3 ms·

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.

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.

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.