(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.