Interesting, this entire post is contradicting your previous post. According to the above the Federal and State Government cannot infringe on my right to own/carry arms (Modern day equivalent to weapons, not just firearms). Yet in your previous post you listed endlessly ways that you see the Government should limit a person's right to own/carry arms.Inquisitor wrote:“ . . . THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
“shall not be infringed” does not give (or reserve to) the Federal Government OR the States the power to infringe; instead it specifically DENIES the Federal Government AND the States that power. “THE POWERS NOT DELEGATED TO THE UNITED STATES BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, ARE RESERVED TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY, OR TO THE PEOPLE.” The RIGHT (and the power) to “keep and bear arms” belongs to (and is reserved to) the people.
To start with, I am going to skip your first block and go straight to the heart of the matter in number 2.
You want me to go to the government and "ASK" them for a "PERMIT" (ie permission) to own/carry arms. The moment you have to ask the government for something it stops being a fundamental right and becomes a privilege. Hence the reason the Driver License is a privilege, not a right. (I can't believe the number of times I had adults tell me that driving was a privilege and not a right. All the way from the neighbors next door to the Judge that I had to go see at 16 to get that piece of plastic, but that is for another topic.) So please explain why I should have to go to the government and ask them for permission to own/carry arms.2. The issuing of Concealed Carry Permits in Shall-Issue States can be interpreted as verifying the individuals have not been excluded from exercising this right and therefore probably would not constitute an “infringement”, however, the specific rules to obtain a permit should be reviewed by SCOTUS.
Back to your first block:
First off do you know the number of laws out there with punishments of greater than one year? Chances are you have broken one of them without realizing it. At this point, it is really true, if the Government wants to get you, they will. If you are convicted of Fraud and get sent to jail for 5 years why shouldn't you be able to protect yourself when you get out?o Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less.
Secondly when anyone gets out of jail, they have supposedly repaid their debt to society. Personally I see this as rubbish. I seriously doubt most criminals in jail right now have done anything to me personally. They broke the law and were given a punishment. Now please note I say "most" criminals and did not say all criminals when discussing what has been done to me personally. So lets take an example. Big Curly over there decided to go rob my neighbor's house. He didn't do anything to me or my property. So he has no debt to me. He broke the law and thus should be punished. But since I am part of the society and Big Curly has no debt to me or any of my other neighbors other than the one he robbed, than how is it possible to have a debt to society? His only debt is to the person he robbed, and is being punished for it by the government since we "The People" gave the government the power and responsibility to punish Big Curly for breaking the law. Big Curly goes to jail for a few years, and he gets out once he has served his punishment. Supposedly he has been rehabilitated and should be a good member of society now right? Why shouldn't he have the rights of a citizen of that society? You might argue that Big Curly still represents a danger to the society. Well if he is still a danger, why was he released?
If Big Curly is a fugitive from justice, he probably has bigger issues than the couple of years a gun charge would tack onto his sentence.o Fugitives from justice.
First off we lost the drug war. The government just refuses to admit it. Legalize the drugs and be done with it. It will solve a lot of problems along the way by removing the profit from it for the dealers. By the way Alcohol is a depressant, and we tried prohibition. Great idea, but the Americans wanted their alcohol and weren't willing to follow the law. The only people that benefited from this law was bootleggers and gungrabbers. In case you missed it, Prohibition helped push the National Firearms Act, by virtue of what I can only call the "Alcohol Wars".o Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs.
Sounds like a great idea. But who gets to say that you are or are not mentally incompetent. The government? Hmmm, there is a government that pops into mind that favored classifying individuals as mentally incompetent. Nazi Germany. It was an easy way to push classes of people out of the way. Sorry I don't trust any Government to not abuse that power. But you say there was no way that we will use it like the Nazis did? Start talking to your Jewish friends. Ask them about the time leading up to the rise of the Nazis. Gun Registrations? Class warfare? Invasions of other countries? Hmmm, the list of actions that Nazi Germany (and the Nazi predecessors) caused is eerily similar to what is happening now in the United States.o Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution.
o Illegal aliens.
First off what happened to innocent until proven guilty? You are wanting to remove the ability of a person to protect themselves simply because they "could" be here illegally? Until it is proven they are here illegally in a court of law, they have the presumption of innocence and as such have the protections of the law including the right to protect themselves.
Life was listed first and foremost in the famous quote from the Declaration of Independence, because it is so valuable and it says that it is an unalienable right. The Second Amendment ratified the individual's right to protect that life. Shouldn't that protection apply to everyone?Declaration of Independence wrote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
See above.o Citizens who have renounced their citizenship.
Do they pose a danger to society? If so why aren't they locked up? If not why don't they have the right to protect themselves?o Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces.
When China invades do you really think that their soldiers are going to be checking to see if your son or daughter is 18 or older, before they shoot them? Do you think the Pedophile up the street from you isn't going to abuse your kid, because he/she is only 14 and can't defend themselves? We hand our 16 year old kids keys to multi-ton deadly weapons everyday. Why not hand them one they can actually use to protect themselves with? Two things to add to that, in certain cases minors can be charged as adults in criminal cases. I believe the age is 14, but I could be wrong on that age limit. So if the court views them as adults at that age for being a criminal, why can't they be viewed as an adult in society able to fully defend themselves? The reverse of that is in almost all other cases a person is viewed as a minor until age 18 and thus their parent/guardian has responsibility over them. If you look at it that way, why not allow the minor to purchase the weapon with the parent/guardian present and signing for responsibility? But you do have the exception of emancipated minors who the court has stated is now an adult even though they are not yet 18. So society needs to make up their minds, is 18 really the day a person becomes an adult and "fully" responsible for their actions? Or do we view people younger than 18 as adults? We have had it both ways for far too long and need to decide.o Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle.
See above post, but I will add that it is ridiculous that a person can vote and be drafted to go fight a war at 18, but cannot purchase from a FFL what the Supreme Court has ruled a standard form of defensive weapon.o Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle.
It is all to easy to get a restraining order these days. All you have to do is call the cops and say someone is threatening you and you can get an automatic temporary Restraining order against that person until the court date. Problem is a lot of times the court date isn't till months later, because the court system is so backed up.o Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner.
Again, are they still a threat to society? If so why aren't/weren't they locked up? If they are not in jail, then why don't they have the same right to protecting themselves that you do?o Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition. Under limited conditions, relief from disability may be obtained from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, or through a pardon, expungement, restoration of rights, or setting aside of a conviction.
So in summary, end all gun permits. Again it isn't a right if you have to ask to use it from the government. And enforce the Second Amendment.
