Should the right to bear arms be unconditional?

[brandon]

2 questions on gun ownership....


Do you think people convicted of violent crimes should be allowed to own or bear arms following their conviction?

Do you think a person should be allowed to carry, concealed or openly, while they are drinking alcohol? Should there be a limit like driving? If so, what should it be?

 

[Danke]

Yes. Yes.

State should not decide.

 

[JoshLowry]

Yes.

Yes.

No limits.

 

[Pericles]

Yes.

Yes.

No limits.

Same - with one exception. The right to firearm ownership might be limited by the state if it can also limit the right to vote for convicted felons.

The right to vote is the most fundamental right of a citizen. OTOH, we do not allow a felony conviction to limit right of privacy, speech, etc.

 

[olehounddog]

yes
yes
If someone commits a crime so serious as to lose his right to carry a gun, maybe he should be executed. I'm talking about a violent crime, not a foolish government made law like drug possession. When freed from prison ALL rights should be restored. But then I think any prison sentence over 20 yrs is cruel and unusual punishment. Not to mention the burden on taxpayers.

 

[newyearsrevolution08]

If they did the time for the crime then why are they being punished after the fact? That pre-crime bullshit does not fly....

Only people who should NOT own a firearm is one who is not mentally stable and even then I do not know how you can really check for that because the crazy "go around town and shoot everyone" types are usually so crazy they think they are sane.

 

[Josh_LA]

2 questions on gun ownership....


Do you think people convicted of violent crimes should be allowed to own or bear arms following their conviction?

Do you think a person should be allowed to carry, concealed or openly, while they are drinking alcohol? Should there be a limit like driving? If so, what should it be?

Yes, because not allowing them will not stop them.

Yes, drunks should be allowed to carry guns, if they're not afraid of being beaten up and have it taken away from them.

 

[TruckinMike]

Do you think people convicted of violent crimes should be allowed to keep their 4th amendment rights following their incarceration?

Do you think a person should be allowed to have freedom of speech while they are drinking alcohol? Should there be a limit like driving? If so, what should it be?


Sounds silly doesn't it?

A right is a right. Period.

TMike

 

[UnReconstructed]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ring a bell? Not that I value the Constitution... it's just a gosh darn piece of paper right?

If a person gets out of prison and can't carry a gun then maybe he shouldn't be let out of prison eh? I don't believe in jail anyway.

 

[MRoCkEd]

Pretend you are on a jury where a person is on trial for having a gun despite having a criminal record:
- There is no doubt in your mind that he was carrying a weapon.

Would you say guilty or not?

 

[Pericles]

Pretend you are on a jury where a person is on trial for having a gun despite having a criminal record:
- There is no doubt in your mind that he was carrying a weapon.

Would you say guilty or not?

Not. Possessing the means of self defense is not a crime in my world.

Misuse of a weapon is a different story.

 

[ARealConservative]

of course it is conditional.

Do small children have unconditional access to guns? How about the clinically insane?

 

[bunklocoempire]

2 questions on gun ownership....


Do you think people convicted of violent crimes should be allowed to own or bear arms following their conviction?

Do you think a person should be allowed to carry, concealed or openly, while they are drinking alcohol? Should there be a limit like driving? If so, what should it be?

Yes. Do the time, get all their responsibility back, fully.

Yes. Inanimate objects should not be a factor. Ones own limit is one owns responsibility, if there is an incident it should be punished according to the severity of the crime against person or property.

It has worked in our Country in the past, it works in other countries now, it can work in our Country again.

Bunkloco

 

[TruckinMike]

Do small children have unconditional access to guns? How about the clinically insane?

in the eyes of the LAW -- (especially the law) there should be NO conditions. For a parent, of course. Protect your children from hammers, knives, stairs, cars, trees, scorpions, dogs, etc...etc///etc.... oh yeah -- and guns.

Freedom isn't free - there is always a price. And a raving lunatic hell bent on destruction (with a hammer, an axe, or a gun) may be part of the price we pay.

I love freedom enough to live with the inconveniences of it.

TMike

 

[ARealConservative]

in the eyes of the LAW -- (especially the law) there should be NO conditions. For a parent, of course. Protect your children from hammers, knives, stairs, cars, trees, scorpions, dogs, etc...etc///etc.... oh yeah -- and guns.

Freedom isn't free - there is always a price. And a raving lunatic hell bent on destruction (with a hammer, an axe, or a gun) may be part of the price we pay.

I love freedom enough to live with the inconveniences of it.

TMike

I don't believe this is true. The 2nd amendment - and all of the amendments were an afterthought. The founders were content with the constitution as is, but the people needed more assurances. States were already in existence, the bill of rights was not created to rein in state power.

 

[TruckinMike]

the bill of rights was not created to rein in state power.

If that is true then we have NO RIGHTS, only privileges.

TMike

 

[TruckinMike]

Pretend you are on a jury where a person is on trial for having a gun despite having a criminal record:
- There is no doubt in your mind that he was carrying a weapon.

Would you say guilty or not?

Not Guilty. Via jury nullification per our founders.

 

[ARealConservative]

If that is true then we have NO RIGHTS, only privileges.

TMike

The bill of rights didn't create your rights. The constitution was not seen as a vehicle to rein in state power at all.

Because government doesn't create rights, it only defends them, here is a better way to word the question; Should people be forced to defend your right to bear arms unconditionally? I say no.

 

[brandon]

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ring a bell? Not that I value the Constitution... it's just a gosh darn piece of paper right?

You missed my point. This thread is not about the constitution. It is about peoples personal opinions.


And by the way, the constitution is just a piece of paper.

 

[pacelli]

The 2nd amendment doesn't grant you the right to bear arms, but rather, it acknowledges an inherent right that exists in nature.

My opinion is that there is no rationale for attempting to infringe or regulate this right.