6 ms·

Personally I don't see anything wrong with denying people guns. <- that's a full stop ;-) However in the US it is your constitutional right to bear arms. This

Personally I don't see anything wrong with denying people guns. <- that's a full stop ;-) However in the US it is your constitutional right to bear arms. This has been widely (virtually universally in the US) regarded to mean that it is your right to not be denied a gun (without due process). Questioning someone's state of mind is not due process. It really doesn't matter if we are talking about guns or we are talking about hamsters: if you have a right enshrined by your constitution it's pretty darn important that you don't have that right stripped away simply because someone levels an accusation at you. It would be pretty weird to have a right to bear hamsters...

DoctorOetker 7y ago
fair enough, I still think it is good to deny a person a gun, especially when theres red flags going off, but I agree that there should be an appeals process. I guess the reason there isn't (if there isn't, what do I know) is because authorities do not want suspicious people to find out why they are suspicious... but that should mean either nobody gets the right to own a gun, or everyone, ... unless authorities do disclose why some person should be denied a gun...
- maxwell 7y ago
  Who decides who should take away the guns, and how do you prevent them abusing that power?
  - wool_gather 7y ago
    We already have a fairly robust* process for deciding that someone's fundamental day-to-day freedom should be taken away -- i.e., for deciding to put them in prison. Is there any inherent reason we couldn't have a similar process for gun ownership? *Not flawless, of course, but what is?
    - maxwell 7y ago
      If you're talking about the U.S. prison-industrial system, you answered your own question. More people are imprisoned in the United States than were in the Soviet gulags or Nazi Germany. More black people are in the prison/parole system than were enslaved before the passage of the 13th Amendment.
  - Retric 7y ago
    How is taking away guns different from sending someone to prison or executing them? The legal system and due process is already what protects people from the government. Temporary detainment for example is perfectly legal for a wide range of things, as long as an appeals process exists it’s not seen as a major issue.
    - maxwell 7y ago
      It's different because bearing of arms is protected by the Constitution. Imprisonment and capital punishment are not, as long as !(cruel && unusual). Why is the bearing of arms protected? Because the founders sought distributed defense instead of centralized authoritarianism.
mjburgess 7y ago
> However in the US it is your constitutional right to bear arms. Only established by the supreme court in 2008. Abortion is a "constitutional right" likewise. And the american right see no issues with extreme restrictions. There is no amendment saying either people have an individual right to possess a firearm, nor an individual right to have an abortion. These are inferences. What the second amendment says is that because the US needs defence (given no contemporary standing army), the right to bear arms is necessary in general. An individual right in the time of standing armies is not written anywhere in the constitution and was derived, by interpretation, only in 2008. My point is that what counts as a "constitutional right" is a matter of history, precedent and agreement -- they are conventional not just written in some stone tablet. And it is quite reasonable to contest these conventions.
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  Were individual gun ownership restrictions or even considerations of restrictions ever done in any manner in colonial America? Not that I've ever heard. Which makes me believe the 2nd amendment was not about individual gun ownership as you say.
  - jki275 7y ago
    Yes, colonial British subjects had restrictions on ownership of weapons. They had soldiers quartered in their homes. They had taxes without representation. They had their right of free assembly restricted. They had their religious freedoms restricted. The founding fathers wrote the bill of rights specifically to cover these things that British rule had done to the people who left Britain.
  - erik_seaberg 7y ago
    Some colonial Americans had armed ships. "No standing army" is hard to overemphasize; the defenders of the country were merely good citizens rather than a small class of professional full-time soldiers.
- kd5bjo 7y ago
  What it actually says is that a militia is necessary to protect a free state. Then and now, “militia” generally refers to those non-professional soldiers that may be called upon in times of great need. This would seem to at least cover everyone subject to the Selective Service Act, which is a large percentage of the male population. There’s also an argument that the 2nd amendment envisages a potential need for the populace to defend themselves from the government, as was considered necessary only a few years prior to its enactment.
Retric 7y ago
Free speech was explicitly mentioned as being protected, yet it has been curtailed in many ways. Constitutional protection is inherently limited, with a constantly shifting definition of what it entails. Consider rifling was invented and society made a choice was that allowed? Yes. Various types of ammunition for example have failed this test. Explosives similarly evolved over time and have been curtailed even if people can significant amounts of black powder.

DoctorOetker 7y ago

fair enough, I still think it is good to deny a person a gun, especially when theres red flags going off, but I agree that there should be an appeals process. I guess the reason there isn't (if there isn't, what do I know) is because authorities do not want suspicious people to find out why they are suspicious... but that should mean either nobody gets the right to own a gun, or everyone, ... unless authorities do disclose why some person should be denied a gun...

maxwell 7y ago
Who decides who should take away the guns, and how do you prevent them abusing that power?
- wool_gather 7y ago
  We already have a fairly robust* process for deciding that someone's fundamental day-to-day freedom should be taken away -- i.e., for deciding to put them in prison. Is there any inherent reason we couldn't have a similar process for gun ownership? *Not flawless, of course, but what is?
  - maxwell 7y ago
    If you're talking about the U.S. prison-industrial system, you answered your own question. More people are imprisoned in the United States than were in the Soviet gulags or Nazi Germany. More black people are in the prison/parole system than were enslaved before the passage of the 13th Amendment.
- Retric 7y ago
  How is taking away guns different from sending someone to prison or executing them? The legal system and due process is already what protects people from the government. Temporary detainment for example is perfectly legal for a wide range of things, as long as an appeals process exists it’s not seen as a major issue.
  - maxwell 7y ago
    It's different because bearing of arms is protected by the Constitution. Imprisonment and capital punishment are not, as long as !(cruel && unusual). Why is the bearing of arms protected? Because the founders sought distributed defense instead of centralized authoritarianism.

mjburgess 7y ago

> However in the US it is your constitutional right to bear arms. Only established by the supreme court in 2008. Abortion is a "constitutional right" likewise. And the american right see no issues with extreme restrictions. There is no amendment saying either people have an individual right to possess a firearm, nor an individual right to have an abortion. These are inferences. What the second amendment says is that because the US needs defence (given no contemporary standing army), the right to bear arms is necessary in general. An individual right in the time of standing armies is not written anywhere in the constitution and was derived, by interpretation, only in 2008. My point is that what counts as a "constitutional right" is a matter of history, precedent and agreement -- they are conventional not just written in some stone tablet. And it is quite reasonable to contest these conventions.

oh_sigh 7y ago
Were individual gun ownership restrictions or even considerations of restrictions ever done in any manner in colonial America? Not that I've ever heard. Which makes me believe the 2nd amendment was not about individual gun ownership as you say.
- jki275 7y ago
  Yes, colonial British subjects had restrictions on ownership of weapons. They had soldiers quartered in their homes. They had taxes without representation. They had their right of free assembly restricted. They had their religious freedoms restricted. The founding fathers wrote the bill of rights specifically to cover these things that British rule had done to the people who left Britain.
- erik_seaberg 7y ago
  Some colonial Americans had armed ships. "No standing army" is hard to overemphasize; the defenders of the country were merely good citizens rather than a small class of professional full-time soldiers.
kd5bjo 7y ago
What it actually says is that a militia is necessary to protect a free state. Then and now, “militia” generally refers to those non-professional soldiers that may be called upon in times of great need. This would seem to at least cover everyone subject to the Selective Service Act, which is a large percentage of the male population. There’s also an argument that the 2nd amendment envisages a potential need for the populace to defend themselves from the government, as was considered necessary only a few years prior to its enactment.

Retric 7y ago

Free speech was explicitly mentioned as being protected, yet it has been curtailed in many ways. Constitutional protection is inherently limited, with a constantly shifting definition of what it entails. Consider rifling was invented and society made a choice was that allowed? Yes. Various types of ammunition for example have failed this test. Explosives similarly evolved over time and have been curtailed even if people can significant amounts of black powder.