National Federal Judge Rules Felons Aren’t Protected by Second Amendment

[Yarome]

Take them all, including their nuts!

Don't get me started.....

I think mandatory mental health testing, scrutiny of financial security, securing a bond a comprehensive BGC nd license to procreate would do the world a whole lotta good! Violators will be-nutzed.

 

[Yarome]

As is so frequently pointed out on this and every other gun forum:

2A says "shall not be infringed". Which is pretty absolute sounding.

5A says "unreasonable". Which is pretty subjective.

Just saying...

It also says in the constitution, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

It the process of law that takes a persons freedom and right to property (firearms). The 2A does not stand wholly and apart on it's own.

Just sayin....

 

[Koda]

Were going down a pointless rabbit hole.
Everyone knows that rights can be taken away. With enough "probable cause" a court can issue a search warrant, a person can be detained against their will. Upon conviction a person is denied their right to move freely, or including the right to live. The 9th Amendment enumerates all other rights that are regularly taken away by the govt.

Weve discussed the historical precidence of taking away guns from bad guys so it stands.

 

[gmerkt]

then this would suggest there is historic precedence to let violent people free.

Free but unarmed.

 

[Koda]

Free but unarmed.

yes, to clarify a historical precedence of removal of ones rights to certain individuals.

 

[The Heretic]

The Second Amendment is the only one that involves an inanimate object.

But not only an inanimate object; it is about the innate right of a person to self-defense. even a convicted felon has the right to self-defense, and the courts have recognized that.

 

[gmerkt]

yes, to clarify a historical precedence of removal of ones rights to certain individuals.

It's true that the 2A itself does not address the concept of denying felons the right to bear arms. In colonial and revolutionary times, the terms "virtuous" and "unvirtuous" were used, rather than felon. In those times, it was generally ruled that the unvirtuous were to be denied the right to bear arms. In successive courts and generations, it is these precedents that have been referred to.

 

[The Heretic]

Everyone knows that rights can be taken away.

No - everyone still has rights - they are innate and inherent to our being, hence the name Natural Rights.

But the freedom to exercise them can be infringed.

 

[Koda]

But not only an inanimate object; it is about the innate right of a person to self-defense. even a convicted felon has the right to self-defense, and the courts have recognized that.

the way I understand it is you dont have a right to self defense, self defense is a legal privilege.

 

[Koda]

No - everyone still has rights - they are innate and inherent to our being, hence the name Natural Rights.

But the freedom to exercise them can be infringed.

Whats a natural right?

 

[RX-79G]

Whats a natural right?

Freedom of speech, but not free access to potable water.

 

[Koda]

Freedom of speech

how is that natural when it can be taken away?

IIRC there are countries which do not have freedom of speech.

 

[RX-79G]

how is that natural when it can be taken away?

IIRC there are countries which do not have freedom of speech.

I was being facetious. It's a nebulous concept.

Natural rights and legal rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[The Heretic]

Whats a natural right?

Innate inherent rights.

Natural rights and legal rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights).

 

[Koda]

I was being facetious. It's a nebulous concept.

Natural rights and legal rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

thought I had ya there for a sec....

 

[Yarome]

how is that natural when it can be taken away?

IIRC there are countries which do not have freedom of speech.

Natural rights are really not divine rights so much as they were deemed and agreed as "god given" by the founding fathers... is my take... in a nutshell. A template or foundation... if you will.

You're absolutely correct. Countries and ethnic groups founded under different value systems may not recognize those same rights granted to all people by whatever divinity they might worship.

Not that I want to detract this conversation into a religious thread... just stating the origins.

 

[Koda]

Innate inherent rights.

Natural rights and legal rights - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights).

Whats an example of a natural right?

 

[CamoDeafie]

Whats an example of a natural right?

Life, if the mother choose to allow one to be birthed.

 

[Koda]

Life, if the mother choose to allow one to be birthed.

if the mother can choose then its not a right.

 

[Yarome]

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable (they cannot be repealed by human laws, though one can forfeit their enjoyment through one's actions, such as by violating someone else's rights).

But remembering... that definition is crafted through the lens of those holding similiar beliefs and common perspective of the world as we know it.

Who is to say those natural rights are "universal" if they are not universally accepted as truth by all peoples. It's kind of like saying there is only one true God... and it's "mine".