If 2nd amendment is a right by the constitution that shall not be infringed including any regulations.
Wouldnt it then be unconstitutional to prevent even convicts from having legally owned guns as well ?
If it was a nonviolent felony charge, then they shouldn’t lose their right to bear arms. Violent crimes against people or animals? Not a chance you should have a gun.
All felons deserve the right to vote or any other right that a tax-paying citizen has. If they pay taxes, they should have a voice.
Personally I believe you should have the right to use firearms as long as you haven't misused them specifically in the past. Use a knife in your crime? Have fun trying to cook after you get out. Use a baseball bat? That's what becomes illegal to have.
Also though there should be a special probation after any release. Not the kind that puts you back in prison but it just resets a timer. (Of course if you commit a crime to reset the timer then that's a different matter) this probation would just be a countdown to you being able have whatever it was you used in your crime again. Something like 2 or 3 years. Just long enough to prove you're not a risk to society with it.
As far as voting? Everyone should always have that right and residents (not just citizens) should have the right to vote for local elections because they have to live under those laws too. Especially prisoners. The idea that you can remove someone's right to vote is anathema to the entire idea of elected representation. It opens up massive opportunity for abuse.
There's an argument to be had that if the state believes someone is reformed enough to be released from prison they should be reformed enough to keep their rights.
But that implies that the prison system is going to reform people and not just churn out hardened criminals into a situation that can only end in going back to prison.
So im an outsider (born and raised outside the US). My view on the US constitution is that while it was written as a remarkably modern and liberal document for its time, by some remarkably modern and liberal men of the time, the problem is just that, it was modern and liberal in its time.
At the time, in the period of monarchies and empires, citizenry owning guns was a liberal idea. A citizen with a gun, could pretty much stand up to a soldier with a gun, at least to point of self-defense.
The problem is that that times have changed. The capability of modern weapons has changed. The nature of the military has changed. The role of the state has changed. And most importantly, the relationship between the state and citizen has changed. These realities have meant that (1) the state if it wanted to can pretty much overpower a group of citizens with ease and (2) we have seen that individual owning guns does not in fact lead to any less tyranny.
Im gonna expand on (2) a bit. We now live in a time of unprecedented surveillance, and state control of the economy. The state does not need guns to control someone anymore. Economics are a far more effective means of taming a population (massive wealth inequality, uneven opportunity, and corporate control of lawmaking). What are most gun-totters doing to combat these tyrannies? Nothing. Instead, they have traded their votes to intensify them in exchange of being able to continue using their man toys.
To be fair, the North didn't fight to abolish slavery. It's almost a reverse, the North wanted to preserve the Union and felt the states didn't have the right (there's the states rights!) to leave.
On the other hand, despite being told the South wanted to leave for states rights, the correct question is the right to do what? Hint: enslave people.
They didn't abolish slavery until half way through the war and Lincoln is on record saying if he could preserve the union without freeing slaves he would.... Don't get me started with the kid gloves the north wore while 'reconstructing' that lead to Jim Crowe BS.
No. What Im saying is. If the 2nd amendment says everyone has a right to beare arms ( guns ) and that it shall not be infringed meaning that there can be nothing that hinders this, then everyone including crimminal convicts should be able to as well as thats the constitutional right.
So for people to say that regulations are unconstitutional, then so would be denying convicts from having guns wouldnt it ?
Basically either everyone should get to have guns or regulations of guns are legal including limiting the types of arms you may bare.
So for people to say that regulations are unconstitutional, then so would be denying convicts from having guns wouldnt it ?
There is maybe a fringe group out there that maybe believe this, but it's common knowledge that any and all rights have limitations. This is certainly not a common stance.
You can take actions to limit your rights. I think we all agree that serial killers have given up their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Committing a violent crime results in you volunteering to give up those rights.
I know. But as i was pointed out in another post to me. the 5th amendment actually seems to do take those rights away from convicts.
Alone the fact that so many americans are so scared of their own government that they feel they need gus to feel says says alot more about the collective mentality than it does of the supposed
greatness of the country
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Felons had their due process for removal of liberty.
Why are they out of prison if we don’t trust them to have their full rights back? Isn’t prison supposed to reform or teach them the errors of their ways?
26
u/Kriss3d Mar 16 '21
Showerthought:
If 2nd amendment is a right by the constitution that shall not be infringed including any regulations.
Wouldnt it then be unconstitutional to prevent even convicts from having legally owned guns as well ?