Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR
No, he's not, he is using the legal system, after a court hearing, to restrict a right to someone that has broken a law (DUI), with sufficient checks and balances to restrict such a law breaking again.
I'm OK if you apply that in many firearms cases where someone is going to do harm to others or themselves, through the legal system, with sufficient checks and balances where pertaining to restricting someone's rights. Some people should not have access to firearms, some people should not have access to vehicles.
|
I responded to a post which responded to a previous post by comparing a car that stops a drunk to the original post about "a car that stops if someone has a cell phone and is sitting in the driver seat." I don't see anything in either mentioning a court hearing. Maybe I'm misreading it, but the posts suggests to me the possibility of manufacturing cars that stopped if a driver has a cell phone or could stop a drunk from driving--that all cars would have that feature built into them. The reason for that feature being the prevention of a driver from using the car, not because the car would be at fault for an accident if it didn't have the feature, but because the driver would be at fault, regardless of the model of the car. And so the driver would be limited, not the car. And that would not, by most, be considered a loss of freedom.
I fleshed out the comparison with guns in a similar situation in which guns had a built in feature: "Nor is there, in a corollary scenario re guns, a loss of freedom for law abiding citizens to buy a gun, even an AR15 type, if guns would not fire in the hands of repeat criminals." As in the car scenarios, all guns would be manufactured with this feature
In either the gun or car scenarios, I said it is "the individual, not the instrument" that is being prevented regardless of the model.