Black Mamba
Member
Still, if something is a natural human right, then we shouldn't be restricting people from it unless they have done something themselves to warrant that. I really don't see a congruency in situational restrictions and personal restrictions. In one case everyone has to follow it for safety sake or for the interest of everyone. In another a person is restricted outright for no fault of their own, for merely being born some way, a way thing might possibly make them dangerous later, but I don't think statistically really makes them that likely (depending again very much on where you draw the line).
I guess my problem comes from applying strict scrutiny to groups of people. I feel like it's akin to racial profiling. We shouldn't do things like that, because we have no real reason to believe just because someone's a certain color that they're doing something wrong. We shouldn't really have a reason to believe that someone with a mental illness (again, depending on where the line is drawn) is going to shoot someone. This should be given greater scrutiny than that even, if you believe it's a natural right to own a gun.
And I guess my problem would come under number 3. If you believe it's a natural right, then this would be a very very restrictive way to achieve that interest, in my mind. After all, you're barring a large group of people from having a right altogether, not just situationally.
Problem is with that logic you can't ban felons either. Either you accept that the govt can do it because there is a compelling interest to it or there are no restrictions ever.
As for #3. It doesn't matter if it's very restrictive so long as it is the least restrictive. Is there another easier way to prevent these people from acquiring guns?