Quote:
|
The problem with our constitution is that it was written at a time when folks had no clue as to the technological advances that would change our world. Even some things that were fundamental truths back then have been rendered irrelevant, ineffective, or even downright counterproductive.
|
I would be interested in hearing what (in your opinion) "fundamental truths" are today irrelevant, ineffective or "downright counterproductive"
Quote:
|
*Can we all agree that not everyone should be allowed to carry a weapon in public?
|
I can agree with that, sure.
Quote:
|
*Can we all agree that there needs to be some kind of process that determines who can and can not carry a weapon in public?
|
I can agree with this, BUT the process I envisage is NOT the one you do.
Quote:
|
*Can we all agree that what we have now isn't working so well?
|
"not working so well" is a value judgment, and without stating your parameters for judgment, I can not agree. What I can agree with is that the current system and its enforcement is a breeding ground for abuse.
Quote:
|
*Can we all agree that a person should either be allowed to carry a weapon, or not, but that we should not be forced to beg and gobble to some random authority figure who imposes arbitrary rules?
|
I can agree that you are either prohibited by law, or your are not. And that is all there should be. I have an issue with the language of "allowed to carry a weapon", primarily because the underlying assumption is guilt, and you must prove your worthiness. And, personally, I refuse to gobble any random authority figure. I won't grovel, either!
Quote:
|
John Doe does not have any felony convictions and has never been declared mentally unstable.
|
if these are the disqualifiers stated in law, then they are the only points that matter. John Doe may be a deadbeat, who doesn't pay his bills, and may be a total loser by many standards, BUT if he does not meet the legal requirements to be prohibited, then his rights are the same as yours and mine.
You aren't comfortable with him carrying a gun, because to you he's an unsavory character, despite never being convicted or adjudicated of a disqualifying condition.
Here's the problem with your arguments, as I see it, you appear to be agreeing with both sides. You agree that writing an essay, or character references, etc. are burdensome and should not be done.
yet at the same time, you say we do need some tests, some proof of good character, etc. So, it appears that you are opposed to arbitrary conditions for approval, unless they are YOUR arbitrary conditions.
To me, this is either innocent miscommunication, or it is a degree of bigotry.
I invite your clarification of the matter.