The problem, again, is that any so far named mechanism that will accomplish the goal you claim to achieve, will of necessity grind everyone else, too. Unacceptable.
And I don't think many Joes will care how a baddie got his gun.
You'll have to keep the religions of most of the Founders out of it too, then, as their faiths informed their deliberations.
Fact is, both Judaism and Christianity support the principle of a right to self-defense.
Are YOU for real ??? (BLINK)(BLINK)
This is what is called a straw man argument. It is often resorted to by those who need to make things up, so that they appear to have a leg to stand on in a debate.
Up until you suggested such, it never once occured to me to impose a restriction on who may own or carry a gun, based upon an ideological test. Conservatives just don't think that way. Leftists do, and you are evidence of this assertion.
Also part and parcel of leftist thinking, is pigeon-holing people into little ideological boxes. I don't assume a teacher or principle leans left, simply by virtue of their job. It may increase the likelihood, statistically speaking, but it's by no mean a certainty. Thinking this way is what motivates your fellow leftists to dismiss conservative blacks as "Uncle Toms," and motivates them to call "ethic" conservatives such a Michelle Malkin "Manila whores."
No, you didn't miss a thing. When I read the title of this article, I envisioned black union soldiers fighting their way southward, racing to be the first one to put on their chains. It truly is that sick. It also brings to light how this mainstay of the dhimmicrat party has no respect for pluralism.
A truly incisive critique, to be sure. Care to be more specific?
I wish I had kept notes, so I could cite the individual and university involved, but I recall some years ago that a university was preparing to enact a similar speech code, and they had a public hearing on the subject.
A brave student stood up, and questioned how the speech code could be reconciled with the First Amendment. One of the code's proponents, a black woman(*), easily replied, in earnest and without irony, that "all worthwhile speech" would be protected.
(*) I denote the speaker's sex and skin color not because I associate the fascist urge with women or blacks, but because these words would spill from the mouth of one who would just as readily claim that she would have been violently silenced just a few short decades ago. I don't buy the "Wise Latina" effect, in other words.
Only leftists would equate being given the freedom to choose whether or not to pay union dues, as a denial of their rights. It is part and parcel of how the left thinks, though. The only "choices" they cotton to, are those involving copulation and the conseqences thereof. Everything else needs to bend its knee to central planning.
Someone should mail him a bowling pin.
"James" is a female? Who knew.
"[S]he simply urged the state..."
Sort of like how Hussein "urges" the employers and producers to "contribute" more of their "fair share."