Amendment says Congress "shall make no law", etc. That's a restriction on the power of Congress which has been construed to be a right by various courts. On the other hand, the Fifth Amendment deals with rights of a "person" accused of a crime. That's a personal right. The Second Amendment deals the "right of the People." "People" is not the plural of person. It is a collective noun used to describe citizens in their sovereign capacity. The right of the Second Amendment is declared for the citizens, collectively, as sovereign but not for any person or group of persons.

Just for starters, you need to read the First amendment again...

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.
​

By your logic, Congress could make laws that infringe the right of a person to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As I said earlier, the word "people" is not the plural of "person." Rights declared for "the People" are declared for citizens collectively not for any person or persons.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except for the Third, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, the rights of the Bill of Rights are declared for "the People" not any person or group of persons or they are restrictions on the powers of Congress. They have become personal rights by judicial activism over the 200+ years since the Bill of Rights' adoption.

For instance, the First Amendment says Congress "shall make no law", etc. That's a restriction on the power of Congress which has been construed to be a right by various courts. On the other hand, the Fifth Amendment deals with rights of a "person" accused of a crime. That's a personal right. The Second Amendment deals the "right of the People." "People" is not the plural of person. It is a collective noun used to describe citizens in their sovereign capacity. The right of the Second Amendment is declared for the citizens, collectively, as sovereign but not for any person or group of persons.

Just for starters, you need to read the First amendment again...

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.
​

By your logic, Congress could make laws that infringe the right of a person to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As I said earlier, the word "people" is not the plural of "person." Rights declared for "the People" are declared for citizens collectively not for any person or persons.

Incorrect.
The above examples indicate that the term is reserved for all of the individual people, not the body of the people as a whole, dependant on one another in order to exercise the right. Your right to vote exists for you, independent of all others; your right to arms exists for you, independent of all others.

 

[Ernie S.]

1. If you mean felons, YES

2. When your government is trying to class returning War Veterans as possible terrorist, Not just NO But HELL NO.
You can't trust the government to give a fair test or to not manipulate the answers into something their not.

Do you really believe the inflation rate is 0% or unemployment is 9%? Well they would manipulate test answers the same way.

Gotta agree... There are folks in government that seem to think that conservatism is a mental illness.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Second Amendment was never intended to control gun ownership. It was intended to control the composition of the military.

what?......

You can't join the Army unless you have a gun, or something like that.

 

[Mini 14]

1. Felony convictions, of ANY kind.....you give up your right to a firearm for life.

2. Background checks, yes (they are a statement of fact). Mental exams, no (they are an opinion).

 

[bigrebnc1775]

1. Felony convictions, of ANY kind.....you give up your right to a firearm for life.

2. Background checks, yes (they are a statement of fact). Mental exams, no (they are an opinion).

The question to number 2 was
Do you believe that an individual should be tested for mental competency before being allowed to own a gun?


Now if a person has paid his dues for his crimes should he have to pay for the rest of his life? If the state thinks he has paid for his crimes why did they free him?

 

[Missourian]

Except for the Third, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, the rights of the Bill of Rights are declared for "the People" not any person or group of persons or they are restrictions on the powers of Congress. They have become personal rights by judicial activism over the 200+ years since the Bill of Rights' adoption.

For instance, the First Amendment says Congress "shall make no law", etc. That's a restriction on the power of Congress which has been construed to be a right by various courts. On the other hand, the Fifth Amendment deals with rights of a "person" accused of a crime. That's a personal right. The Second Amendment deals the "right of the People." "People" is not the plural of person. It is a collective noun used to describe citizens in their sovereign capacity. The right of the Second Amendment is declared for the citizens, collectively, as sovereign but not for any person or group of persons.

Just for starters, you need to read the First amendment again...

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.
​

By your logic, Congress could make laws that infringe the right of a person to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Similarly, there is then no individual right to vote for Congressmen of either house.

Article I Sec 2:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Amendment XVII:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

In fact, the suspension of voting is covered in the Constitution.

The 14th amendment seems to endorse the abridgment of a persons voting privilege.

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.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
​

 

[Missourian]

Except for the Third, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, the rights of the Bill of Rights are declared for "the People" not any person or group of persons or they are restrictions on the powers of Congress. They have become personal rights by judicial activism over the 200+ years since the Bill of Rights' adoption.

For instance, the First Amendment says Congress "shall make no law", etc. That's a restriction on the power of Congress which has been construed to be a right by various courts. On the other hand, the Fifth Amendment deals with rights of a "person" accused of a crime. That's a personal right. The Second Amendment deals the "right of the People." "People" is not the plural of person. It is a collective noun used to describe citizens in their sovereign capacity. The right of the Second Amendment is declared for the citizens, collectively, as sovereign but not for any person or group of persons.

Just for starters, you need to read the First amendment again...

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.
​

By your logic, Congress could make laws that infringe the right of a person to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

As I said earlier, the word "people" is not the plural of "person." Rights declared for "the People" are declared for citizens collectively not for any person or persons.

Fine, that still leads to the ability of Congress to make laws denying the right of a person to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Right?

 

[zzzz]

1. Not all convicts. Those convicted of violent crime would sit ok with me, although constitutionally, it is a very difficult area.

2. No. Mainly because mental illness can develop at any time. Also, most people with mental illness - properly medicated - cope fine. Legislating it won't catch the 'Loughners'.

I think everyone should have the right own guns, even felons. Yes even the mentally disturbed. I also think that people should have the right to carry their guns wherever they choose. And if they someone draws a gun on you, you should have the right to defend yourself. If someone uses a gun on someone unjustly then they should be tried by their peers within a week and hung by the neck until dead if they are found guilty. Swift justice.

Faced with the threat of an armed person many crimes commited today would not even be attempted. Many criminals know that the only punishement they have to contend with is prison or a little jail time but if the people they are robbing are armed ... well the consequences can be a little more permanent.

 

[MikeK]

1. Felony convictions, of ANY kind.....you give up your right to a firearm for life.

Why should someone who was convicted of some non-violent offense, such as growing or selling marijuana, for example, has served his time and has led a perfectly straight life for a year, not be permitted to own a hunting rifle or shotgun?

2. Background checks, yes (they are a statement of fact). Mental exams, no (they are an opinion).

I agree.

New Jersey's exceptionally repressive gun laws require that applicants for open or concealed carry permit be examined by a psychologist and submit a letter certifying their mental competence. One of the Ph.D.s who perform these one hour certification interviews is a personal friend who has told me one would need to be foaming at the mouth to present a positive indication of instability within a one hour interview.