Skip to main content

View Diary: Universal background check could be as dead as assault weapons ban (614 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And when they want to rely on Heller (10+ / 0-)

    it's good to remind them that 2A does not include a right to be a menace to oneself or others.

    People who have not proven safe gun handling, accurate shooting skill, and knowledge of firearms law are too often a menace to themselves and others.

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 03:30:32 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  No constitutional right... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kentucky Kid

      ...including, speech (and religion), allows anyone to pose a menace to another person.

      But, we don't require government pre-approval or government databases of all who want to speak in order to insure that we preempt child pornographers or releasing of classified national security information.

      People often misinterpret the scope of "free speech" and get belligerent and demand it in arenas where they don't, in fact, have any such rights (private property for example or where the volume or hours of speech are limited by content neutral rules). So, obviously, we should make sure that speakers are well trained before speaking.

      Statistically, the overwhelming majority of gun owners don't pose a menace to others.

      (I'm personally not against requiring passing a test in firearms safety in order to purchase/own a firearm, as long as the test is easily available, is free, and is easily passed by most people -- just as I'm not against testing showing an understanding of compound interest or supply/demand curves in order to vote.)

      •  100,000 shootings every year (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Avila

        A statistically significant fraction of which were in the hands of someone who was a menace to themselves or others.

        You're example of porn is perhaps a good one.

        If someone used their own children to make porn videos and their own recording equipment and never releases any copies of the porn out of their private property there is little the state can do to detect or protect the children who are harmed by the presence of porn in the home or being used to create porn.

        BUT the moment that porn does into the public sphere it is totally sanctionable.

        The right to self defense is a universal human right. It doesn't reside in the constitution. The US 2A right to use a gun for self defense depends upon firearm competence.

        In contracts, anyone who is incompetent to sign (because they cannot understand the terms of a contract) cannot be bound by the contract when they sign unawares.

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 05:53:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Point to numbers of shootings or even gun deaths (0+ / 0-)

          without context is meaningless.  Attributing these statistics to proverbial straw "gun owners" as is typically done and tacitly implied in your post is obviously manipulative.  You may be verbose and vociferous, but you lack validity.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site