02-22-2008, 02:10 PM
|
 |
Up & Over
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Usually, in the skies above you.
Posts: 151
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt145ss
I agree that mandatory ownership is not the answer, for obvious reasons, however, blanket disarmament is not the answer either as it only disarms the law abiding citizens because the criminals will carry either way.
Two points: One, I mentioned Kennesaw because is shows a direct relationship between law abiding citizens possessing firearms and the drop in the crime rate (the inverse relationship clearly shows that the more law abiding citizens who possess a firearm the less crime there is in that region) . Two, CHL and/or a permit systems seems to work when the restrictions are reasonable and are considered “Shall Issue.” This can be determined by the many reports out there that show that those who are issued permits are not people committing crime.
I am very pro 2A, and that being said, I also do not believe everyone should be allowed to possess a firearm. I believe there should be some “reasonable” restrictions on both ownership and carry. I think the real issue is determining what is reasonable and what is not.
For example, I think it is reasonable to say that mental defectives should not be allowed to own or possess a firearm. I also think it would be reasonable to have a built in mechanism/process so that a mental defective can prove their stability and get their right back. A good example of this is that some legislators out there are trying to band combat vets diagnosed with post traumatic stress syndrome from owning or possessing firearms. I “might” concede that one that is diagnosed with PTSS is unstable and should not be allowed to own or possess a firearm, However, I would assert that at some point they might be stable and should be afforded their constitutional right.
|
I agree 100%
We're on the same page, side of the coin, fence, whatever.
__________________
1980 300D - Veggie Burner !
|