At times, people inquire about their status as potentially prohibited persons and our responses are full of personal opinion about how we feel, regarding which crimes should and shouldn't qualify as causing a life prohibition from firearms possession.
I tend to believe in less restriction, but I can't decide on the parameters I'd like to see. There are people among us who I believe, in the best interest of society, should be able to be picked up and jailed just for possessing a firearm. But that's me being judgmental. On the other hand, I'm uncomfortable letting a government body decide, based on pre-determined criteria that can be manipulated and bargained with.
I tend to think possession or ownership, in itself, without the commission of another crime, should never be a crime, regardless of the individual and their history. Yet, real crimes committed with a firearm should come with heavy penalties.
I feel I'd rather know, persons I personally feel shouldn't own a firearm, indeed legally possessing and owning one, rather than restricting certain people based on, what feels like, almost arbitrary, and at times, petty criteria.
This also begs -- what good comes from creating a prohibited class, on paper, anyway?
To further complicate the issue, why can I decide and why should the majority decide? How should this work?
I'd like to read your thoughts.
I tend to believe in less restriction, but I can't decide on the parameters I'd like to see. There are people among us who I believe, in the best interest of society, should be able to be picked up and jailed just for possessing a firearm. But that's me being judgmental. On the other hand, I'm uncomfortable letting a government body decide, based on pre-determined criteria that can be manipulated and bargained with.
I tend to think possession or ownership, in itself, without the commission of another crime, should never be a crime, regardless of the individual and their history. Yet, real crimes committed with a firearm should come with heavy penalties.
I feel I'd rather know, persons I personally feel shouldn't own a firearm, indeed legally possessing and owning one, rather than restricting certain people based on, what feels like, almost arbitrary, and at times, petty criteria.
This also begs -- what good comes from creating a prohibited class, on paper, anyway?
To further complicate the issue, why can I decide and why should the majority decide? How should this work?
I'd like to read your thoughts.
Last edited: