that sounds a lot like going through case by case. now you want guidelines.
how about this guideline: you are convicted of committing an act that is defined by the law as a felony, you do not own a gun.
or is a businessman who commits securities fraud more deserving of a gun than an inner city youth who robs someone of $20?
“that sounds a lot like going through case by case.”
Only to someone stretching for the worst possible interpretation. I did not say “...examine *all* cases on their individual merits...” nor was this a legislative proposal.
Perhaps you think such privileges should be reserved only for you, but people in a discussion have the prerogative of clarifying their positions as the discussion continues.
“how about this guideline: you are convicted of committing an act that is defined by the law as a felony, you do not own a gun.”
No, that gives the government too much power to interfere with human rights.
“or is a businessman who commits securities fraud more deserving of a gun than an inner city youth who robs someone of $20?”
You’re coming at this from the wrong side. Both the businessman and the slum rat are *born* with the God-given right to self defense.
There is no question of being “deserving.” Man cannot rightly take away a right that God has bestowed, unless there is some overriding reason that justifies it.
The state must consider *before the fact* whether there is sufficient reason to deprive either of his right. To impose a blanket prohibition on all who are convicted of some offense arbitrarily deemed a felony — or domestic abuse — is to fail in that duty.