I'll one up you on that. If the right to bear arms is INALIENABLE, than how do you justify restricting it to anyone? My view is that an inalienable right is necessarily returned to anyone that has "paid their debt". If someone cannot be trusted to exercise their rights responsibly, they have no business being part of society to begin with.M249 said:I think it's a tragedy that the government can prevent a person from exercising an INALIENABLE right because they got caught with a joint.
As an inalienable right, a person's right to bear arms MUST be restored to them as soon as their sentence has been served, just as their right to free speech, choice of religion, etc.