|
Preventing convicted felons or those guilty of domestic violence from owning a gun is not giving up any essential liberties. That's on par with Pedophiles who cannot live within a certain distance of schools complaining that their pursuit of life, liberty and happiness is being violated. Don't do the crime if you can't accept the consequences.
With regards to cruel and unusual punishment, if it's not cruel and unusual to execute a person, then preventing them from owning a weapon certainly isn't.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for *reasonable* gun ownership. I'm a proponent of those whom are law-abiding citizens from carrying and concealing for personal protection. Hell, pretty soon I'll be applying for a Class A. I'd also agree to a reasonable appeal process for those who had been previously convicted of non-violent felonies. However, there is no reason any person that has ever been convicted of a violent crime should be allowed to own a gun. If a guy is accused of Domestic Violence and, without consulting a lawyer or knowing the consequences, chooses to plead guilty, then the burden is on him.
The NRA's propaganda and scaremongering is tiresome. It's of no effect to me or any other reasonable person if the average American cannot own a fully automatic AK47. Come talk to me when they're trying to prevent me (a law-abiding citizen of able body and mind) from purchasing a pistol, shotgun or rifle.
|