Glad we agree on that. Now kindly persuade the members of the NRA to accept this approach and we’ll have some common ground. Really sad that that’s not very likely.
By “their time” do you mean just imprisonment or are you also included probation?
Probation is the more common sentence, either as an alternative to imprisonment or as a continuation of a sentence after a release from prison. Probation places a number of restrictions on the person’s rights, including constitutional ones. So would you feel that restricting a person’s firearm ownership while they are on probation is acceptable?
It is interesting this. There really is a quite clear divide - those that believe that the rights of the individual trump those of the rest of the community, and those that believe that the rights of the community trump those of the individual.
Personally I think my right is to expect that my government should protect me from a proven or likely killer.
Thought experiment: If the convicted killer serves his time, is released, kills again, serves his time, and is released. Should the still be allowed a weapon? Do you extend the same logic to peadophiles? Once they have served their “debt to society” should they be allowed unfettered, unchecked access to children?
What do you think prison’s purpose is? Deterence, punishment, rehabilitation? What balance? What exactly is a debt to society then? If I kill your wife, do my time, am I now without blemish? In your eyes?
Again, my view is that things are never black and white. Communities succeed because they allow the odds to work for them. Further, with rights comes responsibility. It seems that rather often I am hearing an assertion that people have the right to abrogate responsibility. Which is, IMHO, just plain silly, not to mention selfish.
Duh. But people who own guns aren’t proven or even to be a likely killer.
Personally I would regard this as a further failing of our society, not a reason to lessen controls eleswhere. Justifying a sin by saying that someone else sins isn’t a tennable argument. The number of kids that kill themselves in cars is astounding. Often because they think they are immortal, and have no real understanding of risk.
No, but what it does say is that politicians pick on the gun issue because it is an easy win for them. The voters who vote for them aren’t affected by being denied something that they don’t see a need for and actively fear, in some cases.
If the politicians said that, at your own expense, every 5 years you must be retested when your driver’s license is renewed, and the test is actually something you have to work to pass, they’d have an uproar from their voters. So, they pick the easy out to make it look like they are actually accomplishing something useful. Quite making it seem like your government is ‘protecting’ you when all it is doing is pandering.
Is that a joke?
Did you find it funny?
I found it baffling, and I’m asking for real: Was that a joke? Do you actually think the “gun issue” is an easy win for any politician?
I suppose a simple yes/no position might appeal to a politician’s base, but are you saying…
Wait, what are you saying?
Hopefully you meant it as a joke. With the exception of abortion, there’s no significant political topic in this country that’s guaranteed to raise opposition for a politician like gun control.
It is an easy win compared to trying to improve licensing for drivers, isn’t it?
It is probably an easy win for him if he is going after the anti-gun crowd. If that is the demographic he is going for he can make all the rants he wants about how bad guns are as his voting base is likely to believe it, approve of it and cast votes for him based upon it. The latter is all most politicians care about.
One of the arts of political spin is to make it appear that they support what you do, whilst actually not doing anything substantive. This is one of the worst sorts of politicians, but one we seem to have evolved ourselves to have. So seeing one of these slimeballs look for an easy path through gun laws isn’t too surprising. However, as pointed out, the contentious and inflamatory nature of the subject means that unless they are sure of their constituency their efforts will come unstuck. The other art of politics is screwing over the faithful in favour of clawing in a few uncommitted votes. There is a fine line in pursuing a policy that, whilst it offends the supporters, usually the more far form centre, is not enough to put them off voting for you, and grabs a few more votes from the center. Gun laws are probably just too polarizing for this to work, but I can imagine politicians crunching the numbers very carefully if they felt that they were close to the edge in an election. It sure happens over here in Oz.
If you polled NRA members, you would find that in the context of concealed carry, most would agree to permits and regular testing. You do realize of course that most gun owners are NOT NRA members, right?
Why shouldn’t everyone have to meet that standard of training, not just concealed carry? I’ll be glad to listen to reasons why the NRA would take that position, but at the moment I don’t see the logic.
I’ll also say that I agree with the idea of recurrent training and/or testing of drivers. It doesn’t make sense to certify someone once when they are 16, and then never look at their skills again.
OK. But they do seem to have a lot of influence on these issues nonetheless, which is why I mentioned them. I don’t think that was out of place.
I don’t feel that concealed carry is protected by the second amendment. As such, if I need to jump through a few more hoops to do so legally, I don’t mind. I’m also a Life NRA member FWIW. However, to require training and registration simply to own a gun, in my opinion, is adding qualifications in order to exercise a right affirmed by the Constitution… No thanks.
And if they are still on probation, what then? No licensing, & no police powers to confiscate weapons, means no restrictions short of incarceration. Not for those on probation; not for those free while court cases are pending, not for mental incompetents. Is that really best?
Why not have a relatively easy licensing regime?
I think it’s possible to live in a world without this at least.
You mean if people would just obey the laws, right?