Memories_of_You

So the reasoning is that guns are a fundamental human right. Contrary to popular belief the second amendment doesn't give you this right, it only tells the government they shall not infringe upon it. Basically, it claims you already have it. You always have, and it reminds the government they cannot trample upon it.

These rights find their roots in the philosophies of self-ownership and consent of the governed. In other words, you own yourself, wholly and entirely. No one can purport to own any part of you. For example, the reason that you have the right to free speech is because you own your own voice. Therefore, it is unjust for anyone to silence you, lest they claim dominion over something that isn’t theirs. Freedom of press is an extension of your freedom of speech. You have freedom of religion because you have ownership over your own thoughts. The right to bear arms is an extension of the right to life and liberty. This philosophy suggests that since you own yourself, you have a fundamental right to protect yourself. In the same way that your smartphone might give you a more powerful voice and is an extension of your freedom of speech, a gun gives you a greater ability to protect yourself from danger and is an extension of your right to life. To say otherwise would be to claim dominion over someone else’s life, which is wholly immoral.

If the government are the ones to decide who can and can't get training, or even who is qualified enough to have a gun, then that means that the government is essentially infringing upon all those people who they deem unfit. What if they set the bar so high only olympian shooters and scout snipers can own guns?

Furthermore, the government is only supposed to draw its power from the consent of the governed. The very idea that government derives its power from the consent of the governed (as laid out in the declaration of independence) requires the governed to be able to shake off the chains of their governors if they deem it necessary. This is why the founding fathers didn’t just want muskets available to individual people, but even the big weapons like canons and other artillery. In fact, James Madison, one of the authors of the constitution, signed a letter of Marque and Reprisal for a privately owned ship carrying canons to be permitted to attack British ships. He didn't give that person permission to own canons. The guy already did. It was understood that individuals simply had the right to bear arms back then. Madison only gave him permission to attack the British.

So that's the idealogical case for guns. If you want the Utilitarian (the philosophy more Americans on the Left subscribe to) case for guns I can give you that also, but that doesn't impact my position at all.

The other big problems with mental health are:

How are you realistically going to do this? Are we going to keep a database off all people's psych profiles ever? What about confidentiality?

It would prevent many people from seeking help, if they knew their gun rights could get taken away. I'm a veteran, and I know many many veterans who would never ever report their PTSD if they thought there might be a chance they'd have their gun rights removed.

Who decides on which psychiatrists to see? Will they be sanctioned my the government? What is to stop the government from blackballing people from buying a gun if they just don't like them?

[deleted]

As a conservative: No, I wouldn't.

Edit: Just trying to be honest here. I wouldn't and virtually all conservatives I know wouldn't. It was a fine question to ask though. You shouldn't be getting downvoted for asking a simple question. That's bullshit.

Edit 2: If it was a simple yes or no to see where we tend to stand, that's cool, but if you want a longer explanation as to my and many conservatives' reasoning, I can give that to you also.

Why? If someone is dealing drugs to kids and they witness a murder, maybe we give them immunity in exchange for testimony, maybe we offer them a plea deal with a lesser charge, maybe we offer them nothing.

It’s a hard choice between reporting the crime and possibly going to jail, which is a harder choice than possibly getting deported. That’s what breaking laws gets you much of the time. Hard choices. It’s not immigrants that are facing these “hard choices.” I know this because I come from a family of immigrants, and we’ve never worried about calling the police. It’s “illegal” immigrants who are faced with these hard choices. Hard choices they wouldn’t have to face, if they immigrated legally.