“Anyone who can not LEGALLY possess a firearm should not be running around loose.”
A bumper-sticker response seldom if ever addresses the multifaceted aspects of any issue. I am surprised you posted it.
Lautenberg amendment? Those convicted of misdemeanor battery lose their right to own firearms and are incarcerated for life in your view? Those convicted or admitting to misdemeanor spousal battery regardless of the true circumstances are to be incarcerated for life in your view? They are prohibited from possessing firearms by numerous state laws not to mention the federal restriction regardless of having served their sentences for misdemeanor crimes. Does a conviction for a non-violent “white collar” felony crime justify restricting firearm possession and a loss of other rights and therefore justification for life imprisonment in your view?
It’s just a matter of time before the net closes around us all and reasons are found to prohibit anyone from possessing a firearm due to commission of the new and improved infraction to justify doing so.
And I said in a subsequent post that I find nothing in the second amendment that excludes freed criminals or crazies from the right to bear arms. That precludes barring the bearing of arms by any FREE individual. In other words, the loss of the right is not legal or acceptable. He's either locked away, or free to be armed.
I think that's the point.
More and more things are being declared crimes, more of us will be convicted of various things, and pretty soon NOBODY has a right to keep and bear arms.
The unalienable right to defend one's own life is just that; unalienable. People who are not in prison are free to buy poison, gasoline, matches, massive automobiles, and almost uncountable other things that could be used to harm others.
Anyone who cannot be presumed to be law-abiding due to their own behavior belongs in an institution of some type where their defense is supplied by others and they are not a danger to the public.