where in the constitution it says that you lose the rights it affirms when you break the law? What I'm sayin is why should a person lose the right to keep and bear arms because they commited a crime? I can almost hear the rightous anger with which replies are being typed, but leat me expound on this thought for a moment. I know quite a few people that have had domestic violence charges brought against them and served time in jail for it when all they did was break up with a female. (In PR Law 54 just needs a person to accuse you and requires no proof so false accusations are rampant) How about the otherwise perfectly law abiding person that bought a car and didn't notice the hollow point .22 under the spare tire and gets charged. I think you see where I'm going, but lets take it a step further. How about the guy whos only crime is smoking weed? The guy who is doing time for assault when all he did was protect and old lady that was being assaulted? Are these people any less qualified to own or carry a weapon? But regardless of your personal feeling in the matter where does it state in the constituion that the government can take away or otherwise legislate a right? Once you regulate a right it isn't a right it is a priviledge and those can be taken away. But nef, you can't shout fire in a theater. I argue that you can. There are laws in place for the consequences of abusing your right to say what you want but that is very different from telling you you can't. I don't need to agree with what you say, I can even be vehemently opposed to your views, but I have bled for and will die for if need be for your right to state them. I know others share this view on the first, but why is it that so many stand arm in arm with the antis on this point. But nef if scumbags can have guns then whats to stop them from using them from using them to cause havoc and mayhem? Whats stopping them now? What stopped them in the day of our countries founders? I argue that we would be a more civilised society if you weren't sure who was armed as everyone had an equal chance to be so armed. Yes I know this might make me sound like a nut job. I like to from time to time take ideas to the extreme or argue the other side to get a better perspective on things. Not to mention that it is important to hear other viewpoint than yours or your friends. It's a good way to get a better look at the big picture. I honestly am not 100% sure where I stand on this as I do know many people (who have commited crimes) that I dare say I would trust more with a firearm than some police officers I know. I'm not ragging on cops, there are some good ones out there. I immediately think of the New Mexico sherrif that has upheld rights over federal "laws" and some others who locally have done the right thing when it was not in their best interest.

Let the hate mail begin

Because the government doesn't want to differentiate from people who aren't threats, and those who are. It's easier, and better fits an agenda, to simply make it incredibly easy to simply paint people with a broad brush to deny them of their rights.

 

And this "Constitution" thing, what is that? Is that that old piece of paper that all US politicians ignore these days? Of course, I'm being sarcastic, I know what the constitution is, but the average person doesn't. People would rather be enslaved and given "free" services than work hard for freedom. Hell, there are people out there who believe we need to do away with the constitution since it "slows down the governmental process" and they view it as irrelevant to today's world.

You mean people like Bill Clinton when he said The constitution is a radical document. It is the job of government to reign in people's rights. or If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.

Would you prefer we also allow mentally ill people to own guns as well? I don't disagree with DV and felons being denied the right, but i dont agree with how easily it is for people to be convicted of DV and have restraining orders placed.

Would you prefer we also allow mentally ill people to own guns as well? I don't disagree with DV and felons being denied the right, but i dont agree with how easily it is for people to be convicted of DV and have restraining orders placed.

Well considering that many officers involved in shootings must undergo psyciatric evaluations and under current NJ law just having done the same a civilian loses their right but he officer doesn't, I'd have to say yes. So long as the rest of us can as well. Do you contend that there weren't mentally ill people who had firearms before these laws? Are there any documented cases where this was an issue, where they went on a rampage? And I don't meanthat hey were declared incompetant after their spree. You are stating your views and I repect them, but what is your constitutional justification? Not looking to argue or anything of the sort just trying to gain a better understanding.

Logic and reasoning has to be used no mentally ill and handicapped people shouldnt have it nor should felons that commit violent crimes. but certain people that do commit crimes are not always a threat if they own a firearm but with what you are proposing is casting a net far too large and would cause more damage than good i believe.

Well considering that many officers involved in shootings must undergo psyciatric evaluations and under current NJ law just having done the same a civilian loses their right but he officer doesn't, I'd have to say yes. So long as the rest of us can as well. Do you contend that there weren't mentally ill people who had firearms before these laws? Are there any documented cases where this was an issue, where they went on a rampage? And I don't meanthat hey were declared incompetant after their spree. You are stating your views and I repect them, but what is your constitutional justification? Not looking to argue or anything of the sort just trying to gain a better understanding.

 

You don't loose your right to gun ownership if your involved in a justifiable and legal shoot. Police officers undergo psychiatric evaluations after a fatal shooting not because they shot someone, but to determine if they are still fit for duty after taking someones life... It's not that i need to go and find documented cases of mentally ill people who have gone on rampages, there are plenty of cases of people doing so with and without weapons after they have been documented as being mentally ill. My friend works across the street from a mental health institution, they let some of the lesser mentally ill people leave on occassion to roam the town and try and have a somewhat normal life. A month ago one guy walked into the convience store who was a patient, stole a bag of chips and when he was stopped by the woman who owns the establishments he proceeded to beat her. My friend had jump in and save her from being beaten to death..... over a bag of chips. If he had the right to gun ownership and had a gun on him i dont even want to know what the outcome would have been. Constitutional rights carry responsibility, and nothing in the constitution states they cannot be regulated.

You don't loose your right to gun ownership if your involved in a justifiable and legal shoot. Police officers undergo psychiatric evaluations after a fatal shooting not because they shot someone, but to determine if they are still fit for duty after taking someones life... It's not that i need to go and find documented cases of mentally ill people who have gone on rampages, there are plenty of cases of people doing so with and without weapons after they have been documented as being mentally ill. My friend works across the street from a mental health institution, they let some of the lesser mentally ill people leave on occassion to roam the town and try and have a somewhat normal life. A month ago one guy walked into the convience store who was a patient, stole a bag of chips and when he was stopped by the woman who owns the establishments he proceeded to beat her. My friend had jump in and save her from being beaten to death..... over a bag of chips. If he had the right to gun ownership and had a gun on him i dont even want to know what the outcome would have been. Constitutional rights carry responsibility, and nothing in the constitution states they cannot be regulated.

Good points, you had me until regulating rights. Regulated rights aren't rights, unless you can show me the flaw there. (convince me I should say as I can argue both sides) My last post till tomorrow off for my shift.

Arm the mentally incompetent...good plan. I see no possible issues arising from this.

Just like all other individual rights enumerated in the Constitution... there are boundaries in place to ensure that people don't abuse them to do harm. I'm all for fighting for my 2A and other Constitutional defined / inalienable rights, but I also dislike when others abuse those rights, or has demonstrated that they no longer deserve the same freedoms (committed heinous violent crimes, mentally incapable of exercising those rights in a safe manner for instance).

 

The main problem around 2A rights is that the govt has trampled over the sane boundaries, and in the example of NJ... has twisted those boundaries to act as defacto bans on the R2KBA for practically the entire state's population.

Good points, you had me until regulating rights. Regulated rights aren't rights, unless you can show me the flaw there. (convince me I should say as I can argue both sides) My last post till tomorrow off for my shift.

 

Your essentially opening up a can of worms with that standpoint. You could argue that point all day long and be 100% right. The whole privilege vs right argument will never end. I herd Obama just signed a law under the table that makes it illegal to stand protest near or around the secret service.... talk about over stepping in terms of "what's good for the common interest of the country". Which is the point Dan was making. You have freedom of speech, but inciting riots through the use of your free speech is illegal( a regulation of 1A), it's what i would call a reasonable regulation. On the other hand you have the pres. pushing to ban protest near secret service, which to me is complete absurd. You would essentially never be able to protest in washington again or near the president... it's over the top and a clear indication where there govt is heading. It's our right to show him, face to face, that we do not agree with him, he is essentially trying to muzzle the voices of the people.