This might be the dumbest anti gun rights argument I ever encounter.
It isn't an anti-gun rights argument, silly. It's an anti-
criminal rights argument. It's been very specific, and if you geniuses thought about it for one minute, instead of chasing your own paranoid delusions about it, you'd see three things:
1. It's actually a call for
less restrictions than what currently exists on felons because it is limited to felons charged with gun crimes.
2. It does in any way restrict law-abiding citizens
3. By arguing that we should allow
gun-wielding criminals to continue to legally wield guns with no regard for recidivism, you do more to
guarantee that
universal gun restrictions that inhibit peaceful, law-abiding citizens from owning certain classes of firearms weapons will be put in place.
My argument is actually a call for
fewer gun restrictions than exist today (but y'all never thought about that because that would require thinking about what is being said before reacting to it instead of reacting
in lieu of thinking.) My argument is entirely limited to criminals who commit
crimes with guns, a.k.a the group of people that law-abiding gun owners
should despise most (far more than the gun grabbers and slightly more than law-abiding, but irresponsible, gun owners), as they are the primary causal factor on the majority of anti-gun legislation (the only other primary causal factor for anti-gun legislation is law-abiding, but irresponsible gun owners). While y'all have decided to pretend that I am arguing against gun rights, you've consistently done more to harm a pro-gun rights position than my argument -which is not even
about gun rights, but is instead about criminal sentencing-
ever could have.
To me, any argument that will be
guaranteed to achieve the exact opposite of it's desired goal is a phenomenally retarded one, and everyone arguing against my sentencing argument has certainly done exactly that.