Who should be able to bear arms?

[RicInOR]

Who should be able to bear arms?

Our founding fathers would have said the militia was able-bodied men.
But they would have included women on the list of right to bear arms.

Headlines like this one make me wonder
"REPORT: 70 million Americans taking mind-altering drugs..."


Who would we have in the inclusive list
In my opinion
- All human beings, except
non-adults ( supervised by an adult is ok - just like at the machine gun shoot for non license holders - then we have to define "adult" )
non-citizens, (too restrictive?, may be allow those with valid visas )
mentally defective (diagnosed and under care)
felons (currently under supervision)
non-sober ( by 'bear' I mean in possession of, in your control - not 'own'; if your gun is locked in your safe and you are drunk you are OK. Think of this like a traffic stop - gun in the trunk you are OK, gun in the console not ok)



What do you all think?

I am not asking what the current law is, but what it should be under common sense.


The article that really got me thinking about the topic
Supreme Court Asked to Clarify What it Means to ?Bear? Arms - Law Blog - WSJ



Google Dictionary:
bear
be(&#601r/
verb
1. (of a person) carry.
"he was bearing a tray of brimming glasses"
synonyms: carry, bring, transport, move, convey, take, fetch, deliver, tote, lug

Read More

 

[pchewn]

- All human beings, except
non-adults ( supervised by an adult is ok - just like at the machine gun shoot for non license holders - then we have to define "adult" )
non-citizens, (too restrictive?, may be allow those with valid visas )
mentally defective (diagnosed and under care)
felons (currently under supervision)
non-sober ( by 'bear' I mean in possession of, in your control - not 'own'; if your gun is locked in your safe and you are drunk you are OK. Think of this like a traffic stop - gun in the trunk you are OK, gun in the console not ok)

I think the list is OK except for:

a) You say felons (under supervision)
b) I say "All prisoners in jail, prison, or 1/2-way houses"


a) You say all non-sober people.
b) I say I should still have the right to bear arms even when I'm having a beer at the local tavern

a) You say non-citizens are not allowed
b) I say all LEGAL visitors to the USA should enjoy our right to bear arms.

 

[Martini_Up]

great, more beliefs that infringements are fine because the 2A is already infringed so the more the merrier.

if the 2A was included because it was meant as a means for form militias, why not only give the right of the 2A to abled bodies men between 18-45? Moreover, since we now have a standing army (and didn't when the BOR was written), who needs militias and the 2A anymore??

I believe the 2A is for the PEOPLE. However PEOPLE are defined, that's who has the RTKABA. Go to prison for 50 years because of whatever, get out and that day you served your time and debt to society and you should be free to KABA again, IMO.

 

[simon99]

I think anyone who tries to define "who" has the right should also examine what 'infringe" means....

Felons? I knew a bunch of guys that were badass soldiers who ran from the law. Should they be excluded?
Drunks? Seriously? I didn't know the Founding Fathers were such prudes.
Mentally Defective? Who makes that call? Feinstein says all service people are nuts with PTSD - am I excluded?
Non-Adults? I have several family members who served in the military by lying on their application, all under 18...non-adult?


Slippery-slope people....

 

[bnsaibum]

EVERYONE has the Right to self defense and to bear arms no matter your country of citizenship. Here in the U.S. that Right is supposedly protected from government infringement by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. These two documents *mainly apply to citizens* in this country and the protection of these Rights can only be removed within the framework of these documents. It is tragic that other countries do not recognize it as we do, but they have different cultures and different governments.




*apply to how the government is restricted in dealing with people, mainly citizens,*

 

[Boomerang]

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms..."

Doesn't say anything about being a citizen.

 

[Nwcid]

I will touch more on the "felon" part. IF that felon can not be trusted with guns WHY are they even free??????????

 

[JackThompson]

Great discussion!

I think Felons should be allowed to bear arms.

There might have been a time where I was against this, but with so many things being a felony now I think that distinction is too blurred. "Want to give the FBI more power? Make more bubblegum a felony!"

I think convicted murderers should be prevented from owning a firearm, but then again, once a convicted murderer is out of the slammer it's not like that law would prevent them from getting another firearm, but it would make trip #2 to the slammer a lifer. (Or just death row them...)

I think people should be required to keep and bear arms, and school should cover a section on care, maintenance and handling, as well as marksmanship.

You could DO AWAY with the entire DHS, TSA and NDAA if people were trained and allowed to carry (Even on planes).

No-Knock warrants would cease...

There would be some incidents at first as Darwin weeds out people too stupid to be around... but nobody would consider threatening this nation if the entirety of it's populace was versed in firearms and owned guns.

 

[powersbj]

All adult U.S. citizens have the right. Up until you do something so retarded you lose the right, our rights are sometimes removed by a court of law and on occasion should be restored by a court of law. There are laws that allow legal aliens to bear arms, and serve in our armed forces... Its actually really simple and straight forward the anti gunners just keep trying to muddy the waters with gun free zones, mag capacity, "assault weapons" and other such nonsense.

 

[SCARed]

Felon... IMO, if you were convicted of a violent crime, you lose your 2nd A rights. If it was something other, then you get 1 chance. I get it. Sometimes things just happen. But if after your release, your convicted of another felony, your done. YOU were the one to screw that up.

 

[Nwcid]

Felon... IMO, if you were convicted of a violent crime, you lose your 2nd A rights. If it was something other, then you get 1 chance. I get it. Sometimes things just happen. But if after your release, your convicted of another felony, your done. YOU were the one to screw that up.

Again if this person is so dangerous, WHY are they even free to roam the streets? Laws will not stop them from getting firearms.............

 

[oknow]

Again if this person is so dangerous, WHY are they even free to roam the streets? Laws will not stop them from getting firearms.............

Some people just can not understand. Go figure

 

[Martini_Up]

The most misunderstood concept I can see is freedom and liberty and the inability of people to understand how far we are from them

 

[Grunwald]

great, more beliefs that infringements are fine because the 2A is already infringed so the more the merrier.

if the 2A was included because it was meant as a means for form militias, why not only give the right of the 2A to abled bodies men between 18-45? Moreover, since we now have a standing army (and didn't when the BOR was written), who needs militias and the 2A anymore??

I believe the 2A is for the PEOPLE. However PEOPLE are defined, that's who has the RTKABA. Go to prison for 50 years because of whatever, get out and that day you served your time and debt to society and you should be free to KABA again, IMO.

By the way the constitution is very clear about the fact that there is not supposed to be a standing army with the exception being during a time of war. This of course has been violated since pretty much the beginning. Currently the fact that the US is still technically in a state of war with N Korea is the only reason the army is constitutional.

 

[Steve M]

Who should be able to bear arms?

The people.

If you exclude a certain group of people (eg. felons) and that group of people is created and defined by the government then it gives the government the means to methodically eliminate your rights. If you are not locked up or otherwise detained from moving about freely and you are a person then you get your rights, all of them.

 

[RicInOR]

felon. As for anyone in jail - you would not have that right while locked up. But when not incarcerated, some people have a period of time where they are supervised - parole or what ever. Once that has finished, then you should have all the rights of others. There still is a huge problem with people being convicted felons who should never have been.


non-sober. I used that term due to drugs & alcohol. 1 beer enough to make you no longer sober? If so, don't drink in public. I don't see an issue with bringing a firearm into a bar. I don't see an issue with most people having a couple of drinks with food. But once you are make a decision to get buzzed, put away your gun. As for the FF - depending upon where they were, some communities were very anti-alcohol.


citizens. Citizenship has privileges. I do understand that we have many visitors who safely use firearms in the US every day.


mental. I think that one of our great failings (both parties) is the lack of care for those suffering mental health issues. Many people go thru some symptoms - like depression -for a short period of time. But others need constant care. If the condition would be such that it is an acceptable reason to not convict them of homicide - then I would remove their right to own a firearm. Not something done lightly. Should also take a couple of doctors - who are not in the same office.

 

[RicInOR]

Infringed rights. I am of the belief that all rights are owned by men. Individuals. That some rights are given up so we can function as a society. We have to have a social contract.

We have to agree to stop when we see the red octagons.

Some rights, like free speech are infringed by law, should they be? Should you be able to plot the over throw of the G? Assassinate the P? Yell fire in a theater? (actually if you are an actor on stage you can) I believe you should be held to account for your actions. Yell fire, for example, nothing happens - no big deal. People panic and leave - you owe a lot of money for refunding tickets. No reason to have an offense for texting while driving - if you were swerving that is dangerous driving and already against the law. By being too specific then next thing you know someone will get off because there is no law against using a play station in car.

Some have said their right to throw a punch ends at the tip of my nose (you flinched game) If I believe you will make contact, then I may just resort to deadly force to prevent the impact. How many punches does it take to kill, maim or seriously injure someone? One.

The idea of the slippery slope should make us cautious and encourage debate.

 

[Martini_Up]

Taking away individual rights for the good of society would be great if we were a democracy but we aren't. Read your Constitution, again and again until you agree with me or admit you don't like the Constitution the way it is written.

 

[Tinman357]

Any and all adults as currently defined. Restrictions : none. If someone is too dangerous to carry, then they shouldn't be on the streets. That's a self resolving issue. Lower the age limit to 17 for service members.

Restricted places: containment areas of jails, prisons, mental asylums. IOW wherever we house those persons deemed unfit to carry.

Thats it. Common sense gun laws. One brief paragraph instead of 20 thousand currently on the books.

One more, past and present elected officials who have ever have sided with ANY unconstitutional law should be fined 75% of any money earned while on taxpayers payroll. Those funds are to be set aside for the victims who were injured because of those unconstitutional laws.

Hows that?

 

[simon99]

Taking away individual rights for the good of society would be great if we were a democracy but we aren't. Read your Constitution, again and again until you agree with me or admit you don't like the Constitution the way it is written.

You're right, we're a Republic.

and BTW, I agree with your comments too!