Len Hyet wrote:Costa Fierro wrote:
So I guess my follow up question would be this: if restricting the rights to buy and sell a product, in this case firearms, is a violation of rights, would restricting who can own firearms, i.e in accordance with things like convicted felons who have not received a pardon, that would include people being treated for mental health issues, would be considered a violation of rights? If there is someone out there who can legally own a gun, and is likely to pose a danger to themselves or to the public, is that a just reason for imposing bans or restrictions?
So again, yes, restricting who can and cannot own firearms is a restriction on people's rights. However, we as a society have agreed that in certain conditions it is acceptable to restrict the rights of others. The easiest example of course is the right to freedom of movement. We as a society have agreed that it is acceptable to restrict that right in circumstances when someone has committed a crime.
Similarly for firearms, if someone has committed a crime and thus demonstrated they are a danger to society, we restrict their right to own firearms.
Doing so before someone has actually committed a crime, in my opinion, constitutes an excessive violation of a person's rights. Namely because it also violates the right to due process of the law. You can't, or rather shouldn't, have your rights taken away if you haven't done anything wrong.
Well said.