POLL: Which of These Folks Should Be Allowed to Buy and Own Arms?

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I could have listed a lot more categories, but I'm just curious how HROT feels and these should give a sense.

Remember, check as many options as you think represent people who should be able to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.

I deliberately focused on buying and owning, and left carrying and concealed carrying out of the equation because most people are a bit more conflicted about that.

 

[22*43*51]

I would imagine that there are plenty of HROT posters who no not think any of those options deserve to own guns.

You didn't provide a choice to collect that opinion.

 

[coffhawk]

Your poll is poor because of the lack of definitions or details.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I would imagine that there are plenty of HROT posters who no not think any of those options deserve to own guns.

You didn't provide a choice to collect that opinion.

Good point. My bad. I guess you just have to pick the least offensive one on the list to register your "no" vote for the others. Right now that seems to be the person arrested but not convicted of a violent offense.

 

[TravisG5000]

All of em...Like you said, they served there time, what wit all the cops controllin there guns? F the police if they think the can pull that ish.

 

[SWIowahawks]

I would imagine that there are plenty of HROT posters who no not think any of those options deserve to own guns.

You didn't provide a choice to collect that opinion.

This is like all of his polls.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Always amazes me how so many refuse to read the 2nd like they do the 1st.

Language is quite clear.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

This is like all of his polls.

Oh please. Your envy is embarrassing.

 

[icu81222]

Always amazes me how so many refuse to read the 2nd like they do the 1st.

Language is quite clear.

Go on.....

 

[theIowaHawk]

Go on.....

Well people read the Establishment and Free Exercise clause, as well as the Free Speech clause, as damn near un-restricable. You can't make a company, a non-human, non-living, thing provide specific medical coverage because of this clause.

But the 2A, which is just as unequivocal: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Shall not be infringed. Then we infringe it all the time? Convicted of a felony? Infringed. Convicted of graffiti'ing a person's car, which cost over $1,000? Infringed. Steal $1,001 dollars from your Aunt? Infringed.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Well people read the Establishment and Free Exercise clause, as well as the Free Speech clause, as damn near un-restricable. You can't make a company, a non-human, non-living, thing provide specific medical coverage because of this clause.

But the 2A, which is just as unequivocal: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Shall not be infringed. Then we infringe it all the time? Convicted of a felony? Infringed. Convicted of graffiti'ing a person's car, which cost over $1,000? Infringed. Steal $1,001 dollars from your Aunt? Infringed.

And if you have been paying attention to the recent debates, we're willing to deny 2A rights to people if they have been seen by a shrink. We don't even demand that there be anything wrong with them, or their condition have any risk of violence.

We don't even have laws keeping guns out of the hands of children, self-proclaimed Nazis, KKK members, menstruating women, drunks, or Muslims. Go figure.

 

[theIowaHawk]

We don't even have laws keeping guns out of the hands of ...self-proclaimed Nazis, KKK members, menstruating women, drunks, or Muslims. Go figure.

Are you in favor of laws that would do that?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Are you in favor of laws that would do that?

Of course not. But I bet most posters here would agree with denying guns to at least one of those groups.

Republicans, on the other hand.... Evangelists.... Climate change deniers.... How often do they have to wish harm on or attack the rights of others before you take them seriously?

 

[theIowaHawk]

I'll wager I'm the only one on this board who will say this:

I think that:
Felons
KKK
Nazis
Menstruating Women
Drunks
Muslims
Climate Change Supporters/Deniers

All have a Constitutional right to own firearms, and it should not be restricted.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I'll wager I'm the only one on this board who will say this:

I think that:
Felons
KKK
Nazis
Menstruating Women
Drunks
Muslims
Climate Change Supporters/Deniers

All have a Constitutional right to own firearms, and it should not be restricted.

Well, you and me. And probably a few others.

Not that I WANT too many of them to have guns, you understand. But if you don't like it, amend the constitution. As you say, the language is clear. Unless you are one of those who thinks the militia clause is intended as a conditional.

 

[naturalmwa]

I'll wager I'm the only one on this board who will say this:

I think that:
Felons
KKK
Nazis
Menstruating Women
Drunks
Muslims
Climate Change Supporters/Deniers

All have a Constitutional right to own firearms, and it should not be restricted.

You didn't mention children. Could we restrict guns like alcohol and tobacco? We already combine them in the ATF. What would waiting until you were 18 or 21 do to gun culture in 50 years? Might be just the thing.

 

[naturalmwa]

Unless you are one of those who thinks the militia clause is intended as a conditional.

Which of course is the proper interpretation.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I certainly understand the conditional-language argument, but I don't get it, it just doesn't make sense to me.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

They are quite clearly saying that a well regulated militia IS necessary.

If it is no longer necessary, the founders were quite obvious about how they would want it changed: Amendment.

Obviously, the condition stands to reason: if it is no longer necessary, the right may no longer be needed, but that isn't the discussion.

I would really like for us to discuss Amendments more often. When did that simply leave our collective thought process?

 

[theIowaHawk]

Which of course is the proper interpretation.

Can you elaborate with your thoughts on this?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

You didn't mention children. Could we restrict guns like alcohol and tobacco? We already combine them in the ATF. What would waiting until you were 18 or 21 do to gun culture in 50 years? Might be just the thing.

The real question is why 2A seems to be at least partly exempt from the "due process of law" avenue of regulation. We can deny certain kinds of speech, we can deny the vote to certain classes of people and so on. And, yes, we do some of that with guns, as well. But not that much and anything more produces knee-jerk screaming and gnashing of teeth - and a surge in gun and ammo sales to white males in the South and Midwest.

 

[KitingHigh]

I certainly understand the conditional-language argument, but I don't get it, it just doesn't make sense to me.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

They are quite clearly saying that a well regulated militia IS necessary.

If it is no longer necessary, the founders were quite obvious about how they would want it changed: Amendment.

Obviously, the condition stands to reason: if it is no longer necessary, the right may no longer be needed, but that isn't the discussion.

I would really like for us to discuss Amendments more often. When did that simply leave our collective thought process?

It's pretty sad that for some time now the government and the people would rather just ignore the Constitution or claim it was written in magic ink that changes with the slightest breeze than face the fact that it has to be amended to change and follow the process which is required.

 

[naturalmwa]

Can you elaborate with your thoughts on this?

Sure. The point of the 2nd is to provide for national defense. The amendment makes that clear with the first clause. The first clause sets the conditions for the second clause. They are related. Of course it's no longer true that we drive our defense from citizen militias so the 2nd really should have zero standing in these gun debates. Self defense would be covered in the 9th. The second is consistently misinterpreted. Interpreted properly it's about as relevant as the 3rd mostly because we have an unconstitutional standing army.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Sure. The point of the 2nd is to provide for national defense. The amendment makes that clear with the first clause. The first clause sets the conditions for the second clause. They are related. Of course it's no longer true that we drive our defense from citizen militias so the 2nd really should have zero standing in these gun debates. Self defense would be covered in the 9th. The second is consistently misinterpreted. Interpreted properly it's about as relevant as the 3rd mostly because we have an unconstitutional standing army.

Yes, but isn't it a statement? This is true, therefore that.

 

[naturalmwa]

Yes, but isn't it a statement? This is true, therefore that.

I think so.

 

[KitingHigh]

Sure. The point of the 2nd is to provide for national defense. The amendment makes that clear with the first clause. The first clause sets the conditions for the second clause. They are related. Of course it's no longer true that we drive our defense from citizen militias so the 2nd really should have zero standing in these gun debates. Self defense would be covered in the 9th. The second is consistently misinterpreted. Interpreted properly it's about as relevant as the 3rd mostly because we have an unconstitutional standing army.

You are ignoring that the citizens are still the last defense against our own government. That remains as true today as it did when the Constitution was written. Even if we buy your flawed interpretation, we cannot ignore your flawed logic. Regardless, the Constitution has no provision to sunset amendments. If it is to be changed there is a process for that, otherwise you must follow it as written. It is written "shall not be infringed."

 

[theIowaHawk]

I think so.

Well, then, a statement isn't conditional, it is a statement. They said it, they wrote it, it is true.

If the first part isn't true any longer, as you posit, that doesn't change the wording. It still says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." This may be outdated, but it is still the words.

I would think you must fall in to one of two categories:

1. It is no longer true, therefore it should be amended to recognize such.
2. It is no longer true, therefore the words automatically change.

Am I right?

 

[naturalmwa]

You are ignoring that the citizens are still the last defense against our own government. That remains as true today as it did when the Constitution was written. Even if we buy your flawed interpretation, we cannot ignore your flawed logic. Regardless, the Constitution has no provision to sunset amendments. If it is to be changed there is a process for that, otherwise you must follow it as written. It is written "shall not be infringed."

The 2nd isn't about the right to rebel. it's about preserving the mechanism the FF used to put down rebellions. Look up Washington's response to your idea. It "sunset" in relevance the moment we formed a standing army, same as the 3rd. Now if you remain unconvinced, that right to rebel would also be in the 9th.

 

[naturalmwa]

Well, then, a statement isn't conditional, it is a statement. They said it, they wrote it, it is true.

If the first part isn't true any longer, as you posit, that doesn't change the wording. It still says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." This may be outdated, but it is still the words.

I would think you must fall in to one of two categories:

1. It is no longer true, therefore it should be amended to recognize such.
2. It is no longer true, therefore the words automatically change.

Am I right?

I don't think so. If the conditions set out in the first clause no longer hold, then the solution set out to accommodate those conditions no longer hold. There is no reason to spend time amending something that is no longer relevant

 

[KitingHigh]

The 2nd isn't about the right to rebel. it's about preserving the mechanism the FF used to put down rebellions. Look up Washington's response to your idea. It "sunset" in relevance the moment we formed a standing army, same as the 3rd. Now if you remain unconvinced, that right to rebel would also be in the 9th.

So we can be forced to have soldiers occupy our homes now? There is no sunset. There is a means to amend. Neither the second or third has been changed or amended. They are both as valid as the day they were written.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I don't think so. If the conditions set out in the first clause no longer hold, then the solution set out to accommodate those conditions no longer hold. There is no reason to spend time amending something that is no longer relevant

Hmmm, I guess I don't see how that is, literarily, possible.

If I write code in to a computer, "I am age 30, turn on at 9am." The computer will perpetually turn on at 9am, because I have instructed it that I am age 30. Now, once I'm 31, should it change? Sure, why not, but the code would, necessarily, have to be changed in order for that to occur (an amendment).

Or, alternatively, some other place could hold the key, like a biological clock that determined my age.

I don't believe there is somewhere, official, like in the Constitution, that specifies when the first part, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is no longer true.

Plus, just simplistically, somebody has to make that decision. Who do you believe that to be? The POTUS? Congress? The States ratified it, shouldn't it be up to them when it no longer applies?

 

[theIowaHawk]

There is no reason to spend time amending something that is no longer relevant

I disagree with this on its own. Of course there is reason, if not just for simplicity. We had a law that said anyone buying contraceptives would be arrested, even though nobody was. Wasn't it a good idea to still get rid of it? Of course.

Also, if it is as obvious, and easy, to the point that it would be a waste of time to amend, I think you must necessarily believe the States would pass the amendment. I know you aren't that foolish.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Look up Washington's response to your idea.

Got a link to that?

 

[naturalmwa]

So we can be forced to have soldiers occupy our homes now? There is no sunset. There is a means to amend. Neither the second or third has been changed or amended. They are both as valid as the day they were written.

We disagree. When they were written, they were relevant. Neither is relevant now. So they have effectively sunset as we no longer operate in a world where they matter. I grant they are still technically on the books, that wasn't the point I was communicating.

 

[naturalmwa]

Got a link to that?

Google will help you. Look up "Shays Rebellion Washington reaction" for several sources.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Google will help you. Look up "Shays Rebellion Washington reaction" for several sources.

What are you here for then?

 

[naturalmwa]

I disagree with this on its own. Of course there is reason, if not just for simplicity. We had a law that said anyone buying contraceptives would be arrested, even though nobody was. Wasn't it a good idea to still get rid of it? Of course.

Also, if it is as obvious, and easy, to the point that it would be a waste of time to amend, I think you must necessarily believe the States would pass the amendment. I know you aren't that foolish.

Those aren't the same things. You describe a relevant law that is just not being enforced. The 2nd is not relevant because we have an unconstitutional standing army. One day we might imagine the 2nd becoming relevant if the army is ever dramatically restructured.

 

[theIowaHawk]

I will read it later, but first: As usual, what one founder thought/wanted has little to do with the Constitution that passed. Each person who helped draft, each State who ratified, could have different reasons for, and interpretations of the document and it's amendments. Of course it is interesting to read their perspectives. They were in a precarious place: Down with the old government! But not down with ours! We need to arm ourselves for a justified rebellion! We need to put down this unjustified rebellion!

 

[naturalmwa]

What are you here for then?

I'm guiding you. Cons tell me people don't thrive with handouts.

 

[theIowaHawk]

Those aren't the same things. You describe a relevant law that is just not being enforced. The 2nd is not relevant because we have an unconstitutional standing army. One day we might imagine the 2nd becoming relevant if the army is ever dramatically restructured.

So, then, can you point to language that determines WHEN, and WHAT FACTORS, govern the necessity of a well-regulated militia?

 

[naturalmwa]

So, then, can you point to language that determines WHEN, and WHAT FACTORS, govern the necessity of a well-regulated militia?

The assertion is that it is "necessary to the security of a free State". But that's not how we operate now. Consequently either the assertion is not true or we are not a free state. Either way the 2nd is not applicable to current gun control issues. I think there are still constitutional issues surrounding gun control, because I think self defence or even the right to hunt or rebel is protected under the 9th, but it's not under the 2nd. The 2nd is a narrow provision to provide for national defence which is no longer conducted as constitutionally outlined. The fun part is most who cry that gun control violates the constitution are completely fine with having the standing army the 2nd was designed to prevent. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.