The Heller decision by the US Supreme Court affirmed each person has a right to bear arms. And requiring anything before hand means you are asking permission “look, I passed the test, can I have my firearm now?”. Lou is right that if you want to have a test to own a gun, you need to wait for a new Supreme Court and then challenge Heller, or change the constitution to remove the Second Amendment.
I don't think that's what Lou said, and I don't think it would take a new amendment or a new Supreme Court to have training requirements.
From District of Columbia v. Heller:
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well- regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
Also, even if mandatory training as a prerequisite for gun ownership would be problematic, that doesn't invalidate other approaches to achieving nearly the same effect.
Simply ensuring that people have better access to quality firearms training, with trainers who keep a reasonable lookout for especially dangerous people, would already do a lot of good. If incentivisation is needed, it could be done by imposing legal penalties on people who harm others without having firearms training.
Ther is also good evidence suggesting that the Isrilites weren't held by the Egyptians. Then again this is ancient Egypt we are talking about so theres a lot of supposition going on. I can try and digg up the artical but Im not sure if I can still get on JSTORE any more.
If that includes the idea that we won't be sending forces abroad for.. basically anything, then yeah I'm down with that.
You could go for the Athenian method of war. If you voted to go to war then you went to war. It worked wonders for cutting down bullshit and lead to some truely impressive posturing in meetings.
Im going to throw out that regardless of what you use a gun for you should be registered to it, no different to a car. I still find it odd that you can buy air rifles in the UK with out a licence. Anyway back on track. I don't understand why people would not want the fact that they have a potentially lethal weapon in their possestion to be recorded. If not then why the hell not? That is aside for paranoia in which case if you have a gun incase you need to over throw the goverment then you are quite insane and need to stop writing Red Dawn fanfic.
As a quick summary, so that people can take stock. Are we all agree that; A) there needs to better training/checks for anyone possessing a gun, that sport shooting is a different issue to home defense and CC, and it should be viewed as such, C) that we are all groovy with the idea of different licences for different needs (for instance I need a shotgun licence as I shoot wild fowle and a rifle licence as I shoot boar) each coming with a higher level of resoposabilty,
Im sure this all sounds stupid but I thought that it might help for people to take a brake and see what we all actually agree upon rather than letting it fall by the wayside.
As a question what ages do people thing that it is appropriate for people to be able to apply for a gun licence?
For example obtaining a home defence licence would limit how many rounds you could, own what type of weapon you could own and change your training. The result being that the weapon you register to that licence can only, to an extent, be used for that. Where as a rifle licence has a different set of requirements but can only be used for sport shooting not home defence. As a personal aside I see no reason to have handguns beyond target shooting.
Edit; also as another hypothetical and more for fun would people support the idea of duels returning as a way to settle problems? Only after, that is, legal action has been sort, and even then with stipulations.
Rights that are personal and do not impact others do not require any form of permission but when a right requires some sort of public accommodation (protest on the town park) then it is that accommodation that requires permission. Is that where you were going?
According to District of Columbia v. Heller, a right to self-defense lies at the core of the right to keep and bear arms, and self-defense by its very nature does impact others. As such, it is simply not a "personal right" in the sense that you're using the word.
Rights that are personal and do not impact others do not require any form of permission but when a right requires some sort of public accommodation (protest on the town park) then it is that accommodation that requires permission. Is that where you were going?
According to District of Columbia v. Heller, a right to self-defense lies at the core of the right to keep and bear arms, and self-defense by its very nature does impact others.
Only in the sense that you're trying to prevent them from impacting you in some negative way.
So what? The fact that other people are involved is enough to dismantle Steve's rationale here.
Besides, the mode of prevention we're talking about here involves taking someone else's right to life, so there is a clear case for the state to impose restrictions.
So what? The fact that other people are involved is enough to dismantle Steve's rationale here.
Besides, the mode of prevention we're talking about here involves taking someone else's right to life, so there is a clear case for the state to impose restrictions.
Not my rationale. It was my interpretation of where Rym was going with his statements.
I know its unlikely but I wonder how easily we could set up a registry where a specific gun serial number could be looked easily up but the actual list itself could not be viewed as a while. I'm sure it won't happen because why wouldn't they just want a straight up list they can look at but it would be nice to know that the list could not be published and other privacy issues while still using it to catch criminals.
A hunting rifle is primarily meant to kill game, not people, even though nothing keeps it from being used to kill people as well, obviously. Presumably, if someone carried a hunting rifle for self defense, hypothetically speaking, you'd want it regulated the same way as a handgun, correct?
Not correct. If someone is carrying a hunting gun for self defense, and uses it for self defense, they should be punished to the exact same extent of the law as anyone carrying or using a handgun for self defense. As in, if they are carrying it loaded and/or unsecured in a case. Or if they point it at anyone with the intent to threaten, intimidate, or fire.
Actually, that's pretty much what I said, although I may not have been particularly clear. Sorry for my lack of clarity there.
The "gun regulation" part is simply this: don't kill anyone with a gun. Ever. The next step is "don't let anyone think (especially the police) that you are planning to or are capable of killing anyone with a gun, ever." This means no carrying loaded or unsecured weapons, having loaded weapons outside of a safe at home for self defense, or using guns in an inappropriate place or in public.
But you're close. Unlike many gun control people, I'm actually 99% happy with machine guns and "assault rifles" and the like. Want to take one out to the range and blast away at an old car? Knock yourself out! Registering that kind of weapon would be handy, just in case they are stolen or go missing, but that's not a sticking point for me.
The Heller decision by the US Supreme Court affirmed each person has a right to bear arms. And requiring anything before hand means you are asking permission “look, I passed the test, can I have my firearm now?”. Lou is right that if you want to have a test to own a gun, you need to wait for a new Supreme Court and then challenge Heller, or change the constitution to remove the Second Amendment.
First, that's not what I said, at least not quite. The first clause of the 2nd Amendment implies the acceptability of a training requirement since the reason for the right to bear arms is to have a well-regulated (AKA well-trained) militia. If we look at Heller, even Scalia said that the 2nd Amendment didn't protect the right of the criminally insane to own guns.
Second, the Supreme Court in the past has also stated that mild regulations on the rights may be acceptable so long as they don't affect the general population. For example, historically polygamy hasn't been protected by the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion.
I can talk all day about how concealed handgun license increase in an area and gun deaths go down along with all other violent crime. We could go back and forth on how it's coincidental and not causal. We could argue stats, try to compare the US to Canada, Switzerland, Finland, Japan and Somalia. We could talk at length about the intended wording of the 2nd amendment and what the founders meant and if the Constitution is a living evolving document or if we have to follow intent. Down that path we could even argue how the grammar affects the meaning.
In the end, I fundamentally believe my life is worth more than the person's trying to take it from me. I am also not willing to accept severe beatings, broken bones, blindness, etc etc from a person intent on inflicting that on me. If I have a gun or another weapon I intend to use it to defend myself.
I own many weapons, knives, swords, guns. Most of them are very inefficient methods to kill people. The most effective are the bolt action hunting rifles. What makes them good killers of animals makes them good killers of people. American military experience in Somalia and since has shown the M16 / AR15 style of rifle and it's small bullet as an inefficient killer, but it's a good compromise. When I carry a pistol concealed (something I am licensed to do in my state) I carry a small pistol, easily hidden, but with a small bullet. It's a trade off. When I carry concealed I have to modify my behavior, I can't go into a bar, I can drink, but if I shoot anyone you can bet I'll get in trouble.
Why do I carry it? To shoot the person who tries to hurt me. If someone tries to take my things i will attempt to stop them. If they then hurt me in order to prevent me stopping them I will probably fall back on my gun. The gun is the best compromise I have. Swords take skill. Knives are even harder to use properly and take training. Gun's take the least training and are the most effective at what they are designed to do. Kill things.
All the debate here is great, but in the end I do believe in my right to defend myself and others to the point of taking another human life to do so.
Rym: If I believed the ATF and the local government wouldn't use registration information as an eventual tool for confiscation I'd have no problem with national registration and tracking. I don't have anything to hide, I'm not ashamed of my guns. I am for initiatives which help reduce gun crime as long as they do not infringe on my rights to own and carry. I am for harsh sentences for people who commit crimes with guns.
I'm happy to support better training, passing a test and such in order to get a license for owning a gun.
I don't know anyone on the pro-gun side of the debate who is against people owning Tasers, nor am I aware of any NRA anti-Taser stance.
The US government and its agencies have a terrible track record of following privacy rights, including areas of gun ownership. The FBI has been caught keeping the instant background check data that by law has to be destroyed. etc etc etc.
The other issue I have is with the people on the far anti gun side of this issue who explicitly state that nothing short of no guns is acceptable to them and that anything they get is only a stepping stone to their ultimate goal. You have a reasoned position, but I do not believe you represent the majority of anti-gunners out there, in the way that I don't believe I represent the majority of pro-gunners out there.
I live in the US. I don't carry often, when I lived in a crappy part of Atlanta I carried all the time. Where I live now I rarely if ever carry. However I maintain my license so that I can carry. I keep most of my firearms in a safe and one or two in a room in my house.
What do you mean by an absolute necessity? I'm not trying to be a smart alec or obtuse. Could I defend myself with my fists or a knife? Yes, of course. If I'm in a situation where that is happening would I rather have a gun? Yes.
Do I realistically need a gun 100 percent of the time, no of course not. We're much safe on average now than we were 20 years ago (jn the US), but that doesn't change my belief that I have a right to own and carry a tool for making defending myself easier and safer for me to do so.
This is completely speculation, but in the places where concealed carry hasn't changed the homicide rates, I wonder if this is because in some cases the "bad guy" was shot and killed rather than the victim? I know in some cases they count self defense shootings in with the overall homicide rate because it's still homicide, just legally justified.
Are there many other rights in America which need a political lobbyist group such as the NRA which puts in millions of dollars towards pro advertising and promotion?
Here's a tangent: so the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Why aren't more people fighting for the right to carry swords? More swordfights, fewer gunfights. Make it entertaining for spectators.
I couldn't find anything more than Facebook groups for the "National Sword Association" and the "National Hammer Association".
Since it is so easy to get guns in the US, how easy is it to get hollow points, armor piercing rounds and any other ammunition that I see glorified in my cathartic video games?
Is bullet auditing a stupid idea?
How much of a consensus is there between capital punishment and use of guns as a method of self protection?
Personally I'm against capital punishment because you are condoning death as an appropriate punishment for a problem that your society has made.
Does condoning capital punishment make it easier for people to be so flippant about murdering someone for an attempted purse snatching or someone stealing the newspaper from your front yard?
Why do I carry it? To shoot the person who tries to hurt me. If someone tries to take my things i will attempt to stop them. If they then hurt me in order to prevent me stopping them I will probably fall back on my gun.
Just so you know, I am actually horrified reading things like this. I hope I never meet you, and if I do meet you, I'd prefer either one of us just leaves the presence of the other. I think your brain is fucked up. It might not be your fault, but I'd still prefer to never encounter people like you in real life.
Are there many other rights in America which need a political lobbyist group such as the NRA which puts in millions of dollars towards pro advertising and promotion?
Not sure if they put as much money into it as the NRA, but the various abortion rights groups are also pretty spendy. You also have organizations like the ACLU which, while not aimed at specific rights, do tend to protect all of the rights they can.
How much of a consensus is there between capital punishment and use of guns as a method of self protection?
Personally I'm against capital punishment because you are condoning death as an appropriate punishment for a problem that your society has made.
Does condoning capital punishment make it easier for people to be so flippant about murdering someone for an attempted purse snatching or someone stealing the newspaper from your front yard?
Generally, the majority of pro gun for self-defense people I've seen in the media and whatnot also are big into the idea of capital punishment.
Personally, I'm also against capital punishment. I'm generally against any form of killing another human being outside of very small number of extremely limited circumstances. Essentially, if you're in a situation where you have an out other than killing, you should always take that out. Killing is only for when there is no other option and only when your own (or someone else's) life is in danger.
I'm against capital punishment but mostly because I don't have enough faith in our Judicial system.
That's a secondary issue to me. My primary issue with it is just the ethics of killing in a situation where one's life is not at risk.
However, I do think it's okay to give a prisoner a choice of life in prison without parole or capital punishment. For some, they may prefer being executed to spending 70 years or so behind bars. There was a case of a mafioso in Sicily a few years back where he was all but begging to be executed since Italy doesn't have capital punishment.
I am against capital punishment because it takes too long, is too expensive and life in prison with no chance of parole is a better punishment.
As too deadly force on self defense I think it depends on the situation. If someone were to break into my home because they were seeking food or shelter I could forgive that. If they broke into my home to cause me physical harm or to steal want items rather than need items well, that puts them much lower down on the right to life scale.
On the street the question would be,"why am I in this dangerous section of town?" If I was in a safe area than why was this dangerous person here? As above if they are robbing me because of a need rather than a want I am more likely to forgive the crime and try to help rather than hurt the perpetrator.
In both cases I am looking at the intent of the criminal and making a snap judgment as to whether or not their criminal behavior can be fixed. Same goes for most crimes.
If someone steals money because they have none it is a need based crime and it is possible to help move that person out of criminal life if they can be given an honest chance at going legit. If someone already has plenty of money and they are still stealing more than they have some sort of psychological disorder and need to either be treated for the disorder or put down if they can not or will not benefit from treatment.
First option of justice should always be rehabilitation. If rehab fails then it may just be better to remove the person from society (permanently or via incarceration.)
I hear some people saying that there needs to be a training requirement, or a safety class requirement, or some other sort of prerequisite to own a firearm. I would like to point out that if there is a prerequisite like a class or a test then is no longer a right, but a privilege.
So voting isn't a right. (Felons are not allowed to vote, and anyone has to register or they won't let you do it).
I guess assembly isn't a right. (You have to register for a permit to hold a large assembly in most places).
The right to bear arms isn't a right either. (You need a tax stamp for some weapons, and other weapons require professional military qualifications to own, handle or use).
You see where I'm going with this?
As of 1965 you do not need to pass a test to vote. Felons loose many of the rights the general populace enjoys
There is no test that I know of for assembling.
In my opinion filling out a form and sending in money for a tax stamp does not constitute a test.
Rights that are personal and do not impact others do not require any form of permission but when a right requires some sort of public accommodation (protest on the town park) then it is that accommodation that requires permission. Is that where you were going?
Not quite Steve. My comment about registration should have not made it past my proof read. What I am referring to is the "you have to be this X to do Y". If there is a test to vote, then I do not think that it is a right, and apparently the supreme court does not either. If there is a test you need to pass to assemble, then it is not a right. And if there is a test you need to pass to own a gun, it is not a right.
Rights that are personal and do not impact others do not require any form of permission but when a right requires some sort of public accommodation (protest on the town park) then it is that accommodation that requires permission. Is that where you were going?
Not quite Steve. My comment about registration should have not made it past my proof read. What I am referring to is the "you have to be this X to do Y". If there is a test to vote, then I do not think that it is a right, and apparently the supreme court does not either. If there is a test you need to pass to assemble, then it is not a right. And if there is a test you need to pass to own a gun, it is not a right.
That was a response to Rym. Why can't we have threaded comments so we know who is responding to who?
Are there many other rights in America which need a political lobbyist group such as the NRA which puts in millions of dollars towards pro advertising and promotion?
According to Open Secrets the NRA lobbying side ranks number 174 in spending. So there are 173 organizations that feel a need to spend more on lobbying. I am not sure what their advertising budget is. NRA summary Top spenders of 2013
Since it is so easy to get guns in the US, how easy is it to get hollow points, armor piercing rounds and any other ammunition that I see glorified in my cathartic video games?
The reason someone would want their defense pistol loaded with hollow points is so if they do have to shoot someone, the bullet does not go through their target, and into some bystander 50 feet away.
I hear some people saying that there needs to be a training requirement, or a safety class requirement, or some other sort of prerequisite to own a firearm. I would like to point out that if there is a prerequisite like a class or a test then is no longer a right, but a privilege.
So voting isn't a right. (Felons are not allowed to vote, and anyone has to register or they won't let you do it).
I guess assembly isn't a right. (You have to register for a permit to hold a large assembly in most places).
The right to bear arms isn't a right either. (You need a tax stamp for some weapons, and other weapons require professional military qualifications to own, handle or use).
You see where I'm going with this?
As of 1965 you do not need to pass a test to vote. Felons loose many of the rights the general populace enjoys
There is no test that I know of for assembling.
In my opinion filling out a form and sending in money for a tax stamp does not constitute a test.
No, I do not see where you are going.
You're shifting meaning here. Your initial post talked about a right that required registration to use. As you now admit, that was an erroneous statement.
A "test" as you describe would be a different requirement. But even then, there are "tests" in place for certain manifestations of certain amendment rights. A good example is the government implementation of religious organizations - tax-exempt status is not granted to just anyone who claims to be a religious organization. Rather, you have to apply for a tax exemption, and the IRS will "test" your suitability.
As far as I know, you still oppose registration in order to exercise gun rights. Are you admitting that there is a large precedent for a registration system in order to manage exercise of certain rights? Because if so, you now have to build a case for the registration of firearms being an unreasonable rights restriction in the face of evidence of numerous examples of similar restrictions on other rights.
The "registration is unreasonable" argument is absolutely dead.
If someone steals money because they have none it is a need based crime and it is possible to help move that person out of criminal life if they can be given an honest chance at going legit.
I really wish the national dialogue could offer some form of registration (at least for firearm transactions) as a compromise in return for giving up on some proposed direct restrictions.
Why can't we have a debate about how to allow gun owners to exercise their rights while also meeting some of the pragmatic needs of a society that faces a ridiculous rate of gun-related deaths?
@TWS - regarding religion and tax-exempt status: anyone can form their own religion or claim to belong to any religion they wish to align themselves with. However, tax-exempt status is not a right but a privilege granted by the state.
@TWS - regarding religion and tax-exempt status: anyone can form their own religion or claim to belong to any religion they wish to align themselves with. However, tax-exempt status is not a right but a privilege granted by the state.
It's a privilege selectively granted to some in exercise of their First-Amendment rights. Or rather, a restriction on who can exercise a certain implementation of said right.
They have not made laws preventing the "free exercise" of religion, but they make it easier for certain religions to become well-established and engage in the practical aspects of ministry.
You have every right to have a religious organization in your living room. If you want tax-exempt status, you need to pass the "test" set forth by the IRS.
You have every right to bear arms. If you want to bear a firearm, you have to pass a "test" set forth by the government.
Again, we have specific limitations on specific implementations of specific amendment rights. Guns are not different.
Register all firearms and create a traceable database. No other restrictions would be needed, and it would immensely improve our ability to troubleshoot firearms-related crime. There is literally no rational reason to oppose that.
I really wish the national dialogue could offer some form of registration (at least for firearm transactions) as a compromise in return for giving up on some proposed direct restrictions.
Why can't we have a debate about how to allow gun owners to exercise their rights while also meeting some of the pragmatic needs of a society that faces a ridiculous rate of gun-related deaths?
Unfortunately, there seem to be way too many people on both sides who are absolutists (not just in this, but in many other issues too) to allow for reasonable compromises.
Comments
From District of Columbia v. Heller:
Simply ensuring that people have better access to quality firearms training, with trainers who keep a reasonable lookout for especially dangerous people, would already do a lot of good. If incentivisation is needed, it could be done by imposing legal penalties on people who harm others without having firearms training.
Im going to throw out that regardless of what you use a gun for you should be registered to it, no different to a car. I still find it odd that you can buy air rifles in the UK with out a licence. Anyway back on track. I don't understand why people would not want the fact that they have a potentially lethal weapon in their possestion to be recorded. If not then why the hell not? That is aside for paranoia in which case if you have a gun incase you need to over throw the goverment then you are quite insane and need to stop writing Red Dawn fanfic.
As a quick summary, so that people can take stock. Are we all agree that;
A) there needs to better training/checks for anyone possessing a gun,
C) that we are all groovy with the idea of different licences for different needs (for instance I need a shotgun licence as I shoot wild fowle and a rifle licence as I shoot boar) each coming with a higher level of resoposabilty,
Im sure this all sounds stupid but I thought that it might help for people to take a brake and see what we all actually agree upon rather than letting it fall by the wayside.
As a question what ages do people thing that it is appropriate for people to be able to apply for a gun licence?
For example obtaining a home defence licence would limit how many rounds you could, own what type of weapon you could own and change your training. The result being that the weapon you register to that licence can only, to an extent, be used for that. Where as a rifle licence has a different set of requirements but can only be used for sport shooting not home defence. As a personal aside I see no reason to have handguns beyond target shooting.
Edit; also as another hypothetical and more for fun would people support the idea of duels returning as a way to settle problems? Only after, that is, legal action has been sort, and even then with stipulations.
Besides, the mode of prevention we're talking about here involves taking someone else's right to life, so there is a clear case for the state to impose restrictions.
Second, the Supreme Court in the past has also stated that mild regulations on the rights may be acceptable so long as they don't affect the general population. For example, historically polygamy hasn't been protected by the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion.
In the end, I fundamentally believe my life is worth more than the person's trying to take it from me. I am also not willing to accept severe beatings, broken bones, blindness, etc etc from a person intent on inflicting that on me. If I have a gun or another weapon I intend to use it to defend myself.
I own many weapons, knives, swords, guns. Most of them are very inefficient methods to kill people. The most effective are the bolt action hunting rifles. What makes them good killers of animals makes them good killers of people. American military experience in Somalia and since has shown the M16 / AR15 style of rifle and it's small bullet as an inefficient killer, but it's a good compromise. When I carry a pistol concealed (something I am licensed to do in my state) I carry a small pistol, easily hidden, but with a small bullet. It's a trade off. When I carry concealed I have to modify my behavior, I can't go into a bar, I can drink, but if I shoot anyone you can bet I'll get in trouble.
Why do I carry it? To shoot the person who tries to hurt me. If someone tries to take my things i will attempt to stop them. If they then hurt me in order to prevent me stopping them I will probably fall back on my gun. The gun is the best compromise I have. Swords take skill. Knives are even harder to use properly and take training. Gun's take the least training and are the most effective at what they are designed to do. Kill things.
All the debate here is great, but in the end I do believe in my right to defend myself and others to the point of taking another human life to do so.
Rym: If I believed the ATF and the local government wouldn't use registration information as an eventual tool for confiscation I'd have no problem with national registration and tracking. I don't have anything to hide, I'm not ashamed of my guns. I am for initiatives which help reduce gun crime as long as they do not infringe on my rights to own and carry. I am for harsh sentences for people who commit crimes with guns.
I'm happy to support better training, passing a test and such in order to get a license for owning a gun.
I don't know anyone on the pro-gun side of the debate who is against people owning Tasers, nor am I aware of any NRA anti-Taser stance.
The US government and its agencies have a terrible track record of following privacy rights, including areas of gun ownership. The FBI has been caught keeping the instant background check data that by law has to be destroyed. etc etc etc.
The other issue I have is with the people on the far anti gun side of this issue who explicitly state that nothing short of no guns is acceptable to them and that anything they get is only a stepping stone to their ultimate goal. You have a reasoned position, but I do not believe you represent the majority of anti-gunners out there, in the way that I don't believe I represent the majority of pro-gunners out there.
What do you mean by an absolute necessity? I'm not trying to be a smart alec or obtuse. Could I defend myself with my fists or a knife? Yes, of course. If I'm in a situation where that is happening would I rather have a gun? Yes.
Do I realistically need a gun 100 percent of the time, no of course not. We're much safe on average now than we were 20 years ago (jn the US), but that doesn't change my belief that I have a right to own and carry a tool for making defending myself easier and safer for me to do so.
I couldn't find anything more than Facebook groups for the "National Sword Association" and the "National Hammer Association".
Since it is so easy to get guns in the US, how easy is it to get hollow points, armor piercing rounds and any other ammunition that I see glorified in my cathartic video games?
Is bullet auditing a stupid idea?
How much of a consensus is there between capital punishment and use of guns as a method of self protection?
Personally I'm against capital punishment because you are condoning death as an appropriate punishment for a problem that your society has made.
Does condoning capital punishment make it easier for people to be so flippant about murdering someone for an attempted purse snatching or someone stealing the newspaper from your front yard?
Generally, the majority of pro gun for self-defense people I've seen in the media and whatnot also are big into the idea of capital punishment.
Personally, I'm also against capital punishment. I'm generally against any form of killing another human being outside of very small number of extremely limited circumstances. Essentially, if you're in a situation where you have an out other than killing, you should always take that out. Killing is only for when there is no other option and only when your own (or someone else's) life is in danger.
However, I do think it's okay to give a prisoner a choice of life in prison without parole or capital punishment. For some, they may prefer being executed to spending 70 years or so behind bars. There was a case of a mafioso in Sicily a few years back where he was all but begging to be executed since Italy doesn't have capital punishment.
As too deadly force on self defense I think it depends on the situation. If someone were to break into my home because they were seeking food or shelter I could forgive that. If they broke into my home to cause me physical harm or to steal want items rather than need items well, that puts them much lower down on the right to life scale.
On the street the question would be,"why am I in this dangerous section of town?" If I was in a safe area than why was this dangerous person here? As above if they are robbing me because of a need rather than a want I am more likely to forgive the crime and try to help rather than hurt the perpetrator.
In both cases I am looking at the intent of the criminal and making a snap judgment as to whether or not their criminal behavior can be fixed. Same goes for most crimes.
If someone steals money because they have none it is a need based crime and it is possible to help move that person out of criminal life if they can be given an honest chance at going legit. If someone already has plenty of money and they are still stealing more than they have some sort of psychological disorder and need to either be treated for the disorder or put down if they can not or will not benefit from treatment.
First option of justice should always be rehabilitation. If rehab fails then it may just be better to remove the person from society (permanently or via incarceration.)
There is no test that I know of for assembling.
In my opinion filling out a form and sending in money for a tax stamp does not constitute a test.
No, I do not see where you are going.
NRA summary
Top spenders of 2013 The reason someone would want their defense pistol loaded with hollow points is so if they do have to shoot someone, the bullet does not go through their target, and into some bystander 50 feet away.
A "test" as you describe would be a different requirement. But even then, there are "tests" in place for certain manifestations of certain amendment rights. A good example is the government implementation of religious organizations - tax-exempt status is not granted to just anyone who claims to be a religious organization. Rather, you have to apply for a tax exemption, and the IRS will "test" your suitability.
As far as I know, you still oppose registration in order to exercise gun rights. Are you admitting that there is a large precedent for a registration system in order to manage exercise of certain rights? Because if so, you now have to build a case for the registration of firearms being an unreasonable rights restriction in the face of evidence of numerous examples of similar restrictions on other rights.
The "registration is unreasonable" argument is absolutely dead.
Why can't we have a debate about how to allow gun owners to exercise their rights while also meeting some of the pragmatic needs of a society that faces a ridiculous rate of gun-related deaths?
They have not made laws preventing the "free exercise" of religion, but they make it easier for certain religions to become well-established and engage in the practical aspects of ministry.
You have every right to have a religious organization in your living room. If you want tax-exempt status, you need to pass the "test" set forth by the IRS.
You have every right to bear arms. If you want to bear a firearm, you have to pass a "test" set forth by the government.
Again, we have specific limitations on specific implementations of specific amendment rights. Guns are not different.
Register all firearms and create a traceable database. No other restrictions would be needed, and it would immensely improve our ability to troubleshoot firearms-related crime. There is literally no rational reason to oppose that.