Replies

You waded in with an attack on another poster.

I call that BS. Here's what I said with respect to the case:

Deprivation of property without due process. This is clearly unconstitutional.

Let's see, I called the State action "clearly unconstitutional." How is that an attack? How is that "trolling"? How is that inconsistent with the standards of FR? How does that disagree with anything you have held.

Then I proposed a solution you apparently don't like:

I have no problem with taking the right to keep and bear if a person has been found insane by a court with a jury.

It's the same standard as sending people to prison. You can't handle that. Tough. There were legal standards for deprivation of rights from the day the founders penned the Constitution. The standard is due process. The suggestion I offered is due process. There is nothing inconsistent about it.

You clearly believe criminals belong in prison. So do I. You clearly believe the constitutional standard for committing a person to prison and depriving them of liberty are sufficient. So do I. Yet by that standard, unless you think the Second Amendment mandates that prisoners should be armed, you are being inconsistent.

Clearly, disarming a person is a deprivation of liberty. The Constitution has a standard for deprivation of liberty: DUE PROCESS. That's what I suggested.