“No, I’m not advocating a presumption of guilt. There is no question guilt or innocence here. I’m not saying to put anyone in jail or convict anyone of a crime.” No, you just want to strip someone of their constitutional right over something you dont agree with.  

We keep going through this again and again.

“If you want the presumption to be that a person is responsible enough unless the government can find an affirmative reason to think their owning a firearm presents an unreasonable danger to themselves or others fine. I don’t think it makes much of a difference.” This goes to the very core of your argument, how can it…

“What you are then saying is that a person who has been convicted of perjury should not be considered “responsible” enough to own a weapon, but a person who has expressed violent, irresponsible and impulsive tendencies while managing to avoid being convicted of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt is”. No, what I’m…

“Okay, point out where it says in the constitution that the right to bear arms can be restricted based on age or criminal history? Where is your textual support for your adult/felony paradigm?” Of course the constitution doesn’t lay out all the regulations for each right. But you keep arguing that you want to use what…

“My first two paragraphs point out that your definition of a “right” is wrong. I actually DO have a right to a driver’s license, because I meet all the statutory requirements for a driver’s license. The state had no legal authority to deny me one once I met the requirements, and has no legal authority to take it away…

Yeah, your whole first two paragraphs are exactly what I’ve been saying. where you start purposely trying to misconstrue the point is that there are specific constraints and regulations on all of your rights. In the case of the second amendment you cant be a felon or have been convicted of domestic violence, you have…

“A) That’s why I said it’s a COMBO of driver’s license and getting hired.” You’re continuing to think that I need to have some sort review to exercise my rights. Lets try this. If the government said that they wanted to review everything that you were going to post online to make sure that it wasn’t going to hurt…

Its not a creed, its common sense. If I have to ask the government for permission to exercise your rights, they aren’t rights are they?

“Why is “being a felon” the only measure of responsibility? There is no measure of responsibility. You dont GET your rights if you’re responsible. You only LOSE THEM (in this case the your right to bare arms) if you’ve committed a felony.

A) There’s no drivers license that I know of that requires a criminal background check and this pre-criminality test that you’re attempting.

“I’m asking, as a policy matter, is whether you think the current system provides sufficient safeguards against irresponsible people obtaining firearms?” And I keep telling you that the only measure of responsibility for this right is Not being a felon. And I will add that the only additional thing that could be…

Its funny, you say “I never said you don’t have a right to own death machines.” But then you advocate for these dracoinian approvals that you say should be needed before you can exercise your right. Its almost like you dont think it should be a right in the first place.

I think what you’re asking for is not (and should not be) a requirement to execute a right.

The only thing that can revoke some of a persons rights is being a felon. And now you want to add more to that. So you want to take peoples rights away. And who pays for these more in-depth reviews? The person trying to exercise their rights? If so, you’re back to taxing it out reach of some people, and therefor…

Oh dont be obtuse, you cant claim you dont have a right to “own death machines” then claim he has the right to make threats of violence under the first.

What you’re advocating for is a defacto ban. The only way to lose (some of) your rights is to be a felon. You’re now advocating for an entirely new process that is both costly and ridiculously abstract.

Umm lets see. He tortured animals to death and was stopped by the police about it. He had over two dozen interactions with the police for things like assault, threats of violence, and arson. But because they (the mayor and sheriff) wanted to keep their violent crime stats low, they refused to prosecute him. Oh and…

I dont remember defending anyone, I remember refuting your point but nice try.

“Why should my right to life be threatened so that you can have relatively unfettered access to a killing machine with no ability for a determination to be made you can handle it responsibly?” You’re acting as if the two cant be simultainuos. Why does your life end if I have a firearm? It doesn’t. It does end if I use…