bhess wrote:You shouldn't assume that i'm operating under any pretenses at all. I'm only asking to get another take on the subject. I actually agree that if someone has multiple violent felonies that they should be not be let out of prison. You should understand that I see everyones point and, they are all very good points and great arguments against one another. I think thats why this is such a debate, its easy to make sense of all of these opinions, so they may naturally come with strong feelings.
I guess that I should have stated that your statement assumes the false narrative that gun control is effective when imposed upon those who have previously committed multiple violent felonies. And please don't anyone take offense from anything that I write. I am trying to explain my position and I do not look down upon anyone--so if I appear condescending, I don't mean to be.
My point about there being no evidence that gun control laws imposed upon former felons does anything to reduce crime is a fact. It is not mere opinion. My opinion is that because of that fact, the government should not do it, and instead, should use other types of approaches, including rehabilitation, rehabilitation and education. There is a plethora of evidence that these approaches reduce recidivism when used appropriately with those who are amenable to such treatment. And we should incapacitate those who are deemed intractable.
Also, it is fact that when the 2nd Amendment was ratified it meant the governments (state and federal) were divested of authority to infringe upon the preexisting right of any free person to have and carry firearms. It is also a fact that the Supreme Court has established the method of Constitutional interpretation for the 2nd Amendment is what the right meant when it was ratified. It is also a fact that the Supreme Court made a non binding
obiter dicta statement that laws that prohibit felons from having firearms are preemptively valid. It is my opinion that Justice Scalia was wrong and that such prohibitions would not survive Constitutional scrutiny at any level if the empirical evidence is properly presented and considered. And, by the way, the Sixth Circuit just ruled that categorical firearms prohibitions must have a compelling governmental interest and be narrowly tailored to achieving that interest, i.e., strict scrutiny. See
Tyler v. Hillsdale Cnty. Sheriff's Dept., (6th Cir 12-18-2014), No. 13-1876,
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-conten ... -18-14.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
We as firearms rights advocates need to be able to identify false narratives so that we can base our opinions upon facts and not the propaganda spewed from the media. Specifically, we need to understand that gun control does not work against those who have been convicted of crimes for the same reason that it does not work in all other situations. We need to understand that gun control's only purpose is to disarm and thereby make a population vulnerable to tyranny, and that, that is the only objective it has ever achieved. See Death by Gun Control:
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
