Lemdro.id

1 point

1 year ago

I can simplify the first part for you. The Constitution refers to “violently insane” and “violent criminals” as “the accused”. To understand my opinion, make the appropriate substitutions, and read the constitution.

For the second part, a ward’s exercise of liberties and property are subject to their guardian’s judgment. The guardian is expected to act in the best interests of the ward. The guardian is also charged with protecting the rights of the people from infringement by the ward. The role of the guardian, then, is to prudently permit and restrict the liberties of their ward. This certainly includes the keeping and bearing of arms.

Wardship is restricted to those deemed legally incompetent, either by presumptive statute or by judicial decree.

report

blackstampede@sh.itjust.works

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

I can simplify the first part for you. The Constitution refers to “violently insane” and “violent criminals” as “the accused”. To understand my opinion, make the appropriate substitutions, and read the constitution.

I can’t find anything about the accused losing their right to bear arms. Can you direct me to the relevant passage? Or can I take this to mean that you support the violently insane and criminals owning and carrying firearms?

The role of the guardian, then, is to prudently permit and restrict the liberties of their ward. This certainly includes the keeping and bearing of arms.

So should it be legal for me to decide that my five year old son can carry a 9mm with him when he goes out to play with the neighborhood kids?

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

Can you get to whatever you think is your point sometimes soon?

report

blackstampede@sh.itjust.works

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

Sorry for the delay- I didn’t get a notification for some reason.

The point is that the violently insane and young children are not allowed to keep and bear arms because they may harm others and because they’re incompetent, respectively. You may still consider them part of the militia in some philosophical sense, but practically, they don’t have the right described in the second amendment.

If we can restrict a child’s right to keep and bear arms because they are incompetent, then the precedent exists to do the same for adults with no training.

If we can restrict a violently insane person’s right to keep and bear arms because they may harm others, then the precedent exists to do the same for sane people who may harm others.

Obviously, adults are not children, and they are mostly sane. However, they can still be just as incompetent, and they can still accidentally kill others during arguments. The analogy holds.

No military in the world would deploy a fighting force without mandatory weapons training, and a militia is not “well regulated” if it’s members don’t know how to use their weapons.

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

we can restrict a child’s right to keep and bear arms because they are incompetent, then the precedent exists to do the same for adults with no training.

Ah, I see the issue. You’re using the word “incompetent” to describe a skill level. I am using the word incompetent to describe the legal capacity to comprehend the consequences of one’s own actions.

A child with olympic class training and shooting skills, who regularly outshoots police and military sharpshooters in competitions, is still a ward of their parents; they are still deemed unqualified to manage their own affairs. They are still presumed incapable of contemplating the consequences of their own actions, and must be supervised by a parent or guardian. This presumption does not allow them to independently keep and bear arms, yes. (They do have the right to keep and bear arms, contingent on the approval of their guardian: their guardian can arbitrarily deny them access to guns; the state cannot)

But, this same presumption also denies them the right to vote, and independent exercise of all other rights and privileges. That’d what “wardship” means. The state cannot interfere with their rights, but their guardian can. (Britney was made a ward of her father long after she became an adult. Her father had legal control of her finances. The government did not have the right to keep her from buying things, but her guardian did.)

At whatever point you end their wardship and statutorily grant them independence from their former guardians, you also grant them independent exercise of their right to keep and bear arms.

If we can restrict a violently insane person’s right to keep and bear arms because they may harm others, then the precedent exists to do the same for sane people who may harm others.

A court was involved in depriving the “insane” person of life, liberty, or property. They were formally accused, tried, convicted, and sentenced in a court of law, while enjoying all the rights of the accused, including the presumption of innocence.

Courts have previously found that certain people should be jailed indefinitely, or even killed. Those findings against those particular people are not “precedent” for arbitrarily jailing or executing the general population.

Have you taken a basic civics course? Your proposals directly conflict with the basic, fundamental principles of our form of government.

report

blackstampede@sh.itjust.works

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

I am asking, again, for the reason why laws exist, and again, you’re describing the laws as they currently exist. Why is it necessary for children to have wards? Why do courts restrict the right to bear arms for violent criminals and the insane?

If all children were born with the knowledge and experience of adults, we would have no concept of ward and guardian.

The law follows from the reason, not the other way around.

report

[ - ]

1 point

1 year ago

I have given you the reason: children are presumed incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions. That is a rebuttable presumption, in cases of emancipated minors or certain heinous criminal charges.

Adults are presumed capable of understanding the consequences of their actions. That presumption is also rebuttable, in cases of severe mental deficiency.

Rebutting these presumptions is done in a court of law, not the legislature.

Assuming the opposite (that children are capable, and adults incapable) violates all sorts of egalitarian principles. It’s a non-starter.

report