If a person is inclined to criminally harm others, forbidding that person from possessing some particular kinds of weapons isn’t apt to make much difference. If a criminal who can’t be trusted with a weapon would be inclined to buy one, why is that person being allowed on the street at all?
With regard to children, their parents should be the ones to determine what they are allowed to have. With regard to those who are mentally incompetent, is there any reason that the standard of proof required to disarm someone should be any lower than the standard of proof required to find them incapable of managing their own affairs?
Then why have any laws at all since a person inclined to criminality isn't apt to follow them anyway?
With regard to children, their parents should be the ones to determine what they are allowed to have.
And if they decide it's fine with them for their 5 year old to pack a Glock to day school then the rest of us just need to smile and say, "Ain't that cute?"
With regard to those who are mentally incompetent, is there any reason that the standard of proof required to disarm someone should be any lower than the standard of proof required to find them incapable of managing their own affairs?
Wouldn't that require some sort of standard to judge them by? If so, then shouldn't the state decide that and not the feds?
That is exactly correct. It doesn't matter if the person has a Barrett M82, AR15, 1911, a sword, an ax or a fork. If the will is there, the tool will not matter for someone that wants to harm others.