Mass Shootings

Should Anyone Accused of a Crime Lose His Second Amendment Rights?

The New York Times complains that Robert Dear owned guns despite "run-ins with the law."

|

Colorado Springs Police Department

The New York Times reports that two ex-wives of Robert Dear, the man accused of killing three people and wounding nine others at a Colorado Springs shopping center last week, said he physically abused them, although no criminal charges were filed as a result. Dear was also once accused of raping a woman at knifepoint, although the charge was dropped after a witness declined to testify. (He claimed the sex was consensual.) The Times previously reported that another woman had accused Dear of hiding in the bushes outside her house so he could spy on her through a window, a charge that also was dropped. Since none of these allegations resulted in convictions, it still seems that Dear did not have the sort of criminal record that would have disqualified him from buying a gun: a current felony indictment, a felony conviction, or a domestic violence conviction, including misdemeanors.

Gun control supporters may argue that the reports of violence nevertheless should have marked Dear as one of those "people who have no business" owning guns, as President Obama put it on Saturday. That sounds plausible (especially in retrospect), but translating that view into law raises obvious due process problems. Does a mere accusation, whether in the form of a criminal charge, a police report, or a statement made during divorce proceedings, justify permanently depriving someone of his Second Amendment rights? Given the potential for false accusations, such a policy would inevitably affect many innocent people.

The problem is similar to the one raised by proposals to ban gun ownership by anyone on the FBI's so-called Terrorist Watchlist. Keeping guns away from terrorists sounds like a good idea, but merely appearing on the FBI's list, which may result from unjustified suspicions or guilt by association, does not make someone a terrorist. Likewise, being accused of rape or domestic abuse does not make someone a rapist or a wife beater, even if Dear's most recent arrest makes us inclined to believe those earlier charges. 

A recent New York Times editorial complains that "Mr. Dear had several run-ins with the law and still had plenty of weapons at hand." The Times suggests "expanding the categories of people deemed too dangerous to have guns." But why should "run-ins with the law," including charges that are never proven, be enough to strip someone of the right to keep and bear arms? It is hard to imagine the Times endorsing that approach to any other constitutional right.

NEXT: Cop Who Killed Tamir Rice Claims Toy Pistol Was 'in His Hands'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

101 responses to “Should Anyone Accused of a Crime Lose His Second Amendment Rights?

  1. such a policy would inevitably affect many innocent people.

    You say that like it’s a bad thing.

    1. If they’re trying to own a gun outside of government employment, they’re not innocent.

      1. on what basis? That only government can have guns? If government were always innocent there would be far less need for arms in private hands. But they are not.

      2. But I am also advised that it is a matter of certainty, and urgency, that our government employs agents who prowl around looking for young Dindu Nuffins to randomly murder. If so, how is is conscionable to argue that the Dindu Nuffins and the general public shall be disarmed and helpless to resist such an arbitrary and tyrannical government?

    2. If they’re so innocent, why do they want a gun???? /derp

      1. innocent people need to have arms availble to protect themselves against guilty who will to do them harm. Next inane statement?

        1. Sarcasm is hard

        2. Sarcasm is hard

        3. Sarcasm is hard

        4. You see that “/derp” at the end of his post? That’s something most of us would call a “clue”.

    3. it certainly would be

  2. Does a mere accusation … justify permanently depriving someone of his Second Amendment rights?

    No. Next question.

    1. not even a felony conviction should deprive felon of the right to own and bear firearms unless he committed a crime of violence against people.

      1. It didn’t for the first 200 years this nation existed, even if he committed a violent crime. Stripping American citizens of their constitutionally guaranteed rights is only a recently found ‘duty’ of the government.

  3. [President Obama:] “If we truly care … — then we have to do something about the easy accessibility of weapons of war on our streets to people who have no business wielding them.”

    I suppose the “business” verbiage provides the loophole for guys like Van Dyke.

  4. That guy looks crazy. Crazy-looking people shouldn’t be allowed to own guns.

  5. Take away politicians’ security details every time they advocate civilian disarmament. Clearly they do not believe the firearms are needed.

    1. You may find this amusing.

      1. Maybe, I can’t tell, youtube no longer works from work.

        1. For later, then — it’s Jason Mattera being accosted by Bloomberg’s thugs.

  6. Does a mere accusation, whether in the form of a criminal charge, a police report, or a statement made during divorce proceedings, justify permanently depriving someone of his Second Amendment rights? Given the potential for false accusations, such a policy would inevitably affect many innocent people.

    Women never lie about rape, nothing to worry about.

    1. Should a woman who falsely cries rape be deprived of her right not to be raped?

      1. If caught publicly, in a way she is deprived. Unless she has video, non-feminists won’t believe her when she claims to be raped in the future. Of course these types are generally not the type to attract rapists, so it’s a moot point.

        1. “He raped her because he knew nobody would believe her after she lied in the past about being raped. Therefore, clearly he’s guilty”.

          1. Nah, they’ll just trot out the no perfect victim line and then proceed to ignore her past. That’s what they did with the maid who accused a visiting head of state of raping her. She lied to get asylum in the country by claiming a gang rape that she then testified was completely fabricated (the prosecutors were pissed that she couldn’t keep her damn mouth shut on that one).

            1. DSK?

      2. “Is it true that when a woman says ‘no’ she really means ‘yes’?”

        1. Yes. Wait, No. Wait… I’m not a chick, so No.

      3. no but she SHOULD face the same sentence that would have fallen upon her falsey accused assailant had her accusation been true. AND she should also face charges for perjury and defamation/slander. Truth has become one of the largest victims of our present culture.

  7. OT: Shit has to be bad if fucking CNN deigns to acknowledge it.

    President Barack Obama’s former top military intelligence official said Tuesday that the White House ignored reports prefacing the rise of ISIS in 2011 and 2012 because they did not fit its re-election “narrative.”

    The answer to ISIS, Flynn told Tapper, should be the creation of an “Arab NATO” organized among U.S. allies in the region, with a parceling of duties to take out ISIS.

    Silly, Flynn, modern-day Arabs have banded together in a military coalition for exactly one reason only.

    1. We should give military aid against ISIS to middle eastern nations in proportion to how many refugees they take in. If you as a country take these guys in, we’ll give you some tanks, guns, and ammo to stop them from taking over.

    2. When did “didn’t fit the narrative” become a thing? “Making shit up” not good enough for them?

    3. Flynn had a really good interview on Al Jazeera in july. I thought it was just the usual truth that would be ignored by the media here. back then

    4. Never let facts interfere with The Narrative

  8. I imagine there are some who think this would be a nice and easy way to disarm most everyone.

    1. “*I’ll* do the accusin’ around here, Baba Looey!”

      1. Rousseau agrees. Then disagrees, but a little too late.

    2. Fist tried to rape me! Take his guns!!!!

  9. But due process is a tool of the Evul White Cis-Shitlords! It cannot be permitted to stand in the way of progress!

    1. Due Process is just an excuse for TEH RACEISM and microaggressing womynz and blacks persons of color colored people …fuck it, I have no idea what the appropriate term is anymore.

  10. Hey, what’s up with the Lynx? Weird!

    1. My FIRST had jolly well better be there when they reappear!

  11. “It is hard to imagine the Times endorsing that approach to any other constitutional right.”

    You weren’t actually expecting intellectual consistency from the New York Times were you?

    1. He is lying about what NYTimes actually said –

      “Even in America, where the Second Amendment provides robust protection of gun rights, there are reforms that modestly brave politicians could pass if they wanted to, including universal background checks; expanding the categories of people deemed too dangerous to have guns; funding research into gun violence; and gun buyback programs.”

      That comes 3 paragraphs later, after they wrote.

      “The truth is, the characteristics of killers may vary, but the result is always the same ? a massacre of the innocent, made possible by virtually unimpeded access to guns. Mr. Dear had several run-ins with the law and still had plenty of weapons at hand.”

      They could easily be referring to mental health issues that were not dealt with.

      1. “He is lying about what NYTimes actually said -”

        Nope.

  12. I’m sure the Times would be fine with denying the 1st Amendment rights of those accused of lying in print…

  13. “in this country, you’re innocent until you’re investigated.” -‘syriana’

  14. Hmm. Would this proposed rule apply to cops too? Whenever anyone makes an accusation against them, they can no longer carry?

  15. Why would someone raped at knifepoint refuse to testify? She had the chance to put him away for 20 years to life and refused? He clearly didn’t buy her off Greg Hardy style so wtf?


  16. Should Anyone Accused of a Crime Lose His Second Amendment Rights?

    1. Second amendment seems obsolete in today’s police state. However, in rural areas where it can take the cops 30 minutes to get to one’s house, of course people should be allowed to have firearms at home for protection. In inner cities, absolutely not. I own an Apartment in the City, a house in the burbs, and a ski house in Vermont. For me, I can see having a gun in Vermont. Although I don’t have firearms.

    2. Absolutely no citizen should be allowed to walk around with a loaded firearm.

    3. People that commit armed robbery or crimes with a firearm need to lose their rights to bare arms while in Jail. And, Jail should be a long time for crimes committed with firearms. After 20 years in jail, perhaps the perp needs to live in inner city as this perp should never ever allowed to handle a gun.

    4. No Law that says “No Guns Here” helps. Computerized and intrusive policing is the only way to go I guess like we do in NYC. I think that when the Cops are searching for guns, they should not charge people for other offenses…like in airports.

    5. The Manufacturing of Guns is a greater moral hazard than Narcotics. Ban-it. Treat all firearms as military weapons and really limit them.

    6. Stop calling every criminal that murders people Mentally Ill. I’m mentally ill and so is practically everyone else on this earth for that matter.

    1. Hi Alice! I believe we had a conversation about the Constitutional interpretation a while back. I hope you will be willing to explain your views on this matter more clearly, as well, because, quite frankly, they seem misguided (to put it charitably).

      1) Who gets to decide whether a Constitutional amendment is “obsolete,” as you put it? It seems to me that if those in power can decide to remove Constitutional protections at will, protections against search and seizure, government takings, and free speech might be in trouble. If the people determine that a Constitutional provision is no longer needed, there is an amendment process explicitly set out in the Constitution. Any other approach seems dangerous to me.

      2) Please explain. I see no issue in walking around with a loaded firearm as long as you don’t shoot anyone or otherwise engage in criminal behavior.

      3) These are already the case.

      1. 1. I propose going through the existing process of Amending the constitution. This is my opinion and vote.
        I know that the current political climate would make it impossible to pass a law let alone a constitutional amendment. My argument is that the Local State Militia to protect against a Rogue Fed Government is obsolete.
        Neither myself, my family, my community, my state, or my constituent can FIGHT THE GOVERNMENT when they come knocking in our current police state today.

        I guess we can either wind down the police state or amend. Both are pretty hard to do.

        2. It’s never you or me that is the problem. Unfortunately, and in my experience in NYC, I find it better that the common citizen does not walk around armed. Once again an opinion. But me and many of the citizens of NYC glad the Supreme Court does allow NYC to ban walking around with a loaded firearm. Our drug dealers and other criminals think twice before crossing the street with a gun. And, those that are hobbiest carry them unloaded in a locked case to their firing range.

        1. 1) The Second Amendment is about more than local state militias protecting against a rogue federal government. For one thing, Article 1, Section 8, grants Congress pretty broad powers over the militia – powers that would be incompatible with what you are suggesting. The operative clause in the Second Amendment is that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

          2) Again, what is the objection to carrying a firearm, if no crimes are being committed? You didn’t really answer the question.

        2. “Our drug dealers and other criminals think twice before crossing the street with a gun. ”

          BWAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAH

          SURE THEY DO!!!!

        3. “Our drug dealers and other criminals think twice before crossing the street with a gun. ”

          Not sure if trolling or just that fucking stupid. Stay your ass in NYC, please.

    2. 4) Please explain how what you propose does not violate, among other things, the Fourth and Fifth Amendment.

      5) In addition to the obvious Constitutional problems this suggestion raises, I think you are treading on some dangerous territory here. Should we prosecute all manufacturers of anything when a customer years later misuses their product?

      6) I agree. If we start allowing the government to strip us of our rights simply for some vaguely defined “mental illness,” mental health will only get worse in this country and doctors will become even more politicized than they already are.

      On a more general level, I have another concern – I know of no argument for gun control that is not equally applicable to all weapons, as well as cars and most common household items.

      1. More thoughts on #6 – you are definitely making a logical leap from “all mass murderers are mentally ill” to “all mentally ill people can/will commit mass murder.” No one is claiming the latter, though most people would agree that it takes a truly mentally unhinged person to shoot up a church, pre-school, movie theatre, etc. I see no problem with labeling such shitstains as mentally ill.

        That said, my concerns about the government using this as a pretense for stripping us of our rights for seeing a shrink remain.

        1. There’s and US against THEM mentality in America today when it comes to guns.

          I guess in your eyes, I’m a THEM. And, in my eyes, you are a THEM.

          ——————————————–

          Perhaps it is me, I’ve had no need for firearms in my life. I know perhaps over 10 people from Washington Heights/Bronx where I grew up that are doing hard time not because they go hunting but because they were criminals and got locked up….FOR GOOD and for a LONG TIME.

          I like smoking weed. Whether it be a right or not, If Weed was causing the tragedy that GUNS cause today in America, I would quit. Perhaps it is too much to ask a Person who loves and is obsessed with guns to put the guns away.

          I see it going my way though. THey won’t take away the guns, but they’ll figure a way of making them obsolete.

          1. There’s and US against THEM mentality in America today when it comes to guns.

            I guess in your eyes, I’m a THEM. And, in my eyes, you are a THEM.

            Umm, no, I’m trying to learn about stances that are different from my own on this issue so that I can either see that I am wrong or correct those who are. You seem to think that by following your statements with “just my opinion” you can somehow justify bad policy that is contradictory or full of holes. You can’t. For a system to work, it needs to be coherent. I believe my views on this matter are, but if they are not, I would like to be shown why so that I can correct them. I like to think other people feel the same way.

            Perhaps it is me, I’ve had no need for firearms in my life. I know perhaps over 10 people from Washington Heights/Bronx where I grew up that are doing hard time not because they go hunting but because they were criminals and got locked up….FOR GOOD and for a LONG TIME.

            Shooting innocent people is already illegal. No one is arguing otherwise.

            I like smoking weed. Whether it be a right or not, If Weed was causing the tragedy that GUNS cause today in America, I would quit. Perhaps it is too much to ask a Person who loves and is obsessed with guns to put the guns away.

            If guns were magical devices that cause ordinary, law-abiding, healthy people from going insane and killing, you would have a point. Alas, it’s the deranged sociopaths that are the problem.

            1. Alas, it’s the deranged sociopaths that are the problem.

              No it is not. It’s regular people that regularly commit suicide with guns and commit crimes against others.

              We’ll agree to disagree. I believe that an Armed society is a dangerous society on the streets.
              You may believe that an Armed Society is a Polite Society.

              We have one of two choices:
              1. Just allow everyone to be able to obtain a gun since they are so many in our society, the crazy people and the criminals will get them as well.

              2. Establish a police state policy to keep guns out of the hands of everyone.

              For good or for bad, I like #2. I live in NYC today with #2 and it is not strong enough.

              1. This would only work if guns were kept out of the hands of the police (and other members of government).

          2. You are definitely a THEM. And by THEM, I mean useful idiot that believes that criminals follow laws and laws melt metal.

            Seriously, how did you learn to read?

      2. 4 We saw great success in NYC with Stop-And-Frisk. The Drug Dealers and Armed criminals were afraid to cross the street for risk of catching 15 REAL YEARS upstate. So far, challenges have supported NY’s Tough gun laws while still allowing the regular citizen to own guns at home and use for sport.

        5No. I say make a policy from some future point in time going forward. The mass manufacturing of a murder device to sell to the poor and criminals is just god-awful. Again, an opinion.
        I also feel that given the fact that I can manufacture a gun with a metal pipe, some firecrackers, and pellets makes it almost impossible to control. So I’m OK with making sports guns and rifles for game. But not for mass shootings. Again, an opinion.

        1. 4) And Stop-and-Frisk has a proven track record of targeting less-favored groups and was ruled by at least one court to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. You seem to have no problem with the government breaking the rules so long as its against people you don’t like. We have these rules, in part, because someday, someone you don’t like will be in charge and maybe he won’t like you.

          5) So knives, too? Anything that can be misused to harm people?

          1. In NY and NJ the “deadly weapon” is not specifically listed. It can be a toothbrush melted down.

            The implementation of Stop-And-Frisk in NYC was unfair to certain people. That’s why I say it’s best to randomly do it.

            In Many parts of Times Square and in Manhattan, the imaging and density technology has made great strides. The police can now scan. This takes away the need to just Frisk the blacks. The scanners are going to be hand-held by summer of 2016.

        2. Alice Bowie, you say you’re OK with sports guns, but not ones applicable for use as a murder weapon.

          How do you differentiate between a gun for “sport” and one for “mass shootings”?

          In technical terms please.

          1. Shooting someone with a “sport” gun makes them less dead than if you shoot them with a “mass shootings” gun, I think.

    3. The Manufacturing of Guns is a greater moral hazard than Narcotics. Ban-it.

      How to recreate Democratic Kampuchea in 1 easy step…

    4. However, in rural areas where it can take the cops 30 minutes to get to one’s house,

      That’s pretty quick.

      I got robbed in sight of the police station, called the LAPD to report it, it took them 45 minutes to an hour to get there.

      1. There is something called the “21 foot rule”, cops and people interested in self defense with a gun are taught it as canon. It states that if you are facing a person wielding a knife, and you have a holstered gun on your person, there is practically no chance that you can defend yourself with the gun if the attacker is 21 feet away from you, or closer.

        Guessing at response times for rural vs. urban police becomes a fairly academic exercise at this point.

        By the time you are alerted to the presence of an intruder in your home, or a rapist following you down a dark alley, you are the primary responder. It doesn’t matter if you live in Manhatten, or the Rockies.

        The “wait for the police” argument is a logical fallacy and never works, unless you are the police, or happen to be near a police officer at the time. Police officers will be the first to tell you this.

    5. I kept looking for the /sarc tag, but I couldn’t find it.

  17. Absolutely no citizen should be allowed to walk around with a loaded firearm.

    WRONG.

  18. “Does a mere accusation, whether in the form of a criminal charge, a police report, or a statement made during divorce proceedings, justify permanently depriving someone of his Second Amendment rights?”

    Ah, you forget one thing – there is no such *thing* as Second Amendment rights. People should only have guns if the government is thoroughly satisfied that they are worthy of having guns. Eg, if you’re in an Important Person’s security detail.

    /sarc

    1. On a serious note, gun banners generally argue that the Second Amendment (a) does not protect an individual right to bear arms and (b) does not apply to the states.

      These propositions lost narrowly (5-4) in the Supreme Court.

      And as for proposition (b), so long as the Supreme Court thinks that it gets to pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights the states need to obey, then it will reserve the option of exempting states from the Bill of Rights in the future.

      That is why, I contend, the Supremes should simply proclaim that the Fourteenth Amendment automatically “incorporates” all the rights in the Bill of Rights against the states, not merely those rights which the Supremes believe to be important.

      1. The one of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment, I want to say John Bingham, but I’m not going to bother looking it up, intend the “Privileges and Immunities” clause to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states.

        The Supreme Court rather promptly fucked it up, however. Granted, the Fourteenth Amendment could have stated the incorporation explicitly.

        1. I think you’re right – John Bingham.

          Yes, I hope unfortunate experience of the 14th Amendment will be a lesson to legal drafters to be extra-specially specific when they say stuff.

      2. If it was intended to be fully incorporated, it would have been written that way. They chose not to do that, ultimately, for reasons that made sense.

        1. Not sure if serious, given your handle.

  19. Lol you just jumped from one article in the NYTimes to a completely different editorial and took a sentence entirely out of context to accuse the NYTimes of advocating for removing the rights to bear arms from people accused of crimes. Here is the full paragraph from the irrelevant article you cite –

    “Even in America, where the Second Amendment provides robust protection of gun rights, there are reforms that modestly brave politicians could pass if they wanted to, including universal background checks; expanding the categories of people deemed too dangerous to have guns; funding research into gun violence; and gun buyback programs.”

    You are lying by presenting this differently than they did. They were not in any way saying what you said they did.

    1. “expanding the categories of people deemed too dangerous to have guns”

      Looks to me like they said exactly that.

      1. And your reason for knowing they are referring to including categories such as “accused of crimes” is what exactly?

        1. Felonies, domestic violence, certain types of misdemeanors, and certain types of mental illness are already covered.

          What else is left? Mind reading?

          1. You cannot jump from “expanding the categories of people deemed too dangerous to have guns” to “anyone who has had a run in with the law”.

            Sorry. That isn’t how reasoning works. Go to another website if you can’t accept that.

            1. “You cannot jump ”

              Sure I can.

              “Go to another website if you can’t accept that.”

              Fuck you you nobody, who the fuck do you think you are? I’ve been here waaaaayy longer than you have, and I’m a fucking nobody.

            2. I’m still waiting for you to fill in that blank with another answer.

  20. I’ve been explaining this did years. The war on domestic violence negatively affects more innocents than than the WOD and

    THE GOVT ALREADY ‘revokes’ PEOPLES SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS without due process and w/o being CHARGED with, let alone convicted of any crime or any mental health determination

    If a relative or domestic (or former) domestic partner or housemate gets a DV order against you – you lose 2nd amendment rights

    No trial
    No conviction needed
    No right to attorney

    What it comes down to is if s judge believes there is a preponderance of evidence that a DV petitioner is reasonably scared of a person due- they issue an order and that’s it

    BY FAR, this is the least process that is required to vitiate 2nd Amend rights and it happens all the time

    It’s also very difficult and expensive and nigh impossible to appeal

    No right to jury. No assumed innocence until proof of guilt, preponderance standard

    The petitioner usually gets free assistance (DV advocates etc) … The respondent gets jack squat

    I don’t know why reason never addresses war on DV abuses

    1. “I’ve been explaining this did years.”

      But for some reason we can’t understand you…

  21. Why does everyone keep running that picture of Nick Nolte for the CO Springs Planned Parenthood attack stories?

  22. Again – no crime needs to even be ALLEGED let alone proved

    No mental health determination

    No trial

    Just a civil hearing

    No jury

    No right to counsel

    Person claims you acted scary

    Try DISproving that, in an unwitnessed incident with no physical evidence and a petitioner claiming fear

    That’s way lower process standard then Reason is worrying about and it’s already federal law

    DV order = no gun rights

  23. VAWA already has this same problem (among others). At the most, people so accused should only have to temporarily have someone else hold their guns until trial, not lose ownership immediately and irrevocably as now.

  24. Would you be in favor of this standard if substituting firearm with speech, press, religion, voting, assembly, fair trial or bail ? If you can revoke or limit one Right then all the Rights can be limited or revoked based on actual or accused behavior Right is only a Right when it is absolute.

  25. If we are going to allow people to have guns, get rid of all Gun Laws. None of them will work.

    The only way to address the criminals and crazies and the seemingly normal person that turns crazy from getting a gun is through strict gun policies and enforcement and Stop and Frisk of EVERYONE. Or, the establishment of technology as we have in NYC in which scanners can see density and can even use facial recognition to exclude registered gun carriers or cops.

    There’s nothing in the middle. The “Guns are not allowed here” or the “Killing people is illegal” signs are useless.
    Stop the registration process altogether and just deal with the violence. Hopefully, it won’t be our own loved-ones that get caught in the middle.

    So, in short, either a Police State or Just get rid of all Gun laws. Nothing in the middle works, as we can see.

    1. Hopefully, it won’t be our own loved-ones that get caught in the middle.

      A statement that is equally applicable no matter what the circumstances. Thus completely meaningless in the context of the discussion.

    2. Totally agree with you. That being said, there will be little to no violence from getting rid of all gun laws and violence in the long run would go way down*.

      *Especially including state violence.

      1. Totally. No one will freak out of we get rid of gun laws.

        THe so-called mentally healthy gun-owners would put up a war if you tried to take their guns.

        Solution, make them obsolete. Use technology so that the gun is useless and arrest people that walk around with a loaded firearm. Real simple.

        The ATM and DIRECT DEPOSIT eliminated the PAY-DAY Mugging. Let’s do the same with Guns.

        1. How about doing away with the fact and the concept of Free Speech, given that the comments of some might or actually do upset or annoy others.

        2. No one will freak out of we get rid of gun laws.

          Well, you will. But fewer assaults, so really, win-win.

          THe so-called mentally healthy gun-owners would put up a war if you tried to take their guns.

          You can define words as you like, so I suppose you could define people who allow themselves to be led like sheep to the slaughter “mentally healthy” if you like. For the rest of us, we’ll remain armed to the teeth, thank you very much.

          Solution, make them obsolete. Use technology so that the gun is useless and arrest people that walk around with a loaded firearm. Real simple.

          As a firearm expert, that sounds like magic thinking and only magic thinking. There are 300 MILLION guns in the US, good luck getting a significant percentage to become “smart guns” (that you actually think exist). Secondly, the market makes better A and when you restrict the market from researching A you get worse A. You can’t make guns obsolete by removing them from the market. The reason a machine gun from the 1930s can still compare with a machine gun from the 2010s is due to the heavy restriction of use by market actors.

          Also, your argument completely ignores the fact that as a state becomes more armed, the safer it gets, but no-one should be surprised by that.

  26. Justice = repayment, and nothing more or less. Ergo, taking away someone’s 2nd amendment rights even if convicted is injustice*.

    *I suppose that if that person were convicted of using aggression to take another’s 2nd amendment rights away then that could be the punishment. However, the only goons I know of who do that work for the government.

  27. Had he been CONVICTED of a crime? It seems not, which raises the following interesting question. On what legal basis,I refer to the law as it exists, would his rights have been abridged? Seems to me as if this is a question to be answered.

Comments are closed.