4 ms·

I'm in favor of private ownership of all these, the citizen not having committed any violent crime. Otherwise is instituting thought crime. It says "shall not b

I'm in favor of private ownership of all these, the citizen not having committed any violent crime. Otherwise is instituting thought crime. It says "shall not be infringed". I'm not sure how people misinterpret that.

ceejayoz 5y ago
A world where my mentally ill neighbor can nuke the town when he gets pissed off is not really one I'm interested in living in, and I doubt it's a scenario the Founders envisioned. The First Amendment has similarly strong wording, but we permit government consequences for certain forms of speech/expression like libel, fraud, screaming in front of someone's house at 3am, etc.
- vageli 5y ago
  > A world where my mentally ill neighbor can nuke the town when he gets pissed off is not really one I'm interested in living in, and I doubt it's a scenario the Founders envisioned. This is a strawman, mentally ill individuals who have been diagnosed as such are already barred from possessing firearms. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons edit: To the downvoters, can you explain why?
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    > This is a strawman, mentally ill individuals who have been diagnosed as such are already barred from possessing firearms. So, shall be infringed in certain scenarios?
    - vageli 5y ago
      The infringement is limited to a very specific class of people who are a small subset of the general population. Consider that convicted felons may not own firearms, is that an infringement? I would argue that it is not, as you lose certain rights when you are convicted, just as you lose certain rights when you are deemed to be mentally ill or of unsound mind.
      - ceejayoz 5y ago
        In other words, we agree "shall not be infringed" has exceptions, and are just haggling over where the line is.
  - psyc 5y ago
    Your wording is misleading. That applies to people who have been court committed (even the majority of hospitalizations are voluntary or tagged 'voluntary' as a courtesy), or deemed 'mentally defective' by a court. That is a much higher bar than what you wrote. There are plenty of people with mental health diagnoses who have never been court committed.
- seiferteric 5y ago
  Obviously agree with you, though we dough have corresponding laws with guns i.e. brandishing, pointing or shooting at someone is a direct threat causing potential harm similar to libel or threatening someone. Simply possessing a weapon is not automatically a threat to someone else, it takes action. As far as nukes etc., legally not considered arms, but munitions so you do not have a right to have them.

ceejayoz 5y ago

A world where my mentally ill neighbor can nuke the town when he gets pissed off is not really one I'm interested in living in, and I doubt it's a scenario the Founders envisioned. The First Amendment has similarly strong wording, but we permit government consequences for certain forms of speech/expression like libel, fraud, screaming in front of someone's house at 3am, etc.

vageli 5y ago
> A world where my mentally ill neighbor can nuke the town when he gets pissed off is not really one I'm interested in living in, and I doubt it's a scenario the Founders envisioned. This is a strawman, mentally ill individuals who have been diagnosed as such are already barred from possessing firearms. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons edit: To the downvoters, can you explain why?
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  > This is a strawman, mentally ill individuals who have been diagnosed as such are already barred from possessing firearms. So, shall be infringed in certain scenarios?
  - vageli 5y ago
    The infringement is limited to a very specific class of people who are a small subset of the general population. Consider that convicted felons may not own firearms, is that an infringement? I would argue that it is not, as you lose certain rights when you are convicted, just as you lose certain rights when you are deemed to be mentally ill or of unsound mind.
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      In other words, we agree "shall not be infringed" has exceptions, and are just haggling over where the line is.
- psyc 5y ago
  Your wording is misleading. That applies to people who have been court committed (even the majority of hospitalizations are voluntary or tagged 'voluntary' as a courtesy), or deemed 'mentally defective' by a court. That is a much higher bar than what you wrote. There are plenty of people with mental health diagnoses who have never been court committed.
seiferteric 5y ago
Obviously agree with you, though we dough have corresponding laws with guns i.e. brandishing, pointing or shooting at someone is a direct threat causing potential harm similar to libel or threatening someone. Simply possessing a weapon is not automatically a threat to someone else, it takes action. As far as nukes etc., legally not considered arms, but munitions so you do not have a right to have them.