Carry_Okie, I have some sympathy for that corollary. I also see some problems with it.
Should certain acts have much stiffer penalties, ones that can’t be severely discounted? I believe so.
Should we be allowing a guy to walk out of prison one day and own a weapon the next day? I don’t think so.
If the person went to prison for a violent crime, I still think there should be an additional cooling off period after release. Did they get straight or an education in prison. When the answer to that question is clear, I’m a lot more inclined to agree or object to gun ownership.
Of course, and they're as old as the hills. But think about it for a bit (which was the purpose of the aphorism), if a person cannot discern rightly or cannot control themselves sufficiently to handle deadly force, should we TRUST them in public without supervision? The idea was to give you sufficient pause to consider whom and how.
Should certain acts have much stiffer penalties, ones that can’t be severely discounted? I believe so.
Should we be allowing a guy to walk out of prison one day and own a weapon the next day? I don’t think so.
IMO, under no circumstances should a person be released from prison without having made full restitution AND virtual certainty they pose NO threat. Else we should detain them in a lower security facility performing said restitution.
Note, I didn't say "weapon." People possess deadly force in their hands. What I am effectively saying is that the cost to society in liberty and wealth posed by all of us locking up our possessions and ducking for cover is so high that we should reconsider the entire paradigm. Needless to say, I know that won't be popular at first, but I really don't think we rightly understand the price we're paying.