Quote:
Originally posted by smooth
If owning a firearm is an inalienable right, why would you support barring people who have been convicted of a crime in the past from owning a gun in the future?
That position seems inconsistent to me and I'd like you to explain how you come to that conclusion.
|
I generalized the use of the word criminal, and never declared what you suggest.
There are people who lose the ability to drive after failing to operate their vehicle in a safe manner. I see no reason why guns should be any different, but the mere presence of a criminal past (particularly a nonviolent one) should not bar someone from getting a gun.
What I would like to see is a world where guns are treated in the same manner as cars are. If you want to use a gun, you need to have taken a training course and demonstrated proficiency and knowledge of safety. A license would be issued allowing the individual to bear and use firearms (including concealed carry). It could even be an addition to the driver's license, a sort of notation in the same manner as heart donors are noted.
Once you have your license, you would be free to own and carry any weapon that is not fully automatic or purely military (rockets, grenades, etc) in nature. Acquiring fully automatic weapons would require an effort similar to how things are now.