Quote Originally Posted by Bailey Guns View Post
Well, I gave you examples, that you apparently agree with, of how some restrictions on the 2A are acceptable.

Obviously if some people "can't be trusted with property" were not going to execute them and it's ridiculous to suggest that. There may be other reasons they can't be trusted that are non-violent...such as physical or mental limitations.

It also sounds like you're willing to compromise on other parts of the Constitution considering how many people you want to eliminate.
My point in saying people who can’t be trusted with property was that there should only be an extremely small percentage of 18+ citizens denied the right to arms.

The incarcerated, and insane asylum patients/inmates. Period.

Once an inmate has served their sentence, full rights. If the crime they committed was so heinous they can’t have their rights back, why release them?

I cannot think of any physical limitations that could prohibit a person owning legal property such as firearms.

I only want violent convicted criminals to be eliminated.

Everyone else gets a fair shot, pun intended, at keeping them-self, their families, property, and our Republic safe.

Currently if a criminal commits a crime and happens to be armed it’s an add on charge. Why? Aside from cases where the gun is used to assist them in said crime, i.e. armed robbery, murder etc. why charge them for possession of arms? Do we tack on an additional charge because they were wearing pants? Driving a car otherwise lawfully? We have made owning something a crime. What other inanimate object gets this much special attention aside from drugs?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk