Do You Support This CONTROVERSIAL Interpretation Of The 2nd Amendment?

21
726

Controversy is something that looks like will continue to surround the Second Amendment until anti-2A people wake up and smell the coffee and realize that gun rights America are what are keeping them safe from even more violence than they already see in the world.

But, as legal gun owners and as supporters of the Second Amendment right to bear arms, we shouldn’t be shying away from that controversy. We should embrace it. In fact, we should be pushing for an interpretation of the Second Amendment that some people will find even more controversial than what we’re currently seeing in much of America.

What do I mean? I mean that we should be pushing for a radical idea about the Second Amendment. We should push for the Second Amendment for all Americans (hat tip to here for the lead). Rachel Ferguson and Marcus Witcher write,

Advertisement

The use of gun control as a way to oppress black men has now turned into a significant element of our mass-incarceration crisis, as black men are far more likely to have gun charges stacked onto other charges (whether or not the gun was involved in the crime) or be sent back to prison for owning a gun, even if no other crime was committed. Given the dangers many people face in destabilized neighborhoods, it is unsurprising that even well-intentioned citizens returning from prison may choose to arm themselves.

Understand that many African-Americans live in higher crime areas of the country. Also, many African-Americans (more, as a percentage of that population, than white Americans) have been convicted of crimes (often “victimless” crimes, meaning, non-violent, non-theft-related crimes) that prevent them from legally owning a firearm. Yet, they also understand that owning a firearm is often the best way to protect both themselves and their families, so, they illegally own guns.

We need to ask ourselves, if people (regardless of race or ethnicity) have been convicted of victimless crimes or have paid their debt to society, is there a good reason for preventing them from being able to protect themselves and their families from would-be violent criminals in the areas where they live? In other words, do we really support the Second Amendment for all American adults?

For many people, this will be a radical idea, but we need to ask ourselves if we’re serious about this right for everyone or if we only want it for ourselves. I can’t answer that for you, but as I’ve said before, I personally advocate for nationwide Constitutional carry without restriction. It won’t take long for criminals to be the ones who are scared because they won’t be able to tell who will shoot back.

What do you think about this controversial radical interpretation of the Second Amendment? Should it apply to every adult in America? Tell us below.

Advertisement

21 COMMENTS

  1. Absolutely. Once someone has paid their debt to society, they should have all the rights of a free man restored.

  2. The 2nd. Amendment : the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED AND THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS …

  3. I support the 2 . Anti-gun people don’t have any ideas. Look at Poland when Germany infiltrated the hunt clubs before the invasion. Poland was over run in a little over a week.
    Look today at Ukrainian war Russia they have a hard fight!
    Semper Fi

  4. Drug dealers and violent criminals and violent rapists should never be allowed to have a firearm return to them, ever. They have lost their rights for ever.

  5. Guns are Good in the law abiding and God-fearing people’s hands for self-defense and hunting

  6. Absolutely. With these conditions. The full sentence shall be served, no time off, for parole/probation for good behavior or any other reason. The penalty should be 10 years for committing a violent crime, should be sufficient to discourage a repeat offense. If a repeat crime, felony, is committed than the penalty will be doubled with no parole/probation, a third offense would be automatic death sentence with only one appeal and a time limit of 1 year, until the sentence is carried out No multiple appeals or multiple ears of litigation.

    Execution is not unconstitutional or inhumane or unusual, it is justice and will stop recidivism.

  7. If ones debt to society is paid, and they are deemed to no longer be a threat to society, I believe they deserve all their rights to be reinstated.

  8. No one should lose the right to protect themselves and their family records or not 2nd amendment is to protect us from the people that are trying to take our second amendment rights if they are government or cops the second amendment is to protect us from them that is the crooked government and foreign authority read it and see for yourself

  9. No, I believe once they have committed a crime they should not be allowed to have owner ship of a weapon. They have already proven they are not capable of living in a civilized society “hence being in prison”. Yes we all make mistakes but I’ve never been to prison as I know and respect the law

    • That is a bunch of crap. Once the “debt to society” has been paid ALL citizenship rights should be restored, that includes the right to “keep and bear”.

      I know people that made a nonviolent mistake 50 years ago that are still restricted from owning a gun.

      The idea that someone that have met the requirements of the court and the law should have their citizenship rights taken away is stupid.

      BTW, People are wanting to allow PRISONERS to be allowed to VOTE… Does that make sense to you???

  10. I am 67 years old, and got in trouble one time. No one was hurt except me. I was a mental health issue. Now, with a fellony comviction 12 years ago, I can not legaly own guns. Luckily my wife still can.

    • I can relate. I got with a violent woman 20 years ago and had to defend myself from her on a few occasions and we did drugs together too, and as a result of my relationship with her, I have a domestic violence conviction as well as a DUI, but, I never had any problems before or after my relationship with her. I also have a mental health issue that has been under control for years. I had guns when I was with her that was never a factor with the exception of her hiding them from me, so, I responsibly got rid of them to other responsible people and made my home safer because she couldn’t be trusted. Shortly after that, I realized that she would ruin my life even further so I broke up with her and made her leave. Now, 20 years later, I suffer from Multiple Sclerosis and cannot physically defend myself any longer without needing a firearm, so now, I can’t effectively protect my right to be alive, all because of a sour relationship and a mental issue that is controlled and has been so for many years. If I was ever going to have used a gun to harm someone, I would have back then, but, I removed them instead. My point is, anybody that is responsible and should be allowed to have a firearm can end up having a felony that prevents them from legal ownership. All factors are never taken into consideration and time nature’s people in ways that transforms them to become wiser and more vulnerable as they age, but doesn’t restore one’s right to practical self defense. Everyone should be required to have a gun and be on even ground and crime would regulate itself for the greater good.

      • I forgot to mention, I removed the guns before I had any problems with the law on my own and was still a legal gun owner at the time.

  11. Anyone who commits a crime and is convicted is a criminal. Crime cannot ever be condoned. Owning a gun should be reserved for law abiding citizens. Once a criminal convicted of a non-violent crime has served his time and is returned to society then that person must prove himself worthy of trust by getting a job, earning a living and not associating with other criminals. Then that person can apply for a gun permit. What the left does not understand about the 2nd Amendment is guns are for patriots to have incase they need to take up arms against a tyrannical government. However, self-defense is the primary reason people think guns are mentioned in the constitution, but in the 18th century guns were always allowed for self-defense. So the 2nd amendment is for every law abiding citizen and must never be prevented by any government rules. When a person breaks the law they have given up that right until they become a good citizen once again. Most gun crimes are committed by persons who have obtained the gun illegally, law-abiding citizens follow the law.

  12. I agree 100% the Constitution and the Second Amendment doesn’t make exceptions every American has the right to keep and bear on. You don’t give up the right to defend yourself just because you made a mistake.

  13. As I go through the litany of gun crimes and deaths I understand that SOMETHING must be done to curb them. I would advocate that everyone who wishes to carry a weapon be assessed for their record and their cognitive ability. Those who pass should be issues a permit, and those who fail should be assessed more intensely. Some people out there should never come within a thousand miles of a gun. They must be stopped if at all possible. The second amendment never addressed competence, and it should now!!!

  14. Blacks are mostly a criminal class, violent/non violent/scams,property crime, and should be debarred the possession of firearms. Crime with guns is by far a Black thing and this must be recognized in law and culture.
    There is NO “gun crime problem”…there IS a “Blacks with guns crime problem” this proven statistically nationwide. They can’t be, as it now exists, banned by race; so criminal misbehavior with firearms needs to be punished very severely, and publicized as a deterrent. The Straw Buying commonplace among Blacks where Granny or Girlfriend buys for the felon debarred from possession also needs to be harshly prosecuted…not likely with Demonrats and RINOS in Office.

Comments are closed.