The 14th Amendment requires that due process and equal protection of the laws apply to everyone. If the 2d Amendment cannot be reasonably applied for the protection of society as a whole, then neither should the 14th which prohibits discrimination.
If you are going to restore rights to a felon, why not all them? Are the others more important, of higher stature than the 2nd? Also, you are stating a convicted murder (whom I may agree, if evidence was not witheld, should not own firearms) but what about those that are convicted of "white collar" crimes that make them felons?
If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that all felons once released should have the right to carry arms? Since most, including me, would immediately question that as contrary to a secure society, it would make no sense. And any government that would permit felons (at least violent felons) to carry arms would be failing in its duty to protect society.
Is Martha Stewart as much a threat to society if she were to be able to own firearms again? Again, are they less equal than us?
She's not as much of a threat as a felon convicted of a violent crime. But I'm not sure where the equality issue plays in here.
Are cops and military personel more equal than us?
Police and military would certainly be better trained and more trustworthy than say, your average bank robber. But if you are trying to make a case for the average citizen being permitted to carry machine guns, you haven't yet done so. Even the police and military must secure their weapons to ensure they are not taken or otherwise used in a nefarious manner.
Centrists and liberals love them. They {and others] are perfect examples of the techniques / thinking / arguments that have been used to reduce our freedoms to the level that exists today. When will our government close out our Second Amendment rights {and others} ?
Answer: Immediately after it no longer fears us. We are dangerously close now. Free men fear their American government already. Was that a Founding Father concept?
The key to understanding our point of view lies in identifying "What do we wish to be restricted/punished?"
The instruments {endless possibilities} used to commit evil?
Or the evil man / evil act itself?
Using that logic, why should people under 18 have different restrictions on their driving? Again, and using the above statement from you, if they are given all other rights back how is it not against the 14th Amendment that they can't have their 2nd Amendment rights back? How is that equal protection?
If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that all felons once released should have the right to carry arms? Since most, including me, would immediately question that as contrary to a secure society, it would make no sense. And any government that would permit felons (at least violent felons) to carry arms would be failing in its duty to protect society. .... She's not as much of a threat as a felon convicted of a violent crime. But I'm not sure where the equality issue plays in here.
You state all felons, then you state "at least violent felons" and that it is about a "secure society". Martha Stewart is a felon because of her insider trading conviction (a "white collar" crime). Would society be less secure if people like her were able to own firearms? If we prevent only violent felons from owning there is no equal protection. Laws against felons possessing firearms does not stop them from having them, as proven many times in the news (ie. we are not a secure society). So tell me how removing the laws so that there is equal protection of the 2nd to felons would make us less secure?
Police and military would certainly be better trained and more trustworthy than say, your average bank robber. But if you are trying to make a case for the average citizen being permitted to carry machine guns, you haven't yet done so.
Better trained huh? Like the DEA guy that shot himself in a classroom full of kids? Like the cop that was evidently play draw and shot a mirror in a hotel room? There are many instances that can be listed that would argue such. Also, police only get range time once a year. Most gun owners get range time more than that. I have yet to read about an "accidental" discharge by a bank robber. Even if you were to show any, I bet articles about the "better trained and more trustworthy" would out number the robbers. Oh and the more trustworthy part is a load of crap also, just more elevating them to super citizens. As far as making the case, if you are blind to the fact that it is an infringement of the 2nd then nothing will change your mind.
Even the police and military must secure their weapons to ensure they are not taken or otherwise used in a nefarious manner.
Nice change of subject there. This has nothing to do with securing weapons, but about ownership, infringement, etc.
By the way you sure are in good company when you want to take things away for the good of the public/society.
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." - Sen. Dianne Feinstein quoted by AP on Nov. 18, 1993
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." -- Sen. Hillary Clinton"
"Handguns are a public health issue." - then U.S. Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders in USA Today, Nov. 9, 1993