Should Martha Stewart be prohibited from owning guns? Why?
On Wednesday, we talked about a person prohibited from owning guns. Yesterday, we looked at the legally-defined classifications of “prohibited persons”.
Many self-described “law and order conservatives” who support the prohibition, but who also profess to believe in the Second Amendment, would do well to realize that running afoul of a “gun law” can result in felon status, particularly in locales that prohibit bearing arms–even if a threat exists. Do they really want to be “judged by 12” for that, or are they just certain they will never have that decision forced upon them?
I have some questions for discussion:
If someone is enough of a danger to himself and others to be institutionalized, why would that person be released if they remain a danger?
As for “illegal immigrants,” why is it some of the same government actors who hate private ownership of firearms insist on fighting deportation of violent gang members?
It's been my long-standing contention that anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian. Simply put, if you have proven too dangerous to yourself and others to possess a gun, or box cutters, or fertilizer or matches, you're too dangerous to be allowed unrestricted access to the rest of us.
And if you're not dangerous, then what purpose does the gun prohibition serve? Read more
Source: Gun Rights Examiner