Opening a can of worms? Preface: I’m 100% pro 2A, but I also love to philosophize regarding hot-button topics. Here’s the question: where does “shall not be infringed” end and “common sense” kicks in? EX: we disarm felons when they go to jail/prison. If you take “shall not be infringed” literally, and there’s never a reason to disarm someone, then disarming felons when they go to jail should be an infringement. On the other hand, you have gun grabbers trying to infringe in so many ways (none of them I agree with) that a line must be drawn. Where do you think that line starts and ends? And, if you go the “only applies to lawful citizens” route, realize that that isn’t stated in the 2nd amendment. Nor is “common sense.” Please only thoughtful, well-thought out answers.
I’ll bite.
I think the framers did a superior job of attempting to keep power in the hands of the people. We have clearly seen that “convicted felons” can be the result of political persecution. We can almost NEVER stop evil intent, be it with guns, knives, fire, vehicular, WHATEVER, but we HAVE TO enforce the penalties that are prescribed for these crimes. THAT is what makes us a civil society. “Shall not be infringed” carries with it a citizens’ responsibility to abide by the laws, and be subject to them. THAT is what separates our Country from all the others.
While the term “Lawful Citizens” isn’t in the Constitution I think it must be LOGICALLY IMPLIED the that Constitution applies to the people of the country for whom the Constitution was written. The framers most certainly knew the Constitution did not (and would not) apply to people from Great Britain for example.
Well said! I agree. To push you further, where should the “common sense” end?
IF YOU DO THE CRIME, YOU DO THE TIME. That’s it. “Shall NOT be infringed” until you are incarcerated for not following the civil guidelines. Once you have done the time, (Unless the penalty is death) you get your gun back.
If you are going to counter with the fact that taking away your gun while incarcerated is technically “infringement”, I would counter with the citizens’ RESPONSIBILITY to abide by the laws. IF you do not abide by the laws, you forfeit your “right to bear arms” protection law.
Interesting. I’m on the fence as to whether a violent criminal should ever get their rights back. BTW, I’m partially posing this question so I can get some fodder when talking with anti-gunners. Part of what I’m looking for is when “common sense” could/should be used, if ever. I can see where the anti-gunners are coming from. It’s the only way they can get any anti-gun laws given that the 2A is perfectly clear. I could see them using the, “well, we disarm criminals” as a common sense argument. So “why can’t we use more common sense laws?”
THEY are already supporting breaking the law. They have no Constitutional standing. Don’t like the laws, move somewhere else. Don’t let the door his you in the A$$.
In an ideal world where people were actually rehabilitated in prison this would make perfect sense. But given the incredibly high recidivism rates in this country, the fact that prisons are the place where criminals go to learn how to be better criminals and the fact most criminals only serve fractions of their sentences before being released I don’t believe this is the best of ideas.
Yes ex convicts can easily illegally get weapons upon their release but I think violent criminals should have at the very least a probationary period where they must prove they are no longer a threat before having their rights to legally carry weapons wherever and whenever they want restored. They lost that right when they harmed or threatened to harm someone.
I believe violent felons should have to earn that right back by reasonably demonstrating they are no longer a threat to society. Though there must be a legitimate and reasonable due process pathway set up for them to be able to do so.
Possibly, but that’s just another sentence then. We can never know a persons’ evil intent, even if their sentence is extended.
I think this is the key. No Where in The Constitution of The United States do they ever say “Common sense” or “Smart” or “Thought out”. I think it should be taken for what it says. Shal Not Be Infringed.
Shall:
used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory
Not:
used as a function word to make negative a group of words or a word
Be:
occur; take place.
Infringed:
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
So, to your point, We as a society DO Choose to infringe on the 2nd amendment God given rights of some among us.
I think that part is covered in the Preamble:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Don’t forget the “establish justice” part. That is what binds a civil society to laws that are made. (It’s all about consequences for not following the laws.)
Why is this even a thing? (Liberals undermining/skirting laws)
I think when you have someone justly convicted under the due process of law for committing violent acts, it is safe to assume they have at least some evil intent. Especially if they have a history of having committed multiple serious crimes.
I’m all for ex cons getting their voting cards returned when they walk out of prison. They can’t do any more damage with that than the rest of us do every other November. But I think it is unwise to hand them their weapons back when they walk out of the prison doors. Unless they have been found not guilty on appeal or pardoned.
If someone intentionally takes away the rights and liberties of another citizen I think it’s fair for them to loose some of their rights until they have sufficiently demonstrated they are no longer a threat to society and deserve to get their rights back. But there must be a reasonable process in place for them to be able to do so.
What would be your “reasonable” process?
I’m with you on the “I think when you have someone justly convicted under the due process of law for committing violent acts, it is safe to assume they have at least some evil intent” part, but what would be “reasonable”?
Also lack of room in prisons and lack of funds to build and staff more prisons. Though we have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world so more prisons likely isn’t the answer either.
I can think of at least $55 billion to build 8 EV charging stations that could be better spent, or billions more “spent” on internet infrastructure in which ZERO people have benefited. Protecting the rights of the citizens should be job one.
We should be addressing the “repeat offenders”, those dregs of society that continue to take up space and oxygen. Incarcerate a loser once, shame on him. Incarcerate a loser several times, shame on US.
I don’t like long responses so I will keep it short, if convicted of a violent crime or one where a gun has been used you no longer have the right to have a gun.
So, when you lose your self defense case because it takes place in New York State, you have no recourse?
If you appeal and win your rights are reinstated.
Let me change a few words here:
if convicted of a voting for the other guy or one who the winner disagrees with you no longer have the right to vote.
This can be a very steep and slippery slope.
We were not talking about voting, but I understand what you are saying. There is no perfect answer for everyone to agree on.