For... various interpretations of mentally incapacitated. Like not running your own finances?
A car is much more dangerous than a gun and I doubt you'd suggest that the "slightest hint of incapacitation" should be enough for someone to be denied a driver's license.
Edit to clarify: ...without also requiring eye correction. Of course you can wear glasses to drive, but it becomes mandatory, and without that eye correction you cannot get a license.
You'll learn quickly that cognitive dissonance is a real thing.
Try and suggest that ownership and operation of a vehicle is a Constitutional right and see how far you get with that.
Want to change the Bill of Rights and get rid of the Second Amendment? There's an app for that.
[0] https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_...
The baseline is that, as the Constitution enumerates, armament of self for defense of self, family, and state is a natural right. The well-established & well-understood caveat is that any right may be curtailed for a particular individual IF adjudicated, in court, for good and established specific cause.
The problem being addressed by the law in question is that veterans are being denied that right by faceless bureaucrats routinely checking "mentally incapacitated" checkbox for decades-old never-recurring cases of mild depression or other irrelevant trivialities. If you're going to deny someone the right of self-defense, at least do it in court with articulable & relevant cause.
Is that an indictment against cars? The whole of your life depends upon the good will of others.
It may seem a subtle difference, but it's important. Another way I've heard this said: "My pistol serves not to impose my will upon others through force but to ensure that others may not do so unopposed."
Did it really not occur to you while writing that comment that that analogy is not applicable here because a car is incommensurately more useful than a gun?
Also, yes, I would, don't drive if you're even slightly incapacitated. It's super dangerous.
Respectfully, that's an opinion.
Good job with the slur there.
> We wouldn't be hearing ableist arguments if the topic were anything other than guns
I hold the same opinion on bombs and other things too, if it makes any difference.
Yes - legally, and for much of the country, culturally.
The right to bear arms is on par with the freedom of speech or religion. In short, if the justification would be insufficient to warrant ordering them to cease political speech or preventing them from worshipping as they choose, then it's insufficient for denying them the right to arms.
> I would think that even the slightest hint of incapacitation should be enough for someone to be denied a gun.
It's just the opposite here; stripping someone of their right to possess firearms is an extreme measure.