Lets have your opinion, does the second amendment ban ownership of guns to felons? Should it?

It does not say. I am not qualified to judge my fellow man or see what is in his heart. I know I have the right to own firearms and it did not come from the U.S. Constitution. It is my God given right as a free man!!

The Second Amendment doesn't ban anything.  Nor does it grant anything. It just mentions that the right to be armed is automatically there, and can't be .... well, I can't think of a better word than "Infringed".

So now, does banning ex-cons from owning guns infringe on their rights? I think that anyone who has paid their debts to society should be forgiven. With my new views on gonvernment, I say let them have them....

Nope.

The 2nd Amendment [i]recognizes[/i] a natural right to self defense.

If a criminal is too dangerous to trust with a gun, WHAT ARE WE DOING RELEASING THEM FROM PRISON????

The Second Amendment does not "ban ownership" at all.  It has nothing to do with "banning ownership".  It has to do with prohibiting the government from interfering with the right to keep and bear arms.  However, just as the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are "unalienable rights", so is the "right to keep and bear arms".  If you'll notice, the government DOES have, with [i]due process of law[/i], the ability to curtail "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", and nobody argues with [b]that[/b].  



You may argue that "who are peaceable citizens" was a representation of the whole of the "people of the United States", but I really think he meant that if you had proven yourself NOT "peaceable", then there could be justification for prohibiting the keeping of arms [b]by that individual, [i]after[/i] due process of law[/b].  The founding fathers were pretty careful about their wording.

The problem, of course, is that once you open a door, it becomes difficult to close it.  Personally (with respect to Imbrog|io's problems with it) I think "Project Exile" is a really good, useful, "gun control" law.  But I do see how it could EASILY be "expanded" and horribly misused.  But then MOST laws can be abused.  That's why one of the "boxes" freedom depends on is the Jury Box.  

Freedom isn't free.  We all have to work at it, or we lose it.

[sniper]

As far as project exile goes, how long before some good, honest politician starts to tweak it, just to close the loopholes? How about A good old fashioned a## whipping getting turned into a prision sentence because of a gun in the truck?

If there weren't so many damned infringements upon the inalienable 2nd Amendment rights, we wouldn't have to worry about all of the violent criminals (including TREASONISTS) running around now.

Name one power the government has been allowed, that it did not abuse,sooner or later.

 Thought, reason and common sense......

Umm...was that a reference to my post, or examples of things the government hasn't abused....?

With all due respect, "infringements upon the inalienable 2nd Amendment rights" have very little to do with "all the violent criminals running around now".  That phenomenon is due to the overall changes in how our society thinks about personal responsibility.  

Legislation [u]follows[/u] those changes, it doesn't [u]create[/u] them.

[sniper]

Those are things the gov. hasn't used or abused, mainly used. I agree with you .Sorry if I wasn't clear.

10-4, fullclip

Ok I will put it this way. KENNESAW, GEORGIA. Criminals would be eliminated or realize that the profession is no longer worth their while.

20,000 worthless gun laws had NOTHING to do with personal responsibility. It was ALL about restricting the availability of militia weapons.

Can a felon own a blackpowder? you can still mail order them?

I'll agree with that - but you won't find more than probably 30% of the cities and towns that would pass a Kennesaw ordinance because too damned many people think that their safety is [b]someone else's responsibility[/b].  [u]THAT[/u] is the problem.  Our population suffers from its abundance.  We somehow think that by passing a law, we can make ourselves safe, secure, and prosperous.  Meanwhile we stop [b]thinking[/b].  It seems to be a standard condition of humanity.  Once a society reaches a certain level of success, it degenerates and collapses.

"The worst part about living in the declining era of a great civilization", wrote R.A. Heinlein, "is knowing that you are."

[sniper]

I can't believe this question even needs to be asked.  Obviously, the reason convicted felons can't own guns is the same reason children and the mentally disturbed can't own them:  empirical evidence suggests that something will go wrong.  With the high rate of recidivism among felons, it is logical to curtail certain rights that are enjoyed by the peaceable and law-abiding.  I have no problem with that particular prohibition.  I wonder how philosophical these respondents would be if a formerly-convicted murderer killed a family member with a handgun after release from prison.
Any free society must have SOME limits on those who have shown themselves to be dangerous or untrustworthy.  Merely spending time in jail doesn't restore one's trustworthiness, it just means that they spent time in jail!

SPORTSMAN'S SUPPLY:  You ARE qualified to judge your fellow man.  We do it every day in deciding with whom we shall associate and juries do it every day in the courts.  IMO, that position is what has led to moral relativism in this world.  

Flame away!

I would make a generalization, but then I'd probably change my mind later on.

So, my final answer is; I'd settle every issue, case by case (yeah, right!).

[Edited for spelling]

Kissel,no flame here, but where do we draw the line?Every day it seems there are more laws passed as to who can or cannot own guns. The fact is, one day we will be legislated out of our 2nd if nothing is done. But where will we draw the line, or redraw it?

I have personally met ex-felons that did nothing except being stupid with checks, or some other non-violent crimes. They have their rights taken from them for what reason. They harm no one.

The 2nd is for all, and does not single out one class of people. The majority of felons's that I personally have arrested who have committed extremely violent crimes, can find a weapon anytime or anywhere they go. They have no knowledge of the 2nd, all they know is that the words on a piece of paper means nothing to them.

The only thing that they understand is brute force or being locked up. Personal accountability for a persons actions is what is needed, not more laws, and restrictions.

Unfortunately the U.S. Constitution infers the ability of states to remove liberty, life, and property.  Included in liberty are your "rights".  This is from the fifth amendment:
nor shall be compelled in any
criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.


Although this can't be done without a jury, and sentencing.  It seems legal to bind with certain crimes, the mandatory loss of the RKBA.

What can't be done, is just take away everyone's right with a new law, and no jury.  The problem is, it seems they could bind the loss of the right to gun ownership to moving violations, if they just made them jury trials.

That being said... Laws can't be retroactive.  So in theory, since the previous juries did not know they were sentencing the penalty of losing their RKBA at the time of trial, any felony conviction from before the first GCA, can't be legally kept from purchasing firearms.

Now in RL, they will take our rights away.  I'm just stating we don't have much of a guns for felons argument.  The constitution does support loss of rights after a jury trial.  Not to mention, you won't get many people to join your "GUNS FOR FELONS" initiative, except felons, who can't even vote in most states.

      Yeah. What he said.

Technically, fraud and other non-violent/invasive crimes shouldn't be felonies.
But, times have changed...

fel·o·ny (fl-n)
n., pl. fel·o·nies. Law

One of several grave crimes, such as murder, rape, or burglary, punishable by a more stringent sentence than that given for a misdemeanor.
Any of several crimes in early English law that were punishable by forfeiture of land or goods and by possible loss of life or a bodily part.

GunmanO your right. What I meant by not hurting anyone is that they physically did not do anything to cause physical pain.

Years ago, such crimes required the bad guy to recompense the victim by a double or triple amount.
Now the government takes that away, and uses its powers to dictate punishment instead of making the perp pay through the nose to the victim.

As people above have already clarified the 2nd Amendment part, I go on to discuss the felons owning firearms.

For one, being a felon isn't what it used to be.   Another distinction is needed. There are two kinds of criminals: violent and non-violent. You can be a non-violent felon(possession of an PC item), or a violent misdemeanor(domestic violence). So only violent criminals should be denied their RKBA, and only after due process(accusation, charging, trial, conviction,  sentencing). But they should be able to petition for removal of such a denial. That's how it should be.

Please don't take this as a guns for felons thread. Its just that more and more, guns are being banned for any infraction imaginable, even if guns are not involved. Its more like laws are designed as a backdoor gun control. Eventually, everyone will be a felon, gun control achieved.