dksuddeth,
You need to reread the article because it appears you are confusing Moreno's second conviction with his first. I mean, this is the article YOU posted; the least you could do is transpose the facts from one website to another correctly when we're discussing it, agreed?
Moreno didn't originally commit a crime WITH a firearm, the ONLY crime Moreno originally committed was possessing an illegal weapon (a sawed-off shotgun). THEN he was released, and while possessing a bag of marijuana, shot Dennard with a "rifle."
Quote:
Mario Moreno should still have been behind bars the night he climbed into the passenger seat of a stolen car with two fellow gang members.
He was carrying a rifle, some cartridges and, in his jacket pocket, a bag of marijuana. "Let's go do this," the car's driver recalled Moreno saying as they headed into the turf of a rival black gang...
...If not for a chronic shortage of jail beds in Los Angeles County, Dennard's killer would have been in jail four more months. Moreno had been convicted of possessing a sawed-off shotgun — a felony.
|
The main problem's I'm having with your position are that 1) the state determines what weapons are lawful and/or registerable and 2) the state determines who is fit to carry weapons and who isn't
both of these are unteneble if we hold to your original position that weapon weilding is an inherent right (albeit with responsibilities) and that the main reason for such a right is to protect our inherent liberties.
both of these scenarios would not prevent a tyrannical state from arising.
in the first point, the state would simply round everyone up and seize weapons they felt created a significant threat. I don't see how you would move around that issue. AFAIK, weapons registries are opposed by weapons and privacy rights advocates.
in the second point, the state would simply classify those likely to present opposition as threats to society, effectively nullifying their check against government power. using your standard, how would we have been able to distinguish between you and moreno (pre-crime)? are you of the opinion that I'm inherently more dangerous to society than you even though I've served four years in the state penitentiary...or have I regained your trust to defend our collective and my individual liberties now that I'm completing my doctorate?
none of this is coherent on the theoretical level--wherein you argued that weapons possession and usage is a god-given, inherent right and obligation. at that level, it simply wouldn't matter what the state thinks of your point 1 or 2. in that world, we would allow people to carry and weild weapons as they saw fit and punish them for behaving inappropriately. much like the quote you may or may not eventually dig up (relevence being the key here, whether we operate within a world where we react to crime [founder's quote] rather than proact [preemptive detainment--your position]).