TriggerFinger


The Education Continues


In the comments of an earlier post, David of gunshowonthenet says:
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 at all.

I don't disagree that it would be politically expedient to pass laws 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. [Tweet]

comments powered by Disqus

Subscribe to Atom Feed

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice.

This site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.


This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.