View Single Post
  #40  
Old 11-20-2009, 11:30 PM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 7,591
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wash View Post
I do believe there should be prohibitions for certain felonies regardless of the circumstances of the case.

For example, bank robbery. I don't think it should matter if a person holds the place up with a gun or if the person just grabs a sack of nickels while the armored car driver isn't looking.

Every one knows that robbing a bank is illegal and anyone dumb enough to try it should suffer the consequences.
Except that the consequences should be the amount of time in incarceration, or the amount of community service required, or something of that sort. In other words, something that the perp is going to care about a lot more than whether or not he will be able to exercise his 2A rights when he gets out. After all, the purpose of these things is to act as a deterrent, right?

And it absolutely should not be something that is permanent, particularly if it's really a right like 2A is.


The reason the current system is considered "acceptable" is that the population is, by and large, currently disarmed, so there is the perception that the people need "protection" from convicted felons. With a full restoration of 2A, that problem should go away, as should the "need" for the current "protection".
Reply With Quote