Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Swartz
I'll just say that I think this is the proposal - definitely respect and approve of the spirit in which it was offered - that you've made on my entire time on this forum that I disagree with most stringently.
:
But that's a minor point. As messy as our legal system can be, that whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing was a pretty good idea IMO - unless you're not being as literal with the Duterte comparison as it appears? The 4th Amendment has a few things to say about the idea of just raiding all known criminals, to say nothing of the number of people who would not easily be classified into either 'criminal element' or 'law-abiding citizen' categories.
|
I did preface by saying and added
Quote:
|
There's reality and there's blue sky. I'll go with blue sky so we don't have to talk legalese and constitutional rights.
|
Quote:
|
The original premise was instead of taking all/most guns from law abiding citizens, why not start with criminals (and mentally unstable) first. Definitely a great alternative IMO if the choice was only between take guns away from law abiding citizens or take guns away from criminals.
|
I understand there are significant hurdles and this won't happen.
But if given the only choices between (1) take away all guns from law abiding citizens and (2) going Duterte and taking away all guns from criminal elements ... yeah, I'd pick #2.