View Single Post
Old January 9, 2013, 03:34 PM   #52
Senior Member
Join Date: March 7, 2008
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 122

"Hmmm... so violent felons and minors should be able to own them? "

Any law that assumes guilt, just by mere posession of an inanimate obeject is immoral.

This type of thinking is part of the problem. All or nothing idealism.There are, in fact, common sense regulations.

You make it illegal for violent felons to own guns for the same reason you make it illegal for child molesters to come too close to a school. Will it prevent these criminals from repeating their crimes? Not necessarily, but it provides additional layers of protection for the general public. Pull over the felon on a traffic stop, find him in possession of a firearm, that is a crime in itself. Catch a child predator on a playground talking to children--they are going back to prison. Why? Because freedom is not, nor can it be, unlimited in any society. Law abiding citizens should have additional rights protecting them from convicted criminals. It is inherent in our social contract.

You know how every so often you hear on the news that a murderer got out of prison, and within a short period of time he goes out and commits another murder? You know how it makes you feel disgusted, because duh, obviously. But as the man said, "Common sense...isn't".

Then somebody posts defending the right for Bill Gates to own a stealth bomber under 2A... because it's expensive? And instead of agreeing that, yes, of course it should be prohibited that a 7 year old possess a landmine, someone posts stats on how teaching our youth about responsible gun ownership reduces the likelihood they will grow up to commit gun crimes. These are rhetorical examples, guys. Get it together. And you wonder why we get characterized as nutjobs and extremists. Because people say some extreme things, because "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?"

I used extreme examples trying to illustrate a point that has still been missed by some. Even if you draw the line at "anything short of nuclear weapons", EVERY SANE PERSON AGREES WITH SOME RESTRICTIONS TO THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Some restrictions do, in fact, promote the the safety of the general public.

At this moment in history, there is a battle for the hearts and minds of all Americans regarding the 2nd amendment. Some of you guys could do more harm than good for RKBA. The argument must be "the further restriction of firearm ownership will not reduce crime, and it is certainly not justifiable to further infringe upon the rights of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS." Arguing that the 2nd amendment is absolute and felons should be able to own Stealth Bombers because restricting a person from owning an "inanimate object is immoral" only serves to marginalize gun ownership, and makes you personally lose credibility, especially to an on the fence or gun control advocate.
coachteet is offline  
Page generated in 0.04061 seconds with 7 queries