fwagner hit the nail on the head. "Any reasonable person would agree........" is the rationale behind his proposals. And those proposals are exactly why many of us have no interest in joining hands to find solutions that may help with some of these issues, namely because the end game IS to take away the right to protect ones family. He spells it out in a list and even makes sure to add that it is only a beginning.
DUI- Family man drinks three beers over an hour and a half, gets pulled over=Lose the right to protect his home for life.
Assault-Two teen-aged boys in a mutual discussion that gets physical, charged with assault=Lose the right to protect their family 20 years in the future.
You fwagner are what people fear, and rightly so. You would put so many barriers up that it would essentially be banning all guns, you propose banning all guns for a HUGE number of people in your post, and would add to it by the millions if allowed.
I would like to point out that most of the murders in Chicago are gang members protecting areas for drug sales. Now before the Outraged Agenda shows up and accuses me of being racist, the reason for pointing that out is to show that it is over a banned substance(cocaine, heroin, etc.) that most of those murders are occuring. Substances that are not produced in this country. They are smuggled in at great risk to feed an enormous criminal enterprise. What in the world makes you think that they wouldn't smuggle in a box of pistols along with the drugs? Honestly, that is nonsense.
There has to be JEOPARDY for ones action. Will you walk past No Trespassing signs to shoot a elk? Most won’t because there is jeopardy /consequences . Some will however. It’s the consequence or lack of it that helps people make up their mind right or wrong.
It’s the same with drinking and driving. It’s the same for drug possession. It’s the same for molesters.
It’s the consequences that needs looked at.
Thank you for the your comment. I don't remember my writing ever being called "eloquently" that's cool. As far as your position comparing the 2nd Amendment with the right to operate a vehicle. The 2nd Amendment is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Operating a vehicle is a right granted by the State and regulated by the State.
Dan
This is a common misperception. Operating a vehicle on public roads is a privilege, not a right, and as such is subject to licenses and government permissions. The government also builds and maintains the roads on which you operate that vehicle. You don't need any sort of license to operate a motor vehicle on your own private property unless and until it poses a potential risk to someone else.
No government can grant rights. Rights are inherent in the human condition. All a government can do is forbid you from exercising your rights.
