To an extent, yes. Ultimately, laws come down to "Don't hurt other people". Now, we have good reason to make them more detailed than that. But at some point you do have to ask "what good will this particular law do? Can it be enforced? If it can, at what level of cost and effort? What damage could it do? Would the latter ultimately outweigh the former?"
I am *ALWAYS* suspicious of any additional lawmaking at this point. It's not like we have a terrible dearth of laws for all sorts of things. I am about ten TIMES as suspicious about laws promoted in the wake of any disaster; 9/11 and PATRIOT shows exactly why I am suspicious about it.
For instance, take the suggestions that "no one under investigation should have guns". It's really easy to trigger an investigation of someone, especially these days. Same goes for "no one on the watch list".
My personal beliefs are that (A) anyone who wants a gun of a given class (handgun, rifle, full-auto, etc.) needs to show competence in both the care and the proper use of the weapon (license analogous to drivers' license). However, this is ONLY true if the training and licensing are 100% free -- unlike driving, this is a Constitutional right, thus you cannot put barriers in the way of anyone who wants to take advantage of that right, any more than you should be able to put barriers in the way of someone who wants to vote.
(B) You cannot purchase a weapon of a given class unless you have a current license for the given class of weapon.
(C) people convicted of violent crimes are deprived of their right to firearms, the same as many states deprive convicts of their right to vote.
You will note that I do *not* include "and someone maintains a database of all firearms", because I don't think the government has a right to know if I have a firearm, how many I have, or what type they are, so long as I actually have the training and license to hold them.
However, this is ONLY true if the training and licensing are 100% free-- unlike driving, this is a Constitutional right, thus you cannot put barriers in the way of anyone who wants to take advantage of that right, If you use this argument then... You cannot purchase a weapon Should all guns be free?
Personally I am of the belief that the Constitution gives you the Right to own a musket, not a semi or automatic rifle.
It's possible to ignore what 18th century lawmakers and politicians actually said on the subject, but then one is and remains quite literally ignorant of the subject.
It can be unsettling. Facts are pesky things that won't do as they're told. Most inconvenient sometimes.
The problem with that interpretation is that it would imply that you should do this for the rest of the Constitution, meaning that, for instance, methods of communication not known in the days of the Founders (like this one) are not covered by the First Amendment.
Insofar as guns being free, they weren't in the Founders' day, and the Constitution says "keep and bear" not "obtain", so no. Although it would probably apply if, for instance, someone tried to enact a tax that made all firearms prohibitively expensive.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
zaluzianskya and ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
skylark_photos
no subject
Date: 2016-06-14 01:47 am (UTC)I am *ALWAYS* suspicious of any additional lawmaking at this point. It's not like we have a terrible dearth of laws for all sorts of things. I am about ten TIMES as suspicious about laws promoted in the wake of any disaster; 9/11 and PATRIOT shows exactly why I am suspicious about it.
For instance, take the suggestions that "no one under investigation should have guns". It's really easy to trigger an investigation of someone, especially these days. Same goes for "no one on the watch list".
My personal beliefs are that (A) anyone who wants a gun of a given class (handgun, rifle, full-auto, etc.) needs to show competence in both the care and the proper use of the weapon (license analogous to drivers' license). However, this is ONLY true if the training and licensing are 100% free -- unlike driving, this is a Constitutional right, thus you cannot put barriers in the way of anyone who wants to take advantage of that right, any more than you should be able to put barriers in the way of someone who wants to vote.
(B) You cannot purchase a weapon of a given class unless you have a current license for the given class of weapon.
(C) people convicted of violent crimes are deprived of their right to firearms, the same as many states deprive convicts of their right to vote.
You will note that I do *not* include "and someone maintains a database of all firearms", because I don't think the government has a right to know if I have a firearm, how many I have, or what type they are, so long as I actually have the training and license to hold them.
no subject
Date: 2016-06-14 01:56 am (UTC)If you use this argument then...
You cannot purchase a weapon
Should all guns be free?
Personally I am of the belief that the Constitution gives you the Right to own a musket, not a semi or automatic rifle.
Re: Musket
Date: 2016-06-14 05:49 am (UTC)Is that the word used? Do you see it there?
It's possible to ignore what 18th century lawmakers and politicians actually said on the subject, but then one is and remains quite literally ignorant of the subject.
It can be unsettling. Facts are pesky things that won't do as they're told. Most inconvenient sometimes.
no subject
Date: 2016-06-14 10:55 am (UTC)Insofar as guns being free, they weren't in the Founders' day, and the Constitution says "keep and bear" not "obtain", so no. Although it would probably apply if, for instance, someone tried to enact a tax that made all firearms prohibitively expensive.