penquin wrote:And yes, free speech and religion are limited in some ways...but neither of 'em can be so easily revoked, for life. And neither of them have as many burdensome requirements put on 'em in order to exercise 'em. That's what I'm trying to get at...
But neither one of them has such physical consequences to others in society as being reckless with a firearm. I understand what everyone is getting at and I think you are trying to compare apples to oranges.
What if someone was drunk and killed a whole busload of school children? Would they be able drive again? Probably not for a long long long time - if ever.
I could see treating gun accidents by lawful owners in a similar way as drunk driving. Even if a drunk driver does no harm to anyone (provided they are caught) they still face temporary loss of driving privileges and have to take alcohol assessments, undergo treatment, etc. if they ever want to legally drive again. Same should be applied to the lawful gun owner who "accidentally" fires his gun in public. Loss of privileges for at least 6 months, have to pay to be assessed by a professional, and then take a 3 month long (in patient or outpatient) gun safety class that costs thousands of dollars before they can legally carry again.
I don't think anyone is saying revoke for life, but that if someone is reckless with a gun yet does not harm anyone, there should still be some kind of penalty and proof that the person is responsible enough to be trusted in the future.