- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 30,534
- Reaction score
- 10,717
- Location
- Louisiana
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
1) Absolutely. However if someone can keep their nose clean for a time period certain and apply for clemency then all rights should be restored. I believe in earned second chances.1 those people who use a gun in the commission of a crime...this is obvious
2 those men in the mental wards of hospitals
3 men with an IQ in the moran range
4 and a toughie - those men who fail a test established by police and judges, those close to the results of gun use/misuse.
5 me( bi-polar, ect)
I somehow suspect that you would OK just about anyone owning a gun....
That was easy and common sense....
2) Once again, certification of mental problems is quite different than requiring people to submit to checks without probable cause. If someone has severe mental problms as to require confinement then yes they may be disbarred from owning a weapon. However if the problem is temporary and they gain a clean bill of mental health then all rights should be restored.
3) There is no reason for this. There are plenty of people who would score in the sub-intelligent range who are capable of owning weapons responsibly.
4) I will never accept having an authority designate rights. They may only strip them if they can prove their case.
5) Bi-polar disorder can range from mood swings to psychosis. This goes to certification by a medical professional.
* As to your last point. I am okay with VERY limited restrictions on any right but the state must prove necessary and proper and there is no leeway. Just as they should prove guilt in court they should prove need and authority in law.