Does denying guns to ‘prohibited persons’ ensure public safety?
Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea has been writing a series of blogs about the slippery slope in allowing some people to have Constitutional rights, but not others. He asks some intriguing questions that require more than a knee-jerk, emotional response.
“Who is prohibited from owning guns? Who can we trust with guns? Who can we trust with freedom?” he asks. “Many self-described ‘law and order conservatives’ who support the prohibition, but who also profess to believe in the Second Amendment, would do well to realize that running afoul of a ‘gun law’ can result in felon status, particularly in locales that prohibit bearing arms — even if a threat exists. Do they really want to be ‘judged by 12’ for that, or are they just certain they will never have that decision forced upon them?
“Is public safety enhanced by banning someone like, say, Martha Stewart from owing a gun for the rest of her life? How?
“Is the occasional social pot smoker as much of a danger to society as, say, this guy appears to be?
“If someone is enough of a danger to himself and others to be institutionalized, why would that person be released if they remain a danger?
“As for ‘illegal immigrants,’ why is it some of the same government actors who hate private ownership of firearms insist on fighting deportation of violent gang members?”