[Labyrinthos]

Hence the "reasonable man" standard. This is not new ground.

But what's the answer? I agree that government has no right under the Constitution to regulate the use and possession of firearms by law abiding, competent adults any more that it has the right to require a person to obtain a permit and pass a journalism course as a prerequisite to publishing a newspaper. 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; and if we concede that these classes of people do not enjoy 2nd Amendment rights, then how do we keep firearms out of their hands with at least some minimal level of government regulation?

[Pollster1]

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; and if we concede that these classes of people do not enjoy 2nd Amendment rights, then how do we keep firearms out of their hands with at least some minimal level of government regulation?

I would argue that those under 18 are generally recognized as not holding the same constitutional rights as adults. As for criminals, if they're safe enough to release, they should have their rights restored. 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.

[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.

[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.