2nd Amendment

FreeToBeMe

New member
Registered
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
566
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Smellin Coffee said:
Which means, if a person from the hood was convicted of say, distribution of marijuana, why should he lose his rights to carry a gun? Suppose that person living in the hood wanted a piece to protect himself or his family, being that he is living in the most dangerous part of the city. Wouldn't that mean he would try to obtain a weapon illegally for protection? And what if he gets caught? He would be doing the SAME THING as the white, suburbanite from the gated community who wants to keep prowlers off his property. If the police approach each of them, guess who gets thrown in the slammer when both are doing the same thing? (One simply has a license to carry and the other is prohibited from getting the same license.) Both want to defend themselves and family yet the one who lives in the unsafe neighborhood is the one who gets locked up.
You are making that law about race and it's not.  The same thing would apply if the person convicted was WHITE and the suburbanite was BLACK (this must be a shock to you..... there are black suburbanites....I have many as neighbors in my community).  The person gets thrown in the slammer not because he is white or black, but because they were convicted of a felony and by law are not legally allowed to own a weapon.
 

subllibrm

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
5,975
Reaction score
6
Points
38
FreeToBeMe said:
Smellin Coffee said:
Which means, if a person from the hood was convicted of say, distribution of marijuana, why should he lose his rights to carry a gun? Suppose that person living in the hood wanted a piece to protect himself or his family, being that he is living in the most dangerous part of the city. Wouldn't that mean he would try to obtain a weapon illegally for protection? And what if he gets caught? He would be doing the SAME THING as the white, suburbanite from the gated community who wants to keep prowlers off his property. If the police approach each of them, guess who gets thrown in the slammer when both are doing the same thing? (One simply has a license to carry and the other is prohibited from getting the same license.) Both want to defend themselves and family yet the one who lives in the unsafe neighborhood is the one who gets locked up.
You are making that law about race and it's not.  The same thing would apply if the person convicted was WHITE and the suburbanite was BLACK (this must be a shock to you..... there are black suburbanites....I have many as neighbors in my community).  The person gets thrown in the slammer not because he is white or black, but because they were convicted of a felony and by law are not legally allowed to own a weapon.
Sorry Smellin' but he has a good point here. Around my neck of the woods, white tweaker meth heads are the folks likely to end up in the back of the squad car. And no love is lost in those police/civilian interactions. Doesn't excuse police overreach but it is not limited to, or defined by, the race of the individual.
 

Smellin Coffee

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
7,814
Reaction score
1
Points
36
FreeToBeMe said:
Smellin Coffee said:
Which means, if a person from the hood was convicted of say, distribution of marijuana, why should he lose his rights to carry a gun? Suppose that person living in the hood wanted a piece to protect himself or his family, being that he is living in the most dangerous part of the city. Wouldn't that mean he would try to obtain a weapon illegally for protection? And what if he gets caught? He would be doing the SAME THING as the white, suburbanite from the gated community who wants to keep prowlers off his property. If the police approach each of them, guess who gets thrown in the slammer when both are doing the same thing? (One simply has a license to carry and the other is prohibited from getting the same license.) Both want to defend themselves and family yet the one who lives in the unsafe neighborhood is the one who gets locked up.
You are making that law about race and it's not.  The same thing would apply if the person convicted was WHITE and the suburbanite was BLACK (this must be a shock to you..... there are black suburbanites....I have many as neighbors in my community).  The person gets thrown in the slammer not because he is white or black, but because they were convicted of a felony and by law are not legally allowed to own a weapon.
Even without race (which was used because of the primary context in today's news), take the meth-head Appalachian-American in the trailer park. His crime is not that of violence against another person. CONSTITUTIONALLY, where does he lose his right to have a gun or vote and where is the authority of the police to arrest on suspicion without a warrant?

You are right, it isn't primarily about race, but about the poor. It just so happens the majority of people living in poverty in this country happen to be black.  THAT is where the constant patrols happen, not as much in the mountains of Tennessee.
 

Bob H

Active member
Registered
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
1,052
Reaction score
8
Points
38
sword said:
Recovering IFB said:
It was never the Founding Fathers intent on having a standing army and until the 1870's. There was no "professional police force" in America. They basically work as revenue generators for the states. They don't protect and serve, if they did, instead of executing eloborate speed traps, they should be executing the traps to catch criminals in the act.
................. talk to people in the inner city neighborhoods where the police rarely patrol and see how safe you feel..................

They don't want the police there.



 

Walt

Active member
Doctor
Registered
Joined
Jan 24, 2013
Messages
2,645
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Smellin Coffee said:
But remember, the "right to bear arms" as an individual was for the purpose of militia, not personal protection, according to the 2nd Amendment.
militia: a military force raised from the civilian population.

I would think that the use of "militia" implies all law-abiding citizens can keep arms.  And why wouldn't it be used for protection.
 

RicD

New member
Registered
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Which means, if a person from the hood was convicted of say, distribution of marijuana, why should he lose his rights to carry a gun? Suppose that person living in the hood wanted a piece to protect himself or his family, being that he is living in the most dangerous part of the city. Wouldn't that mean he would try to obtain a weapon illegally for protection? And what if he gets caught? He would be doing the SAME THING as the white, suburbanite from the gated community who wants to keep prowlers off his property. If the police approach each of them, guess who gets thrown in the slammer when both are doing the same thing? (One simply has a license to carry and the other is prohibited from getting the same license.) Both want to defend themselves and family yet the one who lives in the unsafe neighborhood is the one who gets locked up.
He can own a gun in his home, just cannot carry it outside.
 

tmjbog

Well-known member
Registered
Joined
Feb 26, 2020
Messages
1,133
Reaction score
144
Points
63
He can own a gun in his home, just cannot carry it outside.
If your a felon you cannot own a gun at all. I can understand the issue with felons owning. I wouldn't be opposed to banning owning for specific felony charges rather than a broadly applying it to all felons, or a system where after a certain number of years earning it back.
 
Top