Fair point. My intent is to say those that have committed things like murder, armed robbery, etc… probably shouldn’t be allowed to have a firearm any more.
And I’m right there with you. Once someone crosses the line into the kind of violence that could/would lead to the use of firearms against others in a harmful way, that’s where it becomes necessary to limit their rights.
I might still be open to individuals still being allowed highly supervised access even then, like at a very controlled high security range, but that isn’t a realistic option.
The problem with “law abiding citizen” is that who defines what the laws are, and who sets those laws may or may not be an ally of the people.
I get what you’re saying, and agree with the intent. There’s just more to gun rights/access than who follows arbitrary laws.
Fair point. My intent is to say those that have committed things like murder, armed robbery, etc… probably shouldn’t be allowed to have a firearm any more.
I figured that’s what your intent was :)
And I’m right there with you. Once someone crosses the line into the kind of violence that could/would lead to the use of firearms against others in a harmful way, that’s where it becomes necessary to limit their rights.
I might still be open to individuals still being allowed highly supervised access even then, like at a very controlled high security range, but that isn’t a realistic option.