Like I said I have no problem denying convicted felons the right to own firearms. They have proven through their actions that they are not responsible enough to own firearms. I really don't have a problem with those that are adjudicated to be mentally ill are denied the right to own firearms.
As far as everyone else more power to them. I think that anyone who isn't a convicted felon or adjudicated to be mentally ill should be able to buy as many guns as they want and I support Constitutional carry.
Why do you want convicted felons and the mentally ill to own firearms?
I want the Constitution followed. I want government that is bound by the legal authority that created it and that does not, can not, assume power or authority over the governed that the governed did not grant them.
I want there to be a chance for reform and forgiveness in the penal system. Serve your time and get out of prison and have all of your rights. I want those who have paid their debt to society to be able to defend themselves and their families just as you are able to defend yourself and your family. I want those families to be able to defend themselves without attainder because their loved one was once, often as a minor or very young adult, convicted of possession of marijuana or of felony littering.
I want convicted felons to have free speech. If ever accused of another crime after being a convicted felon, I want them to have the right to an attorney and to a fair trial with a jury of their peers. I want them to not have to quarter soldiers in their homes in times of peace. Why do you not want convicted felons to have any of these rights?
And what about those convicted of misdemeanors? Many of those are banned from exercising their right to keep and bear arms.
And what about those convicted of absolutely nothing at all that are banned and are not insane? All it takes is an angry partner filing a restraining order and your guns will be confiscated under federal law.
And what about those in states with red-flag laws? Not even a protective order hearing before their guns are taken.
Why do you want the government to pick and choose to whom human and constitutionally protected rights apply?
You clearly do NOT support constitutional carry. The Constitution requires that everyone be allowed to keep and bear arms and you want only those with government approval to keep or bear arms. You ignore the fact that if the Government can strip anyone of the right to keep and bear arms, or any right, for that matter, then those whose rights they have not stripped are operating with government permission - just the thing that those who actually advocate constitutional carry understand: no government permission required.
Your views have much more in common with the views of Handgun Control, Inc. than they have with James Madison. You are a gun controller. I don't point this out in an attempt to insult you. What I'd prefer is that you think about this statement: you have more in common with HCI than with the Founders. Your comments indicate that you might think about yourself differently. Just think about your stance and what it means. You say you're a constitutionalist but you push views that are very anti-constitution.
If your views are emotionally based then think about whether you want laws based on emotion. If you want gun control because you think it's the answer to crime and that safety from crime is more important for society than is liberty, that's OK, too. You're entitled to your opinion. My hope is that you, and others reading this who might agree with you, think about the implications to liberty and to our constitutional form of government when liberties are restricted without constitutional authority to do so - or to use a different way of saying the same thing: by tyranny.
If tyranny is your choice and you want to keep gun control that exists today, in spite of the fact that those laws violate the Constitution (again, that's tyranny) then just own up to it; admit that you're a gun controller. And you can buy one of these shirts:
