Joe E. Dees [firstname.lastname@example.org] wrote:
>Nix to the
>mentally disturbes, children, felons, abusive spouses.
So where exactly does the Second Amendment say 'the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except for mentally disturbed, children, felons and abusives spouses'? I don't see it there, I can only assume you have a different version of the Constitution to me. The states can probably pass such laws, but any Federal disarmament laws are utterly unconstitutional.
>You keep on trotting out that old tired slippery
>slope domino theory; "If we let them do the rational and reasonable
>thing today, who knows where it may lead?"
Victim disarmament is neither rational nor reasonable, and almost every country which has imposed registration of guns (and background checks are registration by default) has gone on to ban and confiscate many or most of those registered guns. Most gun owners are reasonable people, and have been willing to accept 'reasonable' infringements on their rights... and you know what? The disarmers continually come back with just one more 'reasonable' infringement to add to the list until all rights are gone; their desire to completely ban private ownership of guns is hardly a secret. This will only stop when gun owners stand up and stop being 'reasonable'.
>What part of "general
>welfare" do you not understand?
Ok Joe, since you're the Constitutional expert, you explain just what 'general welfare' means in the context it's used in the Constitution.