>Then I fail to see what your objection is to my proposal. By the way, contrary to your assertion, New Mexico does restrict ownership of weapons.
Not LEGITIMATELY!
>Minors under 18,
Can STILL be citizens!
>felons,
Are those who have been convicted of a felony and are still serving their sentences.
You probably mean ex-felon; someone who having been convicted of a felony has ALREADY served their sentence.
That is a terrible and horrible injustice; it is the moral equivalent of going into a store, buying an item, and being unable to leave with that item because if you do you *will* be shoplifting.
>and people having a problem with drugs and alcohol cannot legally own a weapon there.
Oh, another invalid restriction! How surprising [/sarc].
And a “drug and alcohol” exception on the bar against restricting weapon ownership can be SERIOUSLY abused; imagine a “crazy tea-totaling Baptist” in charge of the definitions who thinks that *any* consumption of alcohol is a problem... well, I guess Catholics and Episcopalians [IIRC] and Jews cannot keep and bear arms!
Interestingly, a state-wide [total] prohibition on Alcohol is forbidden in the State’s own Constitution:
Art XX, Sec. 13. [Sacramental wines.]
The use of wines solely for sacramental purposes under church authority at any place within the state shall never be prohibited.
>Every state has similar restrictions.
Oh, yes! “All the OTHER kids are doing it!!” That MUST make it ok!
[/sarc]
>The lowest age at which a minor can own a gun in the United States is 14 in Montana. There are exceptions from state to state, but only with the permission of parents or guardians.
Oh, ok... i think I get it now!
Someone must meet Government QUALIFICATIONS in order to exercise their INHERENT and INALIENABLE rights!
I think someone here has trouble with definitions; let me help.
INHERENT –adjective
1. existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute: an inherent distrust of strangers.
2. Grammar. standing before a noun.
3. inhering; infixed.
INALIENABLE –adjective
not alienable; not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated: inalienable rights.
REPUDIATE -verb (used with object), -at·ed, -ating.
1. to reject as having no authority or binding force: to repudiate a claim.
2. to cast off or disown: to repudiate a son.
3. to reject with disapproval or condemnation: to repudiate a new doctrine.
4. to reject with denial: to repudiate a charge as untrue.
5. to refuse to acknowledge and pay (a debt), as a state, municipality, etc.
RIGHT
–noun
18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.
19. Sometimes, rights. that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women’s rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.
&
22. a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.
So the question becomes: Why do you advocate that weapon-ownership should be repudiatable?
Ah, you’re simply an anarchist. That explains a lot. ;^) Right now we have de facto registration of firearms. Do you think that background check paperwork when you buy a gun is shredded and forgotten? I want a system that satisfies the need some see to restrict ownership without having a requisite record of who owns the darned things (and, for the record, I carry all the time, even to church, and have made sure my wife and kids know how to handle and use weapons).
Look, you can raise as many objections as you want to any restriction on owning firearms. I am simply trying to address a fact: there are GOING to be restrictions on gun ownership in this country whether we like it or not. The question is, how do we handle it in such a way that it is least onerous and intrusive?