Zodiac
I agree 100%. This ridiculous idea that we ban someone FOR LIFE from the means to defend themselves is Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
This needs to be changed.
Why don't the liberals rage about this?
I can't speak for all liberals, but the ones I argue against about this have a skewed view of the Second Amendment that is not consistent with the rest of their (and my) beliefs.
I believe that the Constitution restricts not only what the
Federal government can do to its citizens, but also should be interpreted to restrict what the
states can do. So, if it's illegal to restrict speech, or interfere with the right to vote, or illegally search someone, etc. on the Federal level, no state or smaller governmental unit should be able to do so.
Liberals, in general, are completely on board with that...
except for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Many of them see the Second Amendment as a historical mistake. They view the prefatory clause as a restriction, instead of an explanation. They don't believe in "states' rights" (neither do I) except for restricting gun rights... logically inconsistent, but they accuse the right of the same logical inconsistency in reverse by giving the states the right to restrict same-sex marriage, women's rights, etc. and opposing restrictive state & local gun laws. (They have a point there, but to me it indicates that both sides are wrong).
When we armed liberals (and there are many of us) argue against their position on gun rights, we are often accused of being right-wing plants, NRA shills, or both. We have tried to explain it, and we keep trying, but the other side cries "Newtown! Columbine! Your gun is a phallic substitute! Why are you so afraid?"
I'm glad they've lived such sheltered lives that they have never needed to defend themselves. I have not been so lucky; my pessimism is born of experience.