Guns & Ammo Fires Editor After Publishing Editorial Calling for Gun Control

Mediaite ^ | 11/7/13 | Andrew Kirell

[Red in Blue PA]

[William Tell]

Labyrinthos said: "But if we contend that psychopaths, schizophrenics, the criminally insane, and three year olds have the right to own a forearm, then we lose the argument to common sense; "

Those who are provably incompetent to run their own lives are also incompetent to keep and bear arms.

Nobody would question the authority of a parent to deny gun possession to a three-year-old. Similarly, psychopaths, schizophrenics, and the criminally insane are to be denied possession of firearms by the authorities who are responsible for their care.

It is absolutely an infringement to suggest that any free person who has responsibility for running his own life is incapable of responsibly operating a firearm. If you can trust a person with a 3,000 pound car, then you can trust that same person with a gun.

[Labyrinthos]

I would argue that those under 18 are generally recognized as not holding the same constitutional rights as adults.

You might get away with that argument for pre-teens, but as a Constitutional originist, I'm not willing to throw 14 to 17 year olds under the bus because at the time of the enactment of the 2nd Amendment, many people that age and younger were expected to be proficient in the use of a firearm and many served lawfully in the militia and military.

As for criminals, if they're safe enough to release, they should have their rights restored.

That's a nice in theory, but statistically, that vast majority of violent criminals that go through our court system are repeat offenders. the Simple answer is build more prisons and keep them behind bars. And then there's reality.

And crazies? It should take an individual court order to remove a constitutional right - a court should adjudicate an individual dangerously insane (or some incomprehensible phrase chosen to hide that meaning) before removing the right to keep and bear arms.

Many insane people don't act upon their insanity until it's too late. ("I always thought the guy was a little strange, but I didn't know he was a mass murderer.") Also, even insane people have a right to due process, which can take weeks, if not months, during which time they could go postal and do a lot of damage. And once they are found incompetent, how do you keep firearms out of their hands without some sort of government database, which by its very nature requires at least a minimum level of government regulation?

[papertyger]

You are guilding the lilly by attempting to satisfy such questions. The reasonable man standard stands on it’s own as a legal presumption.

Those who try to parse the definition of “is” are just trying to cloud the issue and prevent the reaching of an inescapable conclusion.

Roberts Rules of Order has long been valued because it gives procedures for silencing those who would obstruct procedures they do not want to reach an unfavorable conclusion.

[aomagrat]

Allow me to play devil's advocate: Like abortion, there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits young children, the mentally incompetent, the criminally insane, and persons convicted of violent felonies from possessing a firearm.

If a parent wants to teach their kids how to shoot it's not the government's business. My stepfather, at the age of 12, walked into a Western Auto, put $12 on the counter and walked out with a single shot .22 rifle, and he never harmed anyone. The mentally incompetent, insane and criminals have traditionally had their rights restricted via due process through the courts. And some of them have had their rights restored by the courts. Congress doesn't need to make up any more gun restricted classes of people.