See your point. Did you read the rest of the post? It touches on much
of the argument you make. However, I still stand by what I wrote. It is
not serving the best interest of the citizenry as a whole to allow arms
into the hands of those who are neither 'sane nor safe'. And it
certainly doesn't help the cause of Gun Owners, as a whole, to advocate
'anyone and everyone' having the ability to keep and bear arms. Am also
of the opinion that a person, not a citizen of the United States,
should not be allowed possession of arms. That the right is reserved
for citizens only.
By suggestion, you indicate it would be perfectly acceptable for
Charles Manson, should he be released, to keep and bear arms? There is
a matter of responsibility involved. The whole case being made by the
Gun-Grabbers is reinforced by irresponsible uses of firearms. They jump
on each instance and pronounce "I told you so!" With freedom comes
responsibility! A fact not touched on much these days.
Should Charles Manson be released, he'll NEED arms -- because there
will be a hell of a lot of people who want him dead, and the police for
sure won't be protecting him. The problem I have with your
scenario isn't arming Charles Manson once released, it's releasing him
I don't disagree that it would be politically expedient to pass
against "bad people" having guns. The problem is that the
government defines the "bad people". If it's valid to
prevent "bad people" from owning the tools of self-defense while they
are free in society, what will you do when the government defines "bad
people" to be... oh... anyone who ever got a speeding ticket?
Putting the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution was
intended to take the issue off the table as close to permanently as the
Founders were willing to go. And until you are willing to submit
to a background check before buying a computer or connecting to the
Internet, calling for background checks before buying a gun is a
position of weakness that indicates a lack of moral clarity.
Politically, it will probably
be impossible to get rid of the felon-in-possession prohibition, and
difficult to get rid of the mandatory background check. But
background checks are Constitutionally invalid, and the
felon-in-possession laws are questionable. It shouldn't matter
how expedient they are.
This entry was published Fri Oct 28 19:14:28 CDT 2005 by TriggerFinger
and last updated 2005-10-28 19:14:28.0.