Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisnaholic
I didn't say that at all. I believe in the possibility of rehabilitation, all I'm suggesting is that balancing out the overall safety of society, against the loss of gun rights for felons, I think it's worth doing. With many safety measures imposed by society, some freedoms are lost and innocent people are inconvenienced. In principal I subscribe to the notion that someone who has paid his debt to society is an innocent person; all that happens is that he carries around one extra inconvenience. Just like me he can't drink and drive or ride a motorbike without a helmet, it's just that when I go into the gun shop, he has to wait in the car.
|
You didn't say it explicitly, but it was implicit in your logic.
They demonstrated themselves to be felons and thus incapable of ever fully retaining their rights and thus they are beyond rehabilitation in a certain regard. Correct me where I'm wrong.
A lot of the rest of what you said relies on the assumption that they pose a unique security risk if allowed to own weapons. I've already stated my case against this and am eagerly awaiting a rebuttal
Quote:
|
Was the Bill of Rights carved in stone and handed down by God? If the times, the technology and the society of the US have changed in the last 200 years, perhaps a footnote could be added to the Bill of Rights too.
|
that's an argument against the 2nd amendment which I agree with. But as long as the right exists it should be granted as widely as possible, and the fact that because it exists this is a country stock full of guns and armed criminals is all the more reason that denying a felon access to guns is an injustice that possibly prevents them from defending themselves.