access to them, are all Infringements. Thus UnConstitutional.
I'm 2A for EVERYONE, just like Ernie Hancock.
And, I mean it; for ANYONE and EVERYONE: Young, Old, Legal, Illegal, 'sane', and 'crazy.' Yeah, you read that correctly: even the 'crazy.'
Sure, if you got a 'mentally ill' family member, visitor, friend in your house, of course you can voluntarily choose to bar them from coming near it, or you, but with laws? NO F'ng WAY!
Second Amendment for EVERYONE.
Everyone is innocent in my book, until you actually move to violate someone else's rights and/or PHYSICAL well being; once you attempt to physically violate someone, the assailants are certainly deserved what's coming to them.
Besides, most 'crazies' are harmless anyway. Your govt servants and local cops present a much higher level of clear and present danger to any American than a local town drunk or schizo on the loose will ever pose to you.
Now, of course I 'get' the natural impulse to prevent and bar those whom you may consider 'mentally ill' from getting a gun. But, for the sake of argument, let's set aside the arbitrary nature of adjudicating who is or is not 'crazy' under the current status quo legal and medical doctrine. But let's discuss the underlying rationale claimed by the statist politicos and medical tyrants for wanting to ban the 'crazies' from coming near a gun: they are more likely to harm someone or oneself.
Well, to the liberty folks here, harming oneself should NEVER be a disqualifier for anything, not to mention the fact that the State has no inherent 'rights,' other than what we the People LEND them, temporarily, as delegated powers. And, despite how many times you hear it on the TV, the State has no 'right' or obligation to ensure public health; just ask the SCOTUS if cops have legal obligation to protect and serve you; the power rationale from the statists POV is the same one that they argue they 'need' a police force: for public safety. So, we all know that both 'ensuring public health and public safety' are non-existent obligations and pure Statist UNCONSTITUTIONAL BS.
So then the simple question, by their 'logic' one must inquire: WHO is really insane, and are more likely to harm others?
A murderous politician who can casually vote to murder MILLIONS via words and armies that follow their arbitrary whims?
Or, a stray screwloose who may kill 10's of people with ill acquired guns?
I'd submit that ANYONE in govt and the institutionalized bureaucracies and the political class, are far more likely to, and are far more easily capable of, MURDER.
Sure, both type of crazies should be stopped when they rear their heads to do harm, but if their basis for banning guns to the 'crazy' is solely based on the childish knee-jerk rationale that because they're more likely to hurt themselves and others, then, why shouldn't all CEO's, Doctors, Scientists, Cops, and Politicians be PRE-banned from owning guns?
Statistically, that latter group of 'professionals' have killed FAR more people than any other 'type' of people, in human history!
I can't think of anyone 'more crazy' than waging illegal wars, making money off insider contracts & trading, while playing compassionate asshole on TV and raise money for your PAC: that description would apply to about 99% of CONgress & EVERY POTUS from Lincoln (and prior, too).
As for 'illegals,' the minarchist vs AnCap divide on borders, citizenship, naturalization and deportation aside, this is the only applicable question in terms of guns used in self-defense: would it be legal for an illegal female Mexican national to defend her life against a legal American citizen would-be rapist/killer?
I'd assume 99% of DailyPaul members would say yes, well at least I hope y'all do.
If she can defend her life, would it matter what she does it with?
It's not like a videogame where she can look through her 'Resident Evil inventory box' to choose between a .357magnum, Scissors, or a Brick, or a broken beer bottle, at the moment of the attack; she can only use what's around or on her at the time of the attack. So if it's lawful to defend her life, regardless of her immigration status, why should she be only limited to a pen, or a rock, or a broken beer bottle, etc?
Second Amendment for EVERYONE.
Then, try this: would a NON-US Citizen Supermodel from Paris, France working the runway on a temporary working visa for a few days at the famed NY Fashion Week in Bryant Park, NYC, be within her rights to lethally defend herself against an armed rapist/killer?
Yes? Y'all agree?
Then, say... she had a friend who happen to be an NYPD detective (more common than you think). Say, they were walking downtown together headed toward an ATM. And, the cop was distracted for a moment (hey, a hot French chick: usually eyes are locked on her), and got jumped and got knocked out unconscious by two thugs (one armed, and one not), from behind.
Then, say... the French Supermodel saw a chance to escape from the unarmed thug while the armed one was busy celebrating the prospect of emasculating/knocking out a dude walking next to a hotchick, but the girl ain't all looks, reaches for the cop friend's Snubbie from his ankle holster. She drops three .357 JHP center mass into her would be rapist killer. The other one scurries off.
Now, would Bloomberg charge her?
Now, say if that Parisian Supermodel was a Mexican-American model who came here illegally at age 10 with her parents. The scenario played out exactly the same.
Now... would Bloomberg charge her?
So my question is, if it's legal, now, for those same non-US Citizen women to defend themselves with a rock, a pen, a broken beer bottle, a letter opener, a kitchen knife, or scissors against a would be rapist/killer, why SHOULDN'T they be allowed to defend themselves with a gun?
Second Amendment FOR EVERYONE.
Just a few things to consider, IMHO.
Predictions in due Time...
"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul