Why are you fighting for prior restraints?
Show me where "adjudicated" affords the same due process protections for all those suspected of mental disabilities as are given to those accused of heinous crimes. Answer the questions!
You're not exclusively talking "violent felons" and you know it. You're also talking Americans who have run afoul of citizen disarmament edicts for daring to exercise a right supposedly guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
The truth that needs to be dealt with, and so it won't be, is that anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian. For as long as that person can't be trusted.
Still, as long as you're going to support the "prohibited person" alternative, there is a much less intrusive prior restraint, and one that creates no record of who purchased what. It's a shame, but no surprise, that we have to access it through the Internet Archive.
3 comments:
Doing Bloomberg's work while pretending to be his opposition.
With friends like this, you need new friends.
Dear God. This guy is missing the obvious point: BACKGROUND CHECKS DON'T WORK, so they need to be repealed! Why should we, the law abiding, be required to take a "background check" when they release these feral thugs with felony convictions back on the street!
It's like David has said for a long time: Can't be trusted with a gun? Then they need to be DEAD, or locked in with a custodian. Until they can be trusted. For real. Not just "he was gentle giant" or "he was just turning his life around."
Really thinking long & hard about not sending my annual NRA dues in next year when they come due.
Post a Comment