I don't think the sale of firearms should be restricted by mental illness. Civil rights round 3.
I agree. A lot of people, even those who claim to be staunch gun rights advocates, take it as a given that gun ownership rights do not apply to the mentally ill. Is gun ownership not a fundamental right? We do not simply revoke fundamental rights because a person is not completely mentally healthy, that is absurd.
It's not like a mentally disturbed person couldn't get a gun even if their were laws in place.
I personally would never sell a firearm to someone I knew to be unstable...and I think most responsible gun dealers wouldn't do so either, but not all gun dealers are responsible, and not everyone with access to guns is law-abiding in the first place. Laws won't ever change that.
Well that's your right not to sell it, but where does the government derive it's right to prohibit the sale is the question at issue.
Well, IMO the federal government doesn't have that right. That right has been reserved by the people and, to some degree, the states.
True enough. And I agree with you that the gun dealer has a moral responsibility not to sell a gun to somebody who is unstable.
True enough. And I agree with you that the gun dealer has a moral responsibility not to sell a gun to somebody who is unstable.
I disagree. There is no test. When I go to the range, I lie about having a mental illness and having been hospitalized. Otherwise I couldn't shoot. There are many mental illnesses, some which do require hospitalization, which have no impact on gun safety.
So.. they were expected to NOT use them for their own personal protection as well?
"The people" means the same in the 2nd as it does everywere else. :shrug:
Really. Tell us what you think of wiretapping intercontinental telephone communications from terrorists w/o first getting a warrant.
even if you were right, who is the militia?
that does not have any impact on my comments though it is true
Here is the dishonesty of the posts guy makes along with many statist politicians. They say they fully support the second amendment and t hen interpret it in ways that limit the citizenry in ways the founders would have loathed.
Today, the well-regulated militia is the standing military and law enforcement forces. At the time the Constitution was written, it was every free, able-bodied white male. Things change.
No..... thats NOT the standard of scrutiny afforded to fundamental rights. Thats "Rational basis" andis the least stringent of the three levels of scrutiny.
As I have said innumerable times:
Background checks are a form of prior restraint. Prior restraint in an infringement. Infringements are not allowed.
Bacjground checks will never pass strict scrutiny.
That's nice... but doesnt change the fact that it creates a precondition of aright not inherent to same -- and thus, an infringement.
There's no compelling state uinterest served by the government knowing who has guns.
Do you also think Screwing Strict Scrutiny should apply to race or gender discrimintaion in employment or service in a resturant?....
Screw "strict scrutiny" then. If you can convince the majority of Americans thats the basis we should proceed on, then okay. ....
.....
From past experience, the freedom of speech has a rational basis applied to it, and it works just fine. I haven't heard of the three levels of scrutiny, but from what you're telling me, a rational basis is allowable, under the compelling state interest requirement, and further under the narrowly tailored requirement, it comes down to the semantics of a law.
Today, the well-regulated militia is the standing military and law enforcement forces. At the time the Constitution was written, it was every free, able-bodied white male. Things change.
Prior to the Civil War and for quite a ways beyond it in fact, "the people" meant whites and you know it. It also meant white males, specifically land owners. Learn some history.
Look -- its YOUR position and so it is up to YOU to back it up.Goobie, just read the article by Posner, all the information you request is in there.
Are there any "sniper weapons" that are not effective hunting weapons?This is a straw man and a judgement on my position because I feel it isn't unconstitutional to regulate gun sales. My brother is a hunter, I have no problem with hunting weapons.
Completely absent any original source material that supports your (or his) claim. Thus, meanigless.Here's some more from that article:
My 1000m rife has a shiny stainless barrel.so tell me what is the difference between a sniper rifle and a hunting rifle and a 1000M target rifle
You think that;s changed? That the threates facing the life, safety and welfare of the average person is so slight that they have no need of a means to defend themselves?At the time, I'm sure they were. Again, they lived in an entirely different era where there were no police forces, they had little choice in the matter.
Doesnt change the fact that "the people" means the same wherever it is used.Prior to the Civil War and for quite a ways beyond it in fact, "the people" meant whites and you know it. It also meant white males, specifically land owners. Learn some history.
If you're limiting the protections of the constitution to the technology of the time it was written, then there's no way to argue that ther 4th amendment protects intercontinental telephone communicatiuons.I oppose it. What does that have to do with the 2nd amendment?
BY defintion, this is necessarily wrong.Today, the well-regulated militia is the standing military and law enforcement forces.