National Lifetime gun bans for non-violent felons

[CamoDeafie]

Yep. I have never wanted to go back to the hand them a gun and horse when they get out but, if the person really just can't live in society they need to be removed from society, either by locked away or killed.

Or send them to serve in the military

 

[Sandaholic]

Sure, sounds great.Would make a great bumper sticker. Meanwhile in the real world they are taken little by little. How many small business people are now out of business and bankrupt? No one took it huh? I doubt they see it with such rose glasses

How can someone take your rights little by little? Do you really mean to say that the threat of violence against you escalates more and more until you submit? Because I can agree that such happens.

Small business's that have had to close their doors have been casualties of an economic war. Did someone take their business's? I suppose you could say that through a massive coercion campaign yes they did. Anyone can fight back. Anyone can choose not to comply. But it is always very hard to do on your own.

Rose colored glasses? I think not. I choose to believe that my rights are god given and can not be taken by man. To believe otherwise means you were never free. Never could be free. A man can be restricted from just about anything. But his rights can't be taken from him.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Why Are Lifetime Gun Bans Being Imposed on Tax Cheats? | National Review

Non-violent crimes unrelated to guns shouldn’t deprive people of their right to bear arms for the rest of their lives.

www.nationalreview.com

A Seventh Circuit panel ruled (in Kanter v. Barr) that the application of those federal and Wisconsin bars to Kanter did not violate his Second Amendment rights. In an impressive dissent (beginning here), Judge Amy Coney Barrett explained why she disagreed. From her opening paragraphs (emphasis in original):

"History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislatures imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. In 1791—and for well more than a century afterward— legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety.

[The federal and Wisconsin laws] would stand on solid footing if their categorical bans were tailored to serve the governments' undeniably compelling interest in protecting the public from gun violence. But their dispossession of all felons—both violent and nonviolent—is unconstitutional as applied to Kanter.… Neither Wisconsin nor the United States has introduced data sufficient to show that disarming all nonviolent felons substantially advances its interest in keeping the public safe. Nor have they otherwise demonstrated that Kanter himself shows a proclivity for violence. Absent evidence that he either belongs to a dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk, permanently disqualifying Kanter from possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment."

 

[Melman]

Because the far right like to punish from Old Testament and punish you forever and never get a second chance. Far left doesn't want you to have guns. So they had no problem compromising peoples gun rights. As a former felon before I was 18 and now works in the same juvenile detention I went to as a youth it's the truth.

 

[Mecanik]

Rights can not be taken. Someone may be able to convince others to join against you and restrict you from any number of things, but you can't take a right away. Rights are god given whether one believes in god or not.

I believe that men can come to try and take my rights away. But I have to choose to let them. It may seem an impossible choice, but it's still a choice.

Basically all we are talking about is who is in control of the threat of violence....and who will submit to it.

Well said........

 

[Sandaholic]

Exactly - I have the right to freely assemble - and cannot.

I have a right to expression - but not to an audience.

The epitome is that I have a right to keep and bear arms, except for the myriad of ways my Gubmint tells me I cannot.

It is all semantics when the bean bags and cuffs come out.

Are you physically restrained from the action of assembly?

Are you physically restrained from expression?

You can keep and bear arms until someone takes/tries to take said arms by force, no?

Is it all semantics?

Anyone can do whatever is in their power to do, they just have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

My children understand their are certain rules. When they break the rules, their are consequences from doing so. But since god gave them free will, they can do whatever their little hearts and minds desire.

Everyone has that right. Unless they are completely mind controlled. In which case said individuals rights are what the government tells them they are.

Are rights different from restrictions?

 

[CRBMoA]

Do you have a point? Open carry in a post office and tell me about rights!

 

[Sandaholic]

Do you have a point? Open carry in a post office and tell me about rights!

You said it's all semantics. Can someone take your right to free speech? Your right to defend yourself? No.

Could someone open carry in a post office? You bet. They would then have to deal with the consequences. But it can be done.

Rights can be exercised, asserted, recognized, but not taken. Does it seem like there is no point to what I've written?

 

[CamoDeafie]

You said it's all semantics. Can someone take your right to free speech? Your right to defend yourself? No.

Could someone open carry in a post office? You bet. They would then have to deal with the consequences. But it can be done.

Rights can be exercised, asserted, recognized, but not taken. Does it seem like there is no point to what I've written?

In other words...

Are people willing to deal with the consequences and the responsibility to be held accountable to their actions?

Of course, some consequences are fatal to the person commiting the act. Others aren't so severe. The BOR placed limits on the Fed government to prevent them from giving severe/fatal consequences of the ennumerated Rights held by the People.

 

[CRBMoA]

You said it's all semantics. Can someone take your right to free speech? Your right to defend yourself? No.

Could someone open carry in a post office? You bet. They would then have to deal with the consequences. But it can be done.

Rights can be exercised, asserted, recognized, but not taken. Does it seem like there is no point to what I've written?

Rhetorically, yes, you have a point.

My point is on Planet Earth, I have the right to skydive without a parachute, but in practice, not such a good idea. The Law of Gravity is superior to my right. Kinda like packing at the P.O.

 

[Sandaholic]

Rhetorically, yes, you have a point.

My point is on Planet Earth, I have the right to skydive without a parachute, but in practice, not such a good idea. The Law of Gravity is superior to my right. Kinda like packing at the P.O.

Agreed.

Yes and now they get to enjoy. Voters really do get the government they deserve. This great hoax has shown law makers just how easy it is to control the masses because the voters want it. Sadly the rest of us are just along for the ride down the toilet now. There is no semantics here, there is open support of rights being taken because we have had too much freedom for too long. It was fun while it lasted I guess. I feel badly for the young who have no idea what they have lost.

However this is what started me down the path of disagreement, and compelled me to offer up a differing view. The above is defeatism IMO and I'm not going to partake.

Some group might claim I no longer have any rights and I need to give up my arms to be followed up later by a trip to Auschwitz. I'm going to flat ignore their right to do any such thing. Will it work out for me? Undoubtedly the answer will be no. But for the sake of my children and other future generations, I hope that many people might take the same stance.

 

[Alexx1401]

Or send them to serve in the military

For "some" of them this might just change things. If they have not proven they are a waste of air, just grew up with no direction in life, that kind of structured life may just turn a few of them around. I know when I was growing up this was still done. Some younger folks would have the chance to join to stay out of lockup. Some times it did work.

 

[clearconscience]

News

www.kptv.com

Guess it doesn't matter,

somebody should pass a law prohibiting felons from owning such weapons.....oh wait

 

[ThunderMtnOrd]

Because the goal is to make all of us prohibited persons. Non violent felons are just the low hanging fruit.

Yep.

 

[The Resister]

Boom! I will never be able to stray from this idea.

Serve your time and get out, or you did something so heinous you probably don't need to be around anymore.

So that means you will support The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man? Do you have the courage to be one of those who sign it? We talk a lot about protecting the Right. The left is about to call us on it. Where you stand in times of conflict and confrontation defines who you are. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: We will either stick together or we will hang separately.

 

[Ridge Walker]

Lots of what-ifs. A violent felony is one that has "the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another."

What if a burglar waited until you left your house, broke in, and stole your firearms? That's a non-violent felony. Should they have their rights restored?

What do you guys think about restoring voting rights to felons?

Any Felon that gets their right to Vote back should get a Free Coupon for a Firearm and Ammo.

Now which ones do you think should get to vote again?

 

[CRBMoA]

Any Felon that gets their right to Vote back should get a Free Coupon for a Firearm and Ammo.

Now which ones do you think should get to vote again?

Kind of get where you are going, but no one gets free guns and ammo.

 

[Sandaholic]

So that means you will support The Charter and Proclamation of the Rights of Man? Do you have the courage to be one of those who sign it? We talk a lot about protecting the Right. The left is about to call us on it. Where you stand in times of conflict and confrontation defines who you are. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: We will either stick together or we will hang separately.

Is this supposed to replace the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

 

[Ridge Walker]

Kind of get where you are going, but no one gets free guns and ammo.

Back in the day a released felon was to receive, a rifle, horse, saddle and a 20 dollar gold piece when released from prison in the 1800's. That's the story anyways. No idea if true.

 

[The Resister]

Any Felon that gets their right to Vote back should get a Free Coupon for a Firearm and Ammo.

Now which ones do you think should get to vote again?

Me - If you're going to set them free, then let them be equals.