Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
Author Message
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #1
Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
I'm not going to take yay or nay position on this discussion for either side; however, I do want to have this discussion given the way the U.S. works today. So...here it goes...

When the U.S. constitution was first ratified and implemented, not everyone had the same rights. Take voting for example. It slowly evolved from white male land owners to universal access for all today. However, when it comes to rights, is universal access the way to go? Maybe we should revisit gun rights and consider whether the right to own a firearm should be restricted to those who have specific criteria. Here is a list of criteria that could be used for gun ownership:
  • Property Owner
  • Minimum financial value of total assets
  • Pass a gun safety and use test
  • Pass a psych exam
  • Served in the military
  • Ability to read and write
  • Pass a citizenship test
  • Can pass a test on how our government works and operates
  • Legal U.S. Citizen for at least 8 years

And other metrics could be applicable here as well. For this list, I think there are 2 current and universal rights that should be restricted. Those rights are the right to vote and the right to own a firearm. Other rights like the right to free speech, freedom to worship as you please, etc should remain universal.
02-15-2018 11:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Lord Stanley Offline
L'Étoile du Nord
*

Posts: 19,103
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 994
I Root For: NIU
Location: Cold. So cold......
Post: #2
RE: Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
We have enough regular Spin Room threads on gun control right now and this will just further dilute the conversation. This is a better room for this post.
02-15-2018 11:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tigergreen Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 22,283
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 566
I Root For: MEMPHIS
Location: E.Midtown is Memphis
Post: #3
RE: Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
(02-15-2018 11:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm not going to take yay or nay position on this discussion for either side; however, I do want to have this discussion given the way the U.S. works today. So...here it goes...

When the U.S. constitution was first ratified and implemented, not everyone had the same rights. Take voting for example. It slowly evolved from white male land owners to universal access for all today. However, when it comes to rights, is universal access the way to go? Maybe we should revisit gun rights and consider whether the right to own a firearm should be restricted to those who have specific criteria. Here is a list of criteria that could be used for gun ownership:
  • Property Owner
  • Minimum financial value of total assets
  • Pass a gun safety and use test
  • Pass a psych exam
  • Served in the military
  • Ability to read and write
  • Pass a citizenship test
  • Can pass a test on how our government works and operates
  • Legal U.S. Citizen for at least 8 years

And other metrics could be applicable here as well. For this list, I think there are 2 current and universal rights that should be restricted. Those rights are the right to vote and the right to own a firearm. Other rights like the right to free speech, freedom to worship as you please, etc should remain universal.

No, that's not race-based at all. 01-wingedeagle
Minorities are disproportionately poorer and in many cases are renters, not homeowners.

If you're going to encourage gun ownership based on the concept that people need home security, which is always the go-to for gun advocates, you can't say people who rent don't deserve that potential "safety" as much as those who have more $ and/or own property.

Ex-military should not be a factor, either, unless they get a deeper psych evaluation than civilians. They've seen and dealt with more, and in many cases, are some of the worst offenders of shootings, including domestic-related ones.
02-15-2018 11:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
(02-15-2018 11:46 AM)tigergreen Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 11:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm not going to take yay or nay position on this discussion for either side; however, I do want to have this discussion given the way the U.S. works today. So...here it goes...

When the U.S. constitution was first ratified and implemented, not everyone had the same rights. Take voting for example. It slowly evolved from white male land owners to universal access for all today. However, when it comes to rights, is universal access the way to go? Maybe we should revisit gun rights and consider whether the right to own a firearm should be restricted to those who have specific criteria. Here is a list of criteria that could be used for gun ownership:
  • Property Owner
  • Minimum financial value of total assets
  • Pass a gun safety and use test
  • Pass a psych exam
  • Served in the military
  • Ability to read and write
  • Pass a citizenship test
  • Can pass a test on how our government works and operates
  • Legal U.S. Citizen for at least 8 years

And other metrics could be applicable here as well. For this list, I think there are 2 current and universal rights that should be restricted. Those rights are the right to vote and the right to own a firearm. Other rights like the right to free speech, freedom to worship as you please, etc should remain universal.

No, that's not race-based at all. 01-wingedeagle
Minorities are disproportionately poorer and in many cases are renters, not homeowners.

If you're going to encourage gun ownership based on the concept that people need home security, which is always the go-to for gun advocates, you can't say people who rent don't deserve that potential "safety" as much as those who have more $ and/or own property.

Ex-military should not be a factor, either, unless they get a deeper psych evaluation than civilians. They've seen and dealt with more, and in many cases, are some of the worst offenders of shootings, including domestic-related ones.

It's not necessarily an all encompassing list - or that all items on the list must be checked off before you can own a gun. The goal is to not favor the rich but to favor those who have actual skin in the game. I fail to see how some people should have access to all of the same rights as others when one person has nothing actually on the line. I'm looking at both gun rights and voting rights. In my mind, those 2 items are closely linked.

For example, if you are living on welfare and are not paying income taxes AND possibly getting refunds that are larger than the taxes taken from your check - why should you also have the right to vote? Even worse, let's say you are also ignorant of your country's history and how the gov't works. Why in the world would any sane person want to see a person like that have access to the voting booth???
02-15-2018 11:57 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
49RFootballNow Offline
He who walks without rhythm
*

Posts: 13,063
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 987
I Root For: Charlotte 49ers
Location: Metrolina
Post: #5
RE: Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
(02-15-2018 11:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  
  • Property Owner
  • Minimum financial value of total assets
  • Pass a gun safety and use test
  • Pass a psych exam
  • Served in the military
  • Ability to read and write
  • Pass a citizenship test
  • Can pass a test on how our government works and operates
  • Legal U.S. Citizen for at least 8 years

Is that you, Robert Heinlein?
02-15-2018 12:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
(02-15-2018 12:07 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 11:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  
  • Property Owner
  • Minimum financial value of total assets
  • Pass a gun safety and use test
  • Pass a psych exam
  • Served in the military
  • Ability to read and write
  • Pass a citizenship test
  • Can pass a test on how our government works and operates
  • Legal U.S. Citizen for at least 8 years

Is that you, Robert Heinlein?

I never heard of the name before, but I see he was a science fiction author upon looking him up.

Regarding the list above, it's more of a list of things to consider as requirements and not THE CRITERIA we should use. Maybe property ownership is excessively restrictive and that a minimum asset value should be the only thing considered. Or maybe even less restrictive than that and simply make it that you have to be an income tax payer (where your payments to the gov't exceed your refund).

However, I do think a literacy test as well as tests on citizenship and on how gov't works should be a requirement.
02-15-2018 12:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
Not that anyone really cares my thoughts.

Switzerland is in the to 30 of the world in firearm ownership (oh God not another internet dude invoking Europe!) but the bulk of those firearms are long barrel weapons. Rifles for military defense of the nation and shotguns for hunting are the dominant. People don't knock over 7-11's very often carrying a long barrel firearm.

Virtually everyone possessing a firearm has had military training.

How does that fit us?

The Second Amendment tells us it exists because of the need of a well regulated militia.

Do we at any time ask anyone wishing to own a firearm to demonstrate that they know how to aim, fire, clean, or safely carry a firearm? In Arkansas you cannot obtain a hunting license without completing a hunter safety education course. You can purchase a firearm with proper ID and take it home even if you don't know anything at all about the weapon you purchased.

How can we call what is happening now a well regulated militia when we don't keep track effectively of who owns a firearm and permit people to buy who would be ineligible if their background were properly reported?

Go to your doctor for seizures and there is a simple means (at least in most states) for the doctor to report to the DMV you are experiencing seizures. No similar mechanism exists for firearms if you tell your physician that the local TV news announcer is telling you to kill bankers.

Few years ago a state trooper was in a car wreck and had seizures as a result of the head injury. Surgery and medication and he was on track to getting his driver's license back after 10 months of being seizure free. He gets an infection fever of 105, is given IV meds and seizes. This is noticed when reviewing his application to restore his license. State DMV investigates and treating physician says he believes it wasn't caused by a brain issue but rather the fever and medication. State hires an independent neurologist to review the file, he agrees with the treating physician and license is restored.

I cite that to tell this case. Gentleman had two in-patient admissions for suicidal ideation. At all times through this, he held a firearm dealers permit.
02-15-2018 12:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
49RFootballNow Offline
He who walks without rhythm
*

Posts: 13,063
Joined: Apr 2009
Reputation: 987
I Root For: Charlotte 49ers
Location: Metrolina
Post: #8
RE: Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
(02-15-2018 12:15 PM)miko33 Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 12:07 PM)49RFootballNow Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 11:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  
  • Property Owner
  • Minimum financial value of total assets
  • Pass a gun safety and use test
  • Pass a psych exam
  • Served in the military
  • Ability to read and write
  • Pass a citizenship test
  • Can pass a test on how our government works and operates
  • Legal U.S. Citizen for at least 8 years

Is that you, Robert Heinlein?

I never heard of the name before, but I see he was a science fiction author upon looking him up.

Regarding the list above, it's more of a list of things to consider as requirements and not THE CRITERIA we should use. Maybe property ownership is excessively restrictive and that a minimum asset value should be the only thing considered. Or maybe even less restrictive than that and simply make it that you have to be an income tax payer (where your payments to the gov't exceed your refund).

However, I do think a literacy test as well as tests on citizenship and on how gov't works should be a requirement.

He is the author of several Sci-Fi novels but one in particular, Starship Troopers, describes the world government as a "Veteran Democracy" where several of your points above actually coincide with their own voting requirements. It's not the best read in the world but it is interesting and quick to read. The movie really didn't do the book justice.
02-15-2018 12:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
(02-15-2018 11:37 AM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm not going to take yay or nay position on this discussion for either side; however, I do want to have this discussion given the way the U.S. works today. So...here it goes...

When the U.S. constitution was first ratified and implemented, not everyone had the same rights. Take voting for example. It slowly evolved from white male land owners to universal access for all today. However, when it comes to rights, is universal access the way to go? Maybe we should revisit gun rights and consider whether the right to own a firearm should be restricted to those who have specific criteria. Here is a list of criteria that could be used for gun ownership:
  • Property Owner
  • Minimum financial value of total assets
  • Pass a gun safety and use test
  • Pass a psych exam
  • Served in the military
  • Ability to read and write
  • Pass a citizenship test
  • Can pass a test on how our government works and operates
  • Legal U.S. Citizen for at least 8 years

And other metrics could be applicable here as well. For this list, I think there are 2 current and universal rights that should be restricted. Those rights are the right to vote and the right to own a firearm. Other rights like the right to free speech, freedom to worship as you please, etc should remain universal.

Property owner? Unfair impact on the poor and how much property are we talking? I've got a big back yard, I'd happily sell off one inch squares of the land on the other side of the ditch or just the whole tract if the buyer will come mow the effer.

Minimum financial value of assets. Financial responsibility makes sense. Maybe an insurance scheme? Appealing but we ought to be a bit queasy especially given the potential to abuse. But on the flip side if you want gun ownership insurance figure that the underwriters are going to want things like gun safes, and trigger locks and leave you swinging if you are say the woman in Little Rock whose young niece (age 4ish) killed herself when left unattended in her car and found a pistol in the console.

Gun safety and education. I am down for that. You cannot have a well regulated militia when the militia can't safely handle a firearm. Free 6 to 8 hour courses successfully passed isn't unreasonable.

Psych exam? Not quite down with that unless there is first some reason to take a look. If you have some smudge on your background that raises questions, then that is perfectly reasonable.

Only like 1% currently serve. Honorable discharge or currently serving, happily exempt you from the education element.

Read and write? Much of the Continental Army would not have qualified. My dad went through basic during the Korean War and said there were a couple guys at induction who couldn't write their own name.

Not sure how passing a citizenship test or explaining the three branches of government relates to safe firearm use.

Citizen for eight years? Hell to the no. When you stick your hand up in the air and take that oath, you are a citizen and other than being ineligible to be president or vice-president you are now one of us, 100%

Now if you want a residency period before a permanent resident is eligible, that makes some sense.
02-15-2018 12:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ark30inf Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,639
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation: 588
I Root For: Arkansas State
Location:
Post: #10
Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
I think you have to be careful whenever you consider that the solution to a problem is eliminating or restricting someone else's fundamental rights.

Crime is rampant among the poor, lets limit their 2nd Amendment rights.

Rich guys are dominating the political debate, lets limit their 1st Amendment rights.

Fat people make our insurance rates go up, lets restrict their freedom to buy a 16 oz. Coke.

Some nut shot up a school, lets confiscate gun owner's weapons.

I don't like what that guy said, lets make THAT sort of speech illegal.

Removing basic freedoms often seems like an easy solution to a host of problems, but then at some point you end up not free.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk
02-15-2018 12:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
miko33 Offline
Defender of Honesty and Integrity
*

Posts: 13,117
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation: 848
I Root For: Alma Mater
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
(02-15-2018 12:42 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  I think you have to be careful whenever you consider that the solution to a problem is eliminating or restricting someone else's fundamental rights.

Crime is rampant among the poor, lets limit their 2nd Amendment rights.

Rich guys are dominating the political debate, lets limit their 1st Amendment rights.

Fat people make our insurance rates go up, lets restrict their freedom to buy a 16 oz. Coke.

Some nut shot up a school, lets confiscate gun owner's weapons.

I don't like what that guy said, lets make THAT sort of speech illegal.

Removing basic freedoms often seems like an easy solution to a host of problems, but then at some point you end up not free.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

I would consider that some rights need to be "paid" for, or that you should have to meet certain requirements in order to exercise your rights. All 50 states already do that with firearms now. Your hypothetical about canceling the rights of poor people because of crime already happens today - if we're talking about the inner city neighborhoods of cities with very restrictive gun laws.
02-15-2018 01:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
Guns illustrates the two Americas more than anything else.

Rural America? Guns were tools. I grew up carrying a rifle or shotgun. Never knew when you might encounter feral dogs chasing the cattle, come up on a copperhead, then over course there was hunting season and plenty of time was spent target shooting for entertainment.

Urban America? Guns are tools there as well, but often a tool to rob, to dispute sales territory, resolve grievances, and demonstrate power.

I knew one person growing up who regularly carried a pistol who wasn't a deputy. A neighbor who carried a pistol loaded with rat shot because he used a lot of grain and was always killing mice and rats around the barn. We had good pastures and rarely fed grain except at the peak of winter or to fatten up a steer for slaughter.

I think people are terribly confused about cities with strict gun laws. People love and cherish their rights until they are scared. If you live in Salem, Arkansas you just don't understand those SOBs in New York and their gun laws any more than the people living in NYC understand the life and viewpoint of the person living in Salem.
02-15-2018 01:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
aTxTIGER Offline
Carrot Dude Gave Me 10% Warning
*

Posts: 35,738
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 924
I Root For: Fire Jose!!!!!
Location: Memphis, TN

Donators
Post: #13
RE: Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
I dont think its against the 2nd amendment to require people to:

a) be a citizen to possess a gun
b) require anyone possessing a gun to be properly licensed AND insured for bodily damage done by those guns
c) to be licensed, screen for mental health issues or violent tendencies as well as complete real gun training and safety classes(not just 2 hours on a single Saturday which is what I did to get my carry permit years ago)
d) restrict ownership of assault weapons like AR-15s to current law enforcement officers.


I own several guns. I am for the rights of people to own guns. But I dont think it is unreasonable for gun ownership to have responsibilities attached to it.
02-15-2018 01:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tigergreen Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 22,283
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 566
I Root For: MEMPHIS
Location: E.Midtown is Memphis
Post: #14
RE: Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
(02-15-2018 01:41 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I dont think its against the 2nd amendment to require people to:

a) be a citizen to possess a gun
b) require anyone possessing a gun to be properly licensed AND insured for bodily damage done by those guns
c) to be licensed, screen for mental health issues or violent tendencies as well as complete real gun training and safety classes(not just 2 hours on a single Saturday which is what I did to get my carry permit years ago)
d) restrict ownership of assault weapons like AR-15s to current law enforcement officers.

I own several guns. I am for the rights of people to own guns. But I dont think it is unreasonable for gun ownership to have responsibilities attached to it.

100% agree.
02-15-2018 01:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
This interactive from 538 is interesting.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/
You can enter a cause of death and other factors like race, age, and gender to see the deaths as they relate to the total.

NY Times piece points out that rifles are rarely used in homicides
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunda...-myth.html
02-15-2018 01:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,656
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #16
RE: Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
(02-15-2018 01:41 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I dont think its against the 2nd amendment to require people to:
a) be a citizen to possess a gun
b) require anyone possessing a gun to be properly licensed AND insured for bodily damage done by those guns
c) to be licensed, screen for mental health issues or violent tendencies as well as complete real gun training and safety classes(not just 2 hours on a single Saturday which is what I did to get my carry permit years ago)
d) restrict ownership of assault weapons like AR-15s to current law enforcement officers.
I own several guns. I am for the rights of people to own guns. But I dont think it is unreasonable for gun ownership to have responsibilities attached to it.

I think you may cross the line with a couple of those, but I think there is some room to explore there. Nobody as crazy as this SOB has any business with a semi-automatic weapon.
(This post was last modified: 02-15-2018 04:06 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
02-15-2018 04:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #17
RE: Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
(02-15-2018 04:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 01:41 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I dont think its against the 2nd amendment to require people to:
a) be a citizen to possess a gun
b) require anyone possessing a gun to be properly licensed AND insured for bodily damage done by those guns
c) to be licensed, screen for mental health issues or violent tendencies as well as complete real gun training and safety classes(not just 2 hours on a single Saturday which is what I did to get my carry permit years ago)
d) restrict ownership of assault weapons like AR-15s to current law enforcement officers.
I own several guns. I am for the rights of people to own guns. But I dont think it is unreasonable for gun ownership to have responsibilities attached to it.

I think you may cross the line with a couple of those, but I think there is some room to explore there. Nobody as crazy as this SOB has any business with a semi-automatic weapon.

Agree.

And had someone upstream taken action, especially the school since he was suspended for possessing ammunition in a backpack (a class III felony in Florida) he wouldn't have been and the only person losing their Constitutional rights here would have been him.
02-15-2018 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
arkstfan Away
Sorry folks
*

Posts: 25,818
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation: 967
I Root For: Fresh Starts
Location:
Post: #18
RE: Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
(02-15-2018 01:41 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I dont think its against the 2nd amendment to require people to:

a) be a citizen to possess a gun
b) require anyone possessing a gun to be properly licensed AND insured for bodily damage done by those guns
c) to be licensed, screen for mental health issues or violent tendencies as well as complete real gun training and safety classes(not just 2 hours on a single Saturday which is what I did to get my carry permit years ago)
d) restrict ownership of assault weapons like AR-15s to current law enforcement officers.


I own several guns. I am for the rights of people to own guns. But I dont think it is unreasonable for gun ownership to have responsibilities attached to it.

There are some confusing cases on rights of permanent residents. That's outside my depth of knowledge. What I've gathered is at a minimum anyone who isn't a permanent resident can be excluded and permanent residents could have a several year waiting period even if they couldn't be fully excluded.

I think some sort of training system would be constitutional as long as it wasn't a sham to make it nearly impossible.

Psych screening just seems like something that would give the public the willies. But I think with enough data collection (which Congress mostly blocks now) we could figure out red flag and yellow flag situations where an independent evaluation could be appropriate.

Insurance is problematic. Might be possible to impose on firearms carried off your property or semi-automatic weapons even if not a complete imposition. It poses some intriguing questions.

I think we need to seriously consider pistols. They are used in roughly 97% of all homicides. They are the choice of people committing crimes because of concealment. I think we should be more restrictive in who can carry.
02-15-2018 04:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
aTxTIGER Offline
Carrot Dude Gave Me 10% Warning
*

Posts: 35,738
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation: 924
I Root For: Fire Jose!!!!!
Location: Memphis, TN

Donators
Post: #19
RE: Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
(02-15-2018 04:40 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  
(02-15-2018 01:41 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I dont think its against the 2nd amendment to require people to:

a) be a citizen to possess a gun
b) require anyone possessing a gun to be properly licensed AND insured for bodily damage done by those guns
c) to be licensed, screen for mental health issues or violent tendencies as well as complete real gun training and safety classes(not just 2 hours on a single Saturday which is what I did to get my carry permit years ago)
d) restrict ownership of assault weapons like AR-15s to current law enforcement officers.


I own several guns. I am for the rights of people to own guns. But I dont think it is unreasonable for gun ownership to have responsibilities attached to it.

There are some confusing cases on rights of permanent residents. That's outside my depth of knowledge. What I've gathered is at a minimum anyone who isn't a permanent resident can be excluded and permanent residents could have a several year waiting period even if they couldn't be fully excluded.

I think some sort of training system would be constitutional as long as it wasn't a sham to make it nearly impossible.

Psych screening just seems like something that would give the public the willies. But I think with enough data collection (which Congress mostly blocks now) we could figure out red flag and yellow flag situations where an independent evaluation could be appropriate.

Insurance is problematic. Might be possible to impose on firearms carried off your property or semi-automatic weapons even if not a complete imposition. It poses some intriguing questions.

I think we need to seriously consider pistols. They are used in roughly 97% of all homicides. They are the choice of people committing crimes because of concealment. I think we should be more restrictive in who can carry.

I wouldnt necessarily have a psych exam as part of the license process just bc that would never go anywhere politically. Perhaps just a mental health background check mandatory..... At least catch the low hanging fruit of anyone who has had past mental health treatment within a certain amount of time.....not just talking to a therapist but actual diagnosis of an illness. It obviously wont catch everyone but itll catch enough.
02-15-2018 05:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mturn017 Offline
ODU Homer
*

Posts: 16,741
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 1592
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Roanoke, VA
Post: #20
RE: Reexamining access to rights and liberties for U.S. citizens
(02-15-2018 01:41 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I dont think its against the 2nd amendment to require people to:

a) be a citizen to possess a gun
b) require anyone possessing a gun to be properly licensed AND insured for bodily damage done by those guns
c) to be licensed, screen for mental health issues or violent tendencies as well as complete real gun training and safety classes(not just 2 hours on a single Saturday which is what I did to get my carry permit years ago)
d) restrict ownership of assault weapons like AR-15s to current law enforcement officers.


I own several guns. I am for the rights of people to own guns. But I dont think it is unreasonable for gun ownership to have responsibilities attached to it.

I agree with this.

But limiting people's voting rights? I can't support that at all, you should just need to be a citizen.
02-18-2018 04:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.