Note I said: "I believe that if a person is convicted of a crime with a weapon then that person has lost all rights to own a weapon. . . " That puts a different type of light on the topic than what you seem to be implying.
And I will ask again; what gives the United States Federal Government the Constitutional Authority to infringe upon a Citizens right to keep and bear Arms? You have Posted that the Federal Government has such a right in Law..... I was looking again to see if I missed something in the Constitution of the United States.
I can find where the Founding Fathers used the word Felony twice in the Constitution, so, is it your contention that they ran out of ink when in the process of writting the Second Amendment?.... or that they left the Second Amendment intentionally vague so as to allow the Federal Government some wiggle room down the road?
Amendments to the Constitution
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amend.html
ARTICLES IN ADDITION TO, AND AMENDMENTS OF, THE
Amendments to the Constitution
CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PROPOSED BY CONGRESS, AND RATIFIED BY THE LEGISLATURES OF THE SEVERAL STATES, PURSUANT TO THE FIFTH ARTICLE OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION
Article [II.]
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.
As for those conviced of a crime, I can find nothing which allows the United States Federal Government the right to deny the protection of the Second Amendment in full force once said person is released, if said person still retains his or her Citizenship of course.
I believe the Federal Government is restricted by law from entering into the Gun Control debate as long as the Second Amendment is in place as is, unless the Federal Government wants to go through the formal process of revoking ones citizenship to take the right to keep and bear Arms away.
Which I pointed out already.
Not sure where you see that I said anything about the Government having the actual constitutional power to deny anyone anything. But it is my understanding - though it may be wrong - that the Supreme court does have that power. The references were for your edification on the power that the Supreme court holds over all and sundry regardless or even in regards to the Constitution.
I'm well well versed in the power of the United States Supreme Court, as such power is outlined in the Constitution of the United States...
Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Clause 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Clause 2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
I'll point out now that the United States Supreme Court views Abortion as a Right covered by Amendment IV dealing with the right to privacy.
You apparently believe that there should be absolutely no infringement upon people to own or purchase firearms regardless of their history or background.
I believe what the Constitution says, I believe that the Federal Government is resrticted by law from entering into the Gun Control debate as it pertains to Citizens of the United States pursuant to the Second Amendment to the Constituton of the United States.
Article [II.]
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.
I'm stuck on the words "shall not be infringed".
So tell me, a person gets out of jail on parole after killing 2 people with a handgun and wounding two others for one reason or another. Would it be wise to allow this very same person to walk down to the local gun store and allow him to legally purchase a weapon?
I believe there should be no parole for someone illegally killing 2 people with a handgun and wounding two others, and, as a matter of fact, I believe a person convicted of illegally killing 2 people with a handgun and wounding two others should be put to death for his or her crimes.
The needs of the many far outweigh the needs of the few. I would rather convicted criminals be denied the right to own a firearm than read about a convicted criminal having killed someone with a firearm purchased from the local gun store.
And yet you seem in my opinion to view the needs of a mere 14 Americans as outweighing the Constitutional Rights of many millions of Americans.
As for the needs of the many and the Federal Govenment, I notice a lot of people drive Automobiles, and yet a lot of people get hurt and killed by people driving Automobiles.
I notice older people get in accidents, their vision goes, there reaction time slows, and yet I still find it legal for people over the age of 65 to drive.... just why is that?..... One can retire on Social Security by 65.... so one does not need to drive to work.
I also find it strange that someone convicted of drunk driving can still buy an Automobile, even if that same person is not allowed (for a time) to legally drive said Automobile.
I can find no right in law to operate an Automobile in the Constitution of the United States, and view legally the operation of an Automobile as a mere privilege and not a right.... why is it the Federal Government does not just force everyone to walk or take the bus or train?
As for what I would rather have, I would rather the Constitution of the United States be followed word for word.