More specifically, Republicans are coming after the guns of people that aren't white christian nationalists.

They're fine with Republicans being armed.

They're not fine with their intended victims being armed.

Freedom of speech does include slander; slander (and all other defamation) is not a criminal matter, it's purely tort.

Freedom of religion does not protect abuse

Oh buddy... Have I got some really, really bad news for you. SCOTUS has been continually carving out exceptions for both criminal and civil law for religions for decades.

Should addicts be permitted to carry firearms?

I think that it's a very, very slippery slope to try and traverse. I've known people that were entirely functional alcoholics; they were entirely sober all day, but started drinking the second they got home, and all weekend. I know a guy that holds a solid six figure job at a major US company that has spent literally hundreds of thousands of dollars on drugs, and tanked multiple marriages because he couldn't straighten his shit out in his personal life, but he is solid for his rationality as long as he's sober. Which is pretty much only when he's on the clock. I know people that are straightedge that are less able to think rationally than either of those people. So, should we have a rationality survey prior to someone purchasing a firearm, voting, getting legal representation, refusing to talk to cops, and so on?

But here's an even bigger problem for you: barring addicts from owning firearms--or people that have been committed to a mental institution for any reason--is actively dissuading people from getting help. If you are, for instance, a cop, you will lose your job if you can't own a firearm. The result is that cops don't get help when they need it. Many gun owners feel the same way, and there are grass-roots organization that will hold parts of guns for you (non-serialized but essential parts) for people that are having a hard time but can't seek help without losing their rights.

The problem with my argument is that I don’t think our restrictions on gun ownership go nearly far enough.

No, the problem is that you're treating a symptom--violence--as though it was caused by the tool used to commit it. The problems are things like systemic racism, chronic underfunding of essential services, shitty public education (that's been made intentionally shitty to try and steer the "right" people into charter and private schools), lack of economic empowerment, wealth inequality, lack of reasonable access to healthcare, and so on. It's treating pneumonia with cough syrup, and then wondering why shit doesn't get better. (And, BTW, despite the massive uptick in firearm ownership that happened in 2020/2021, violent crime, including gun crime, continues to decline.)

Counterpoint, no rights are absolute. There are conditions and restrictions on every "fundamental constitutional right."

Further to that point, rights come with responsibilities. If you are going to forfeit those responsibilities to society then you are going to also forfeit some of the associated rights granted by society.

Counter counterpoint. Some rights absolutely should be. The fact that a person's vote can be taken away. Is the entire reason we have such sentencing disparity. It along with speech are two fundamental rights that shouldn't.

Your first argument is the phrase: my freedom ends where yours begins. That's perfectly good and acceptable. However, someone using drugs (which almost everyone uses, though some the government decided to target) does not interfere with anyone else's rights. A person who uses alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, Marijuana, cocaine, or whatever else does not necessarily effect anyone else. They should lose rights if it does, not matter the drug, but not for the use of whatever drug alone.

Should addicts be permitted to carry firearms? I don't think that is an unreasonable restriction.

A majority of Americans are addicted to caffeine, alcohol, and/or nicotine. Sure, addiction can be an issue. Addiction is not the issue though. Many people live perfectly healthy lives while addicted to drugs. It's an issue when it interferes with someone else and should be addressed then. Not every caffeine addict should lose their right to firearms (assuming it's a right, which I would posit the 2nd amendment does not actually say).

I do think that keeping guns out of easy, legal, access of active drug abusers is appropriate. But as you say, without a conviction, the scope of those restrictions should be narrow and appeal-able.

Considering that the form 4473 that you have to sign to purchase a firearm makes no mention of alcohol, I think this is hypocritical, at best. What's the difference between alcoholics owning a firearm, and heroin addicts owning a firearm? All I know is that I would be way less worried about the junkie gun owner than a raging alcoholic gun owner.

Its a dumb law, that was probably spawned from racism. Nobody should have their gun rights removed if they did not do or threaten anything violent.

I absolutely disagree with keeping guns away from drug users (edit: for using drugs alone). Almost every American has a drug addiction, to caffeine at a minimum. Drugs can be safely handled as well as firearms. I believe that courses should be required that include training on proper safety and storage of firearms before purchase though, which should include warning about handling a firearm while intoxicated.

I was drinking with friends one time a while ago and one of my close friends, who's in the navy, had his handgun with him. He didn't see an issue with getting drunk with his gun on him. Luckily we all convinced him to put it aside somewhere safe until he's sober, which he argued about but conceded. Why is it legal to use alcohol and have a firearm (and be in the military even) but not something like pot?

You should be considered for losing access to a firearm upon abusing that right by endangering someone or mishandling one. You shouldn't lose it because the government decided to target a certain segment of society to disarm.

Oh, I'm very, very familiar with what Reagan did as the governor of California. The Black Panthers were absolutely in the right to resist the abuses of power by the white establishment cops, and banning the open carrying of firearms was expressly intended to prevent their oversight of the police. Even the idea that drug abusers would be banned from owning firearms directly stems from trying to prevent minority groups from being armed.

But its all part of the grand kabuki theater of criminal justice in our country.

Indeed. If we really cared about criminal justice, we'd focus on prevention by correcting root causes, and using proven methods to reduce recidivism. But we do none of those things.

You can find instances of all of the above tried by various state and local courts in the US.

I'm definitely aware of cases of convicted felons having their parole conditioned on attending Christian religious services, and the FFRF sues the shit out of states--and wins!--when state do shit like that. But yes, states can and do use every tool at their disposal, legal or otherwise, to remove constitutionally guaranteed rights. And I think that's a huge problem regardless of which right it is.

Agree on all points. I'll go farther and say that we need to be working towards rehabilitating people, rather than just warehousing them. The way we handle felons now encourages recidivism.