Topic: Constitutional
Argument:
"Criminals have no right to posess firearms"
Sounds reasonable, doesnt it? It sounded reasonable to join the JONESTOWN CULT. They all died for their trouble.
I heard Jim Jones on shortwave years ago, it was CLEAR he didnt have A screw loose, they ALL were loose...
Whats wrong with this notion? Whats mainly wrong with it is that its fronted by so called "gun advocates" who didnt learn anything from recent history.
Cases in point:
1.) there was a report on the Polk Co, Florida S.D. website of an ex con (or current con, dont recall exactly) whose house was broken in by another criminal. Apparently he (the first con) had no way to defend himself. Shouldnt he be exercising HIS UNRESTRICTED RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS? The words SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED HAVE NO QUALIFIERS.
Who needs to protect themselves MORE than ex criminals? Or current criminals? AGAINST OTHER CRIMINALS.
2.) You think its OK to deprive people called "criminals" of their Right to Bear Arms?
OK, YOURE A CRIMINAL, HAND IT OVER.
thats what happened in Castros Cuba, and EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN NEW ORLEANS during KATRINA.
Declare Martial Law, declare ANYONE bearing arms as Criminals.
And thats EXACTLY what many States Laws hold.
This is the problem with the twin ailments of the Stockholm Syndrome and ingrouping/outgrouping. Look those terms up.
