[Henrietta]

Please see post 42 and give us your opinion.

I'm not sure if I do or don't agree with the analysis in post #42. While I am of the opinion that any restriction on firearms rights violates the plain language of the second amendment (including for felons, by the way)I don't know how this will translate into actual legislation to curtail state restrictions on concealed carry.

I know some of you out there in FReeperland would like to tar and feather me for my advocacy of firearms rights for everyone, but it is based on the principle that the right of self defense is God-given, and can't be taken away from someone just because he has a criminal past. I think we should punish people for the wrongs they actually commit, rather than deny people their God-given right to self defense based on what we imagine they might do.

Remember, if the right to self-defense is really only a privilege that can be taken away at the whim of some government agent, how secure is YOUR right to self-defense?

[freedomcrusader]

I would like to add to your eloquent defense the proposition that if certain members of society are too dangerous to possess firearms, then they should be behind bars, not free on the streets but merely prohibited from owning a firearm.

By their nature, they WILL obtain one illegally anyway. Hence, the prohibition seems meaningless.

[45Auto]

I like your view of the RKBA; it more clearly jibes with the Founder's intent, in my opinion. I assume you have knowledge of the SC decision in Cruikshank?

[monkeyshine]

I agree with you 100%. Felons, who are finished with their time (prison + parole) should be given their rights back. There was a freeper, now deceased, who lost his rights because he had a couple of pot plants in his yard many years ago. It's absurd that he could not vote or defend himself from preying criminals because of one mistake made in his distant past.