I take the views of those who stand to loose financially when freedom is expanded with a grain of salt.
X-Rap, it's not always money when somebody feels that he or she is more equal than others. I see lots of people wanting to set the bar just below where they happen to be when consider extending [strike] rights [/strike] privileges to the un-annointed. The attitude is that, by virtue of my special training and added insights, I get to decide if the constitution applies to you. This is the same argument the (other?) antis use. "We can't let just anybody carry a gun" (with or without an "especially those people" thrown in, be they of another race, another religion, or simply a different level of education).
I guess under that argument or logic convicted criminals and the mentally insane should be allowed to possess and carry too
Depends on the crime, and the level of insanity. If the person has been adjudicated to be danger to themselves or others it would make more sense to keep them locked up than to try to lock away all of the cars, gasoline, chainsaws, matches, guns, electricity or whatever they may use to hurt themselves or others. If they're convicted of a really dangerous felony like cable theft or filling in a sinkhole on their own property I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to protect their families when they get out of jail. Am I missing something?
