5 ms·

Actually you cannot exclude felons and mentally ill people. The constitution is clear cut about it. They are people.

ctdonath 12y ago
Alas, the Supreme Court and legislature at large have concluded that there should be "reasonable restrictions" whereby individuals can & should, for clear reasons ruled by a court, be prohibited from possessing weapons. While I generally agree with you, this is a reality we'll be hard-pressed to correct. Ergo, and in the interests of restoring the right to most people, we may have to settle for the disarming of people who, individually, due to particular conditions, as reviewed and declared by a court, and listed in public records (which may these days be checked "instantly"), declared individually unfit to be armed as they are a demonstrable threat to themselves and/or the community at large. Pushing for "they are people [too]" will require a very different approach than where this subthread is going.
Lawtonfogle 12y ago
I don't think they should be restricted. If a felon is too dangerous to allow to legally own a gun which can easily be illegally obtained, then they are too dangerous to be released among the general public. As for the mentally ill, punishing the mentally ill by removing rights will only lead to them not seeking help. Since we assume people mentally competent til proven otherwise and since they will avoid seeking help, this results in an overall increase in danger. Also, if a poll fee is wrong because it limits a right, why isn't the same true for other fees such as that needed to register a gun?
- spiritplumber 12y ago
  I'd like to see some sort of "Prove that you can shoot what you're aiming at, store a firearm safely, and do basic maintenance" vetting process for guns. Right now it's about where you live, what country were you born in, have you ever been arrested... all things that have nothing to do with the physics and safety of firearms. I mean, we already do this with cars. (Incidentally, this would disqualify me - I can't hit the skybox in Team Fortress 2, never mind real weapons)
  - ctdonath 12y ago
    Alas, such "prove basic competence" requirements have been repeatedly abused - much akin to the unwarranted delay which this thread is about - to inflict unwarranted delays and other hurdles to gun ownership. Guns are not complex. Basic operations & maintenance can be taught in a few minutes by the seller. There are just 4 basic safety rules. Pull the trigger, and whatever it's pointing at is destroyed - that's kinda the whole point of a gun. Having hundreds of hours of training, I assure you basic vetting should take no more than 30 minutes. Alas, vetting is often twisted into weeks of delays, hours of obligatory boredom, tens or hundreds of dollars in direct (and more indirect) costs, and rarely actual shooting - all designed to delay exercise of that right. This is quite a rights problem when someone NEEDS one immediately, say to prepare for a "I'm gonna kill you tonight bitch" stalker. BTW: methinks "driving" would be an enumerated right had the Founding Fathers ever conceived of the notion of making vehicular travel a "licensed privilege". The loudest argument against the Bill Of Rights was precisely that rights not enumerated would be construed as not being rights; prime example: driving.
    - spiritplumber 12y ago
      I guess, but "hit this target", "demonstrate operating a safety, and bring a picture of your gun safe", or "show us how you clean your gun" are things that can be done quickly and can be measured objectively - it wouldn't be like those racist literacy tests for voting. You'd still get the occasional crazy or evil person jumping through it, but at least you'd avoid idiots who shoot themselves in the nuts because they walk around with a loaded pistol carried in the seam of their trousers.
      - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
        >it wouldn't be like those racist literacy tests for voting. A modern day test for voting would also be different, but they are still used as justification to ban any such test. As long as the potential to abuse a test/restriction is reason to ban it, all restrictions should be banned equally.
    - Lawtonfogle 12y ago

Alas, the Supreme Court and legislature at large have concluded that there should be "reasonable restrictions" whereby individuals can & should, for clear reasons ruled by a court, be prohibited from possessing weapons. While I generally agree with you, this is a reality we'll be hard-pressed to correct. Ergo, and in the interests of restoring the right to most people, we may have to settle for the disarming of people who, individually, due to particular conditions, as reviewed and declared by a court, and listed in public records (which may these days be checked "instantly"), declared individually unfit to be armed as they are a demonstrable threat to themselves and/or the community at large. Pushing for "they are people [too]" will require a very different approach than where this subthread is going.

Lawtonfogle 12y ago

I don't think they should be restricted. If a felon is too dangerous to allow to legally own a gun which can easily be illegally obtained, then they are too dangerous to be released among the general public. As for the mentally ill, punishing the mentally ill by removing rights will only lead to them not seeking help. Since we assume people mentally competent til proven otherwise and since they will avoid seeking help, this results in an overall increase in danger. Also, if a poll fee is wrong because it limits a right, why isn't the same true for other fees such as that needed to register a gun?

spiritplumber 12y ago
I'd like to see some sort of "Prove that you can shoot what you're aiming at, store a firearm safely, and do basic maintenance" vetting process for guns. Right now it's about where you live, what country were you born in, have you ever been arrested... all things that have nothing to do with the physics and safety of firearms. I mean, we already do this with cars. (Incidentally, this would disqualify me - I can't hit the skybox in Team Fortress 2, never mind real weapons)
- ctdonath 12y ago
  Alas, such "prove basic competence" requirements have been repeatedly abused - much akin to the unwarranted delay which this thread is about - to inflict unwarranted delays and other hurdles to gun ownership. Guns are not complex. Basic operations & maintenance can be taught in a few minutes by the seller. There are just 4 basic safety rules. Pull the trigger, and whatever it's pointing at is destroyed - that's kinda the whole point of a gun. Having hundreds of hours of training, I assure you basic vetting should take no more than 30 minutes. Alas, vetting is often twisted into weeks of delays, hours of obligatory boredom, tens or hundreds of dollars in direct (and more indirect) costs, and rarely actual shooting - all designed to delay exercise of that right. This is quite a rights problem when someone NEEDS one immediately, say to prepare for a "I'm gonna kill you tonight bitch" stalker. BTW: methinks "driving" would be an enumerated right had the Founding Fathers ever conceived of the notion of making vehicular travel a "licensed privilege". The loudest argument against the Bill Of Rights was precisely that rights not enumerated would be construed as not being rights; prime example: driving.
  - spiritplumber 12y ago
    I guess, but "hit this target", "demonstrate operating a safety, and bring a picture of your gun safe", or "show us how you clean your gun" are things that can be done quickly and can be measured objectively - it wouldn't be like those racist literacy tests for voting. You'd still get the occasional crazy or evil person jumping through it, but at least you'd avoid idiots who shoot themselves in the nuts because they walk around with a loaded pistol carried in the seam of their trousers.
    - Lawtonfogle 12y ago
      >it wouldn't be like those racist literacy tests for voting. A modern day test for voting would also be different, but they are still used as justification to ban any such test. As long as the potential to abuse a test/restriction is reason to ban it, all restrictions should be banned equally.
  - Lawtonfogle 12y ago