Quote Originally Posted by Ridge View Post
I'm simply pointing out that we all agree there are some people who should not have guns. And that IS middle ground.
No, it's not. There are rules we all have to follow in society. If you break those rules there are consequences. Sometimes the consequences for breaking the rules means you lose a right that is otherwise guaranteed to LAW ABIDING citizens. When I talk about civil liberties I'm assuming most people understand that applies to the law-abiding. If you're a convicted felon or if you've been convicted of DV, you no longer have those liberties...in other words, it doesn't apply to you. I don't see that as middle ground at all.

It's also assumed that people know rights are not generally absolute rights.

This pretty much sums up exactly what I meant and exactly the difference between someone who loses liberties based on their actions and someone who loses liberties based on fear and paranoia of others:

Quote Originally Posted by Sharpienads
I'm not sure what this has to do with what you quoted from BG, but there is a big difference from an individual being denied a right after due process has been applied and stripping freedoms away from a group of people because of the actions of an individual. We can discuss due process and how it is applied, what it applies to, etc, but the bottom line is in a civil society some people's rights will be denied them after they have proven they can't handle freedom. But when people are treated as individuals, as they should be, the actions of some should not affect the liberties of others. That is where BG is saying there should be no middle ground. At least, that's how I took it.