Oh, so what you're saying is they just need to change the wording of the law. Instead of requiring you to get a permit, which makes gun ownership a privilege, they just need to say that in addition to felons, they reserve the right to revoke anyone's right to bear arms. According to you, the government has the ability to revoke a person's rights, so this should be fine... right?

Now, you're thinking, "he's just being ridiculous". You're right, I am. What you're saying is equally ridiculous. It makes no sense to say the government can revoke my rights but can't require you to get a permit.

 

No, that's not what I'm saying. They can't reserve the right to revoke anyone's rights, the rights have to be LOST due to an action of the person who had the right. Unless you commit a serious crime you won't lose your right. This was the original intention, and the founding fathers were around to verify that it was working as they intended.

Felons have the option to petition the court to reinstate the rights they've lost. It's expensive, but for most people that have reformed they will win their appeal. I do not feel sorry for career criminals that can't get their rights reinstated.

 

Right now, you have to commit a felony. If a government can set that limit, they can lower it. The fact that there exists a mechanism to revoke a right also means they can make laws deciding how you can exercise your right. The right to bear arms is not absolute. If it were, I'd buy a strip of land along the Mexican border and set up robotized automatic weapons to defend my property.

 

The right to bear arms and the right to use them against people is not the same thing. The right to bear arms does not allow you to shoot people when you see fit. That is an entirely different issue regarding the use of deadly force.

Sure, the government can try to lower the requirement for losing your right to bear arms. They have tried to in the past (and succeeded in some areas) and will try to do so in the future I'm sure. At that point, it's up to the people who disagree with that to fight against it and convince the nearly useless politicians that it's not in their best interest to do so. As it is things have been pushed farther than they should have been as you cannot possess a firearm if you qualify for any of the following:

I have issue with the conditions I have marked in bold.

There are some crimes that can be punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year (felony) that have no bearing on a person's danger to society. The only time that I think it can be an issue is if someone is convicted of a crime that is relatively minor in their instance, but a more severe crime of the same type could have resulted in a prison sentence of a year or more. I think it would be better to require the person to have been convicted and sentenced to a year or more of incarceration. And to make it even better, it should only refer to violent crimes.

This is largely unenforceable, and does not necessarily have any bearing on the person's threat to society anyways. An irrelevant law that if it were truly necessary would have fallen into the first condition.

People are committed to mental institutions for acute issues from which they recover completely, so that is no reason to restrict a person's rights for the rest of their life. Mentally defective people, that depends on the definition they're using. Severely mentally handicapped people I can understand, but not someone with A-D-D for example.

This seems like more of a punishment put in place to shame people than for any valid reason. No reason to restrict someone's rights for this. if what they did was dishonorable enough it should qualify under the first condition.

This one might be a good idea if it wasn't so easy to get a restraining order nowadays. Since it is easy and does not require any proof whatsoever that the person is in danger it's unreasonable.

Domestic violence should not be treated any differently than any other type of crime, and the standards should be no different. It either falls into the first condition or it doesn't.

It's a sad thing that it's degraded to the point that it has, but I do think that it's reasonable and allowable to have certain conditions that can cause you to lose your gun rights, just like your right to freedom itself. It's just far fewer conditions than there currently are.

 

isnt it the right to bare arms if the need for it show? Like a hostile take over from another country and we have no police or army or Marines or any government appointed group to protect us. Therefore as citizens were have the right to bare arms for protection?

 

It's the right to bear arms for our own protection and the protection of our country, it is unfortunately somewhat vaguely written which leaves it far too open for interpretation.

The American citizens are the largest armed force to ever have existed. smile.gif

 

I understand. However, whether my weapons are shooting people or not isn't the issue. You can't legally purchase the weapons I mentioned anywhere. So, as I said, your right to bear arms is not absolute. The government already grants you permission to own some weapons and not others.




This is my situation. I'm a felon because I was riding my motorcycle at 70 mph in a 45. I was on a 6 lane divided highway, traveling about 5mph faster than traffic when an elderly man made a left in front of me. I hit the passenger's side of his car and killed his 79 year old wife. Even though the paramedics said should would have died if I had hit them at 35 mph, the fact that she died turned my misdemeanor into a felony. They not only took away my rights, but I lost a $200 deposit I had on a new Sig .40. I got probation and a fine, no jail time.

 

And I don't think that's right.

Assuming you were convicted in Nevada, you should petition to have your civil rights restored. Unless you don't qualify because of the felony category it's automatic. If it doesn't qualify for automatic restoration you can still petition the court and you'll almost certainly win, and there is no cost.

Back to being ridiculous it is legal to attach a firearm to a robot. You are then responsible for anything the robot shoots, but putting a gun on a robot is not illegal. It was even a fad for a while to have people hunt that way over the internet. Most places outlawed hunting in that way, but having the gun on the robot isn't illegal. As far as automatic weapons go the public can purchase them. It's an expensive thing to do, but you can get a NFA permit or a manufacturer's permit and purchase and possess fully automatic weapons. So it is technically possible for a normal citizen to set themselves up like you said, but they'll be charged if the weapons actually shoot someone.

The right to bear arms is not absolute as interpreted by the courts. I think we can all agree that someone buying a nuke would not be in the public interest. I think it's restricted more than it should be, and any single man powder fired projectile weapon should be allowed. At the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights citizens could own the most advanced military weapons available. We've made advancements that no longer make that feasible in my opinion, such as nukes for example. However I don't think it's over the top to have regular citizens in possession of fully automatic weapons.

 

The specifics of which weapons you can and can't own isn't the point. The point is that governments already have the ability to regulate the application of the 2nd Amendment. Until someone successfully challenges that, there's nothing to stop them from requiring a permit.

You'll notice in the link you posted, that the right to bear arms is not one of the one's restored. I already have my right to vote back. I voted for Obamesiah. You're welcome. cool.gif

 

You dirty bastard!!! laugh.gif