Amazon.com Widgets

Should the mentally ill, babies, prisoners, terrorists, and felons have the right to bear arms?

Asked by: FT
  • YES Second amendment

    Second amendment says so in the bill of rights to have EVERYONE the right to bear arms. I don't care if they are suicidal, jihadists who want to go to paradise, or black lives matter. Even the school shooter have free and instant access to firearms Cause it is the second amendment

    Posted by: FT
  • My dishwasher can have a gun so why can't my son

    No citizen, no matter the circumstances, shall have their Constitutional rights stripped from them. Not only is it immoral, but it is also against the writings of the Constitution- as the Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the Land," and if the law clearly states that the Second Amendment right "shall not be infringed," we must follow it just as we would any other law. Yes, I see a problem and a concern to parents, friends, etc, but there is little we can do that would satisfy those against. However, at the very least, we may be able to consider a legal, and well managed plan to regulate the purchase of arms in these cases.

  • If so many people cannot have a right, it is no right.

    Half of the us population experiences mental illness at some point in their life.

    The mentally ill are far more likely to be the victims of violent crime than the perpetrators.

    Therefor, it is highly unreasonable to keep the mentally ill from owning guns.

    Kids are still full citizens, and should retain their rights. Over time the rights and responsibilities of kids in america has been stripped down, and I cannot see that as a good thing. At this point, if you are under eighteen, you are almost property of your parents. That isn't right.

    It's fair not to let terrorists or violent felons own guns. They already cannot vote, and lose most of the rest of their rights. Though the way we treat our prisoners is just sick, so that may be a mistake.

    "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."

    Loading times and technology doesn't change what is written, or why it was written.

    It was written after a brutal rebellion, after years of growing oppression. It is a final check, so that if the government goes a step to far, it can fall.

  • Absolutely, The Right Shall Not Be Infringed

    The lives of the innocent are worth our rights. 2 year-olds should be able to be able to purchase guns since it is in the constitution. If someone is hurt, someone will be prosecuted. We live in a nation where responsibility balances with rights, the responsible should not lose their rights. Fuck the 18-21 year-olds argument about having guns, everyone aged 0 or over should have a gun.

  • "Shall not be infringed..."

    No citizen, no matter the circumstances, shall have their Constitutional rights stripped from them. Not only is it immoral, but it is also against the writings of the Constitution- as the Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the Land," and if the law clearly states that the Second Amendment right "shall not be infringed," we must follow it just as we would any other law. Yes, I see a problem and a concern to parents, friends, etc, but there is little we can do that would satisfy those against. However, at the very least, we may be able to consider a legal, and well managed plan to regulate the purchase of arms in these cases.

    As always, feel free to message me or debate with me if you would like to converse about gun rights or other topics. Thanks for reading everyone, and have a good week!

  • Yes, they should be able to.

    Mattering the mental illness they should be able to bear arms. Terrorists should not be able to have the right no matter what. Babies have no reason for a weapon they don't even know how to use. Mattering on the reasons for the prisoners, or the felons trouble matters on if they should have the right to bear arms.

  • The question categorizes all of these types of people into one category which is wrong

    To suggest that you can compare mentally ill, babies, prisoners, terrorist and felons into one category makes it too hard to formally answer the question. So i'll answer the question pertaining to each type of person differently.
    Lets start with prisoners, they have very limited rights the only prison i know that allows prisoners to carry guns is the Labute Penitentiary in Texas but other than that one no other penitentiary allows its inmates to carry guns. So to answer your question on the prisoners they can't really have guns. And from what i know so far no person has died due to gun inflicted violence.
    Babies can't hold guns they are too heavy but if you are talking about toddlers and young children, they too have very limited rights, they cannot purchase a gun since most kids do not have any income so they cannot buy one, however I believe that it is at the discretion of there parents weather or not the child is able to use a gun since most parents know whats best for their own child.
    With the mentally ill we have to distinguish between the different mental disorder for example are people with eating disorders are considered mentally ill would you ban them from having guns i would think not but if you do ban people with mental disorders from obtaining guns then you would have to ban all of those with mental disorders. You cannot pick and choose which mentally disorder will ban people from having guns or that will cause a huge discrimination situation which would then set a precedent that could also affect those with mental illness their other rights.
    With felons they not only regain all their rights except for those that are limited through parole but if they served all their time they do become a civilian with all their rights given to them by the constitution another argument is the same argument as I stated above if you want to take away guns from felons you would have to do it with all felonies you cannot pick or choose which ones or it would be once again a discrimination issue. That means you would have to take away guns for people who have been arrested for non violent crimes. If you pick and choose it can actually go against the US constitution.
    Terrorist who are native born or citizens of america still have the right to bear arms unless they are in prison that's not the Labute penitentiary. However Terrorist that are not citizens of the United States do not have the right to have weapons in the United States. Either way Terrorism is considered a felony and once again if you only take away guns from convicted terrorist who have served there time and are allowed back into society they are then given all the rights of a United States citizen and should be allowed to carry a weapon,

  • Not at all. Keep them for those that can be trusted.

    It's rather funny how the only thing people have said to support this is 'MUH 2ND AMENDMENT' when in reality, that was over 200 years ago. What guns did we have back then? Muskets that took at least half a minute to load and fire, and that's when they actually worked.
    Criminals and terrorists? By doing whatever landed them in hot water, they're asking to be stripped of privileges that the sensible and responsible have, like owning guns. If someone is mentally deranged, we wouldn't entrust them with something that can mow down a crowd of innocent bystanders faster than you can say 'freedom, motherf*cker'. And kids? Hell no. Responsibility is something they lack in entirety. And kids can be rather... Volatile, putting it nicely. A simple playground argument could turn into a war zone.
    Simply put, guns really shouldn't be given to those that can't be trusted, like criminals, terrorists and the mentally ill, nor should they be given to those that aren't ready for the responsibility, like kids.

  • Absolutely not. Putting hazardous weaponry in the hands of mentally ill or unstable persons is insane in itself.

    We shall not hand firearms over to mentally impaired people. The risk is simply too high, and if we hand over guns to whoever asks for it, no matter his physical condition, it is a great recipe for mass murder and violent crime. Besides,the 2nd amendment is supposed to be in effect ONLY for healthy and sharp americans who can properly handle such weapon,and it is more or less only relevant in times of civil war or popular uprisings. Therefore,the 2nd amendment assertion is a fallacy at worst. A dangerous fallacy, at that.

  • Because I said so

    Jbzshucbscf nc xdjhc xdjcdsuhc ncxnjhc bdcndzx chz cnz chd bcnd cjhsb cnz cnzbch dcn dhc zxnc zxnjhc bzc znc hgc n cjnhc bzc nc hjxz cxchjzx cnxz cn ch cnzx chx zcn xcjhxc zxcz xch xcn xcnj cjn xzcn xzc c xc nc xzc zc hc c b b b

  • Guns are a privilege

    I agree that guns are something the public should have access to. But, guns are a privilege, if a person is a confirmed criminal or extremist terrorist they should not have guns, because it can be seen that they have misused the right to guns and no longer should have that ability. I hate to bring up this recent of an example but the *as of now* shooter in the Florida shooting, should no longer have access to guns. They have caused death and serious harm and we should now recognize that they shouldn't be permitted to use guns.

  • They either forfeited their right or are too young and unstable

    The school shootings we have had in the past have been people with mental illness who either didn't seek help because they don't think anything is wrong with them, or because the system failed them. Why give a gun to someone who is mentally unstable and could snap at any given moment? Babies? Really? Not only are they irresponsible, a lot of kids have some scary imaginations. One kid doesn't want to share Bang! Now he doesn't have to cause he shot Fred. Prisoners, terrorists and felons gave up their right to bear arms when they decided to break the law. Keep guns in the hands of responsible, reasonable and law abiding citizens.

  • No, they should not.

    While yes, the 2nd amendment states that we have the right to bare arms, if somebody is unfit to have a gun, then they shouldn't have a gun. It's simple. You wouldn't want a violent sociopath having a .22 caliber gun now would you? While yes, each person has a right, all rights are privileges.

  • I don't trust them

    Babies has to be one of the stupidest ones, because babies don't know what a gun is or what it does. They might accidentally shoot themselves. The mentally ill is another bad one, because they are very unstable and at any point could kill someone. Prisoners aren't that bad, unless their charge included guns. Terrorists would be a disaster, because we know for sure they will not use them responsibly.

  • Ill people should not have weapons

    There are a lot of people in the YES section that say it is a 2nd amendment right to bear arms. Sure it is but you cant just go letting people who are mentally ill get a firearm in 10 minutes, there has to be some common sense with dealing with firearms. That is why I say no.

  • We can't trust those

    The reason why those people should not bear arms itself because they don't have any urgency to use it even if it's for self defense purposes. Why ? Let's talk one by one. First mentally ill has problem with their mental how can we believe they may use this arms for the good use and the target purposes of self defense and actually the mentally ill they belong in the place called as asylum with guard who may protect the mentally ill so they don't need arms for self defense. Second babies, felons, and prisoners they don't have to because they are under the protection of the police or government while prisoners and should finish their punishment time or face the law then may bear arms after it. Terrorists are criminal who's break the law so basically they use arms as selfdefense and if miracle happens they will not bear arms.

  • They are not very trustable

    Prisoners and felons will use that to murder and kill people. The mentally ill will maybe fire in schools. Babies will shoot people by accident. Or they may break the gun and toss away all of that money. And so, I do not think prisoners, felons, the mentally ill, or babies should be able to bear arms


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.
>