Felons lose their rights per Amendment 5. The mentally defunct too, are deprived of their rights via Due Process. Minors are not capable of understanding their rights, thus they cannot exercise them. That's why they cannot consent.
Question on guns
- Thread starter Mr.Badguy
- Start date
Felons lose their rights per Amendment 5. The mentally defunct too, are deprived of their rights via Due Process. Minors are not capable of understanding their rights, thus they cannot exercise them. That's why they cannot consent.
Yes it does, and all court precedents state as much.
Why wouldn't they be?
Cancel 2018.1
New member
I don't know but you make a good point. Ban all but fully automatic weapons and crime will go down.
What in the 5th Amendment makes felons lose their rights? Due process? By that argument any regulations passed by a legally constituted body is due process. I see nothing about felons in the 5th except they must be indicted by a grand jury.
I don't see any of those things regarding minors in the text of the 2nd Amendment. You are saying the legislative body makes that determination about the eligibility of minors to own weapons. What keeps them from making other regulations?
My point is that those regulations exist and have been ruled constitutional.
I don't know but you make a good point. Ban all but fully automatic weapons and crime will go down.
They are already banned unless you have a federal license to own one.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
I don't know but you make a good point. Ban all but fully automatic weapons and crime will go down.
I can't find it anymore; but YouTube used to have a video of a guy with a sling bag full of 6 shot revolvers and as he emptied one, he would drop it and use another one.
He was shooting right handed and as he was shooting, he used his left hand to pull a new one out of the bag, and then just transfer it to his right hand when he had emptied the one he was firing.
Using this as an example of if someone wants to fire numerous shots, he doesn't necessarily need a semi auto.
countryboy
Verified User
What part of "shall not be infringed" are you having trouble with? It's pretty clear that NO infringements are "permissible".
SmarterthanYou
rebel
It is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the founders would ALLOW the government to regulate their arms after having fought for and won their independence from their government trying to regulate their arms. READ all of the publicly available documentation and commentaries to see for yourself that no clause of the constitution, by any stretch or interpretation, allows the federal government any power over arms. It is ONLY by the tyranny of the courts, with the idiotic support of constitution haters like domer, that lets them get away with ignoring their constitutional limits.
No, Due Process is not the same thing as the legislative process. Do you have any sort of idea what these words mean?
Wrong.
It's called due process. Felon gave up their rights when they chose to commit crimes. What many of the gun haters propose involves taking away something from those that haven't committed crimes.
Another one that doesn't understand the 2nd Amendment.
If you don't think people should own guns, come and try to get them.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
does it say the 'right of the well regulated militia'??????? didn't think so.
Why is a person required to have a federal firearms permit to own an automatic weapon--that is a regulation that prohibits ownership without the permit.
7 states and some local jurisdictions prohibit assault weapons which are semi-automatic weapons--that is a regulation that prohibits ownership.
Obviously court precedents have not struck down these laws.
Due process is determined by legislative process or court interpretation. Right to life, liberty, and property cannot be infringed without due process--that means laws determine the process by which you can be deprived of these. If you commit certain crimes as determined by criminal law you can be imprisoned, executed, and deprived of property. Those are determined by laws passed through the legislative process. You need to brush up on some basic law.
Where does the Constitution say felons gave up their rights when they chose to commit crimes? They don't give up any of the rights in the Bill of Rights except the 2nd. Even the 2nd does not take away the rights of felons to own guns---that is only done by government regulation (along with numerous other gun regulations). They still have free speech, press, religion.......
Last edited:
Does that also apply to free speech and religion? The Constitution says no law shall abridge these rights. If so, that would mean government cannot prohibit threats, libel, obscenity, or other types of free speech that are restricted.