Good point, and you couldn't come up with the manpower to staff annual driving tests for every driver!!Quote:
Originally Posted by AutoFan
Good point, and you couldn't come up with the manpower to staff annual driving tests for every driver!!Quote:
Originally Posted by AutoFan
We already have those requirements here in Texas, only it's every four years instead of one, like a drivers license. Aside from being so %@&@#*!expensive (($125 first time, $70 if you're a senior or a renewal plus cost of the class which runs from $25-$100 depending on location), most here agree it's a good plan.
"An armed society is a polite society." We have surrendered and abrogated so much of the previously mentioned "personal responsibility", that we are faced with the proverbial Catch 22:
Firearm "practitioners"(for that is truly what you are, if you live with true armament awareness) are an ever decreasing minority. Even those, like the gentleman in Tacoma, that carry may be grossly ill-prepared for "real life, raw, red, and in-your-face", and our society continues to marginalize those that seek/exhibit that degree of preparation. All that to say, yes, there are legally armed idiots, but further restrictions are unnecessary- prosecute stupidity and criminality.
Originally Posted by Phil Elmore
WHOA UP, guys! Nothing taken as a flame or even uncivil! I knew these were hot-bed issues when I posted ‘em. But do re-read my initial post - you'll notice the word "hypothetical" - These are not necessarily my beliefs. My purpose in asking these questions here was, I suppose in a way, a complement to the character of this site and its members. These issues are so partisan that I knew the first cursory glance at the post would push the auto-response button for some folks and get their keyboards humming.Quote:
Originally Posted by FrontSight
These are long-standing, and again heavily partisan issues, not only between pro- and anti-gunners, but even among those within the latter category. Without exception that I can recall, threads posting these questions very quickly turn into a litany of lengthy diatribes about the intent of the Founders, the nature of the 2nd Amendment, and the fact - yes, the fact - that if gun-controllers are given an inch, we at the very least will never get that inch back, and at most (which unfortunately is the usual situation) the inch is taken and turned into a mile that was not intended.
The reason I posted these hot-button propositions here is really a complement to this forum and its members. I have found here an absolutely uniquely high level of ability AND WILLINGNESS to discuss even touchy topics in a more controlled and cerebral manner than I have found on other boards, and I had hoped that those facts would show up in reply posts with thoughts that are a little deeper than the standard ones. I wasn’t disappointed; the responses have been thought-provoking in some case and in others, at least lively!
So, now I’ll step up to the plate and give you my own opinion. This may rile some feathers, and it may not. But, here's my take: I believe that everyone has the right, simply by virtue of being a human being on this earth, to protect himself and his property in any way commensurate with the level of the threat he faces. I do not think that this right cannot, or should not, be regulated to some extent. The first rub, though, is that it’s difficult if not impossible to define the specific thing being regulated because it often an intangible and the intangibles are not even constant. Second, most attempts at regulation end up being applied much more broadly and invasively than was needed to address the specific matter being regulated. So, what does it come down to? Is the issue one of cost / benefit? “What’s worse – having untrained folks out there carrying loaded weapons where my wife and kids are shopping, or allow anti-gunners another foothold to continue what seems at time to be an inexorable change of citizens into subjects?”
I do think that conviction for certain violent crimes should result in the loss of the right to possess firearms. I also believe that those who are mentally unable to be responsible with them should not have them. How that should be accomplished is, I think, less clear, and it becomes even less clear the more detailed the issue being addressed.
As for the first statement in my initial post, I believe that part of my duty to protect myself and my children includes being sure that a person who would handle firearms around them does so in a safe and competent manner. At the hunting camp or the range, that's easy to do - I already KNOW the folks there are armed, and I am physically there to closely monitor what's going on. I don’t have those luxuries in the mall. The best case would be if everyone who wanted to carry voluntarily trained in the basics, but they’re obviously not going to do that, and I so I would like everyone who is going to carry a loaded weapon around my kids when I am not present to prove to me first that they know how to do so safely. I can’t do that – I have to rely on the government to do that. I don’t like relying on the government to do that, but there is no other practical, or heck even feasible, option. The NRA Basic course does that. I see it as no different than asking someone who has never hunted to pass a basic hunter-safety course before doing so.
As for the second statement in my initial post, I do not believe that continuing education of the sort I mentioned should be required. Why? Because for me it IS a cost/benefit thing, and in my opinion (and I know this is a generality), I believe that most folks who go to the trouble to satisfy the license requirements in their jurisdictions and get licensed are, by requirement, law-abiding members of the public and therefore must have at least a modicum of common sense.
So, my bottom-line opinions are that I believe that licensing is a good thing to the extent governmental involvement is kept strictly narrow, and that passing a basic NRA course as a requirement is also a good thing. I do not advocate requiring any more hoops to jump through than that.
It seems that my exercise in posting this thread has been a success. Some of the posts have jumped into the common patterns, but a few are what I was looking for. Examples include points made about personal responsibility, having a bureaucrats make the decisions, the potential cost-prohibitive effect of continuing education requirements.
I especially enjoyed Scott's post, "I don't believe there should be a permit system period. I believe that the framers would not support permits. I do believe that the framers did support people pursuing training with arms." From my own standpoint, this was the most unique and refreshing idea I have seen yet - as citizens, we ARE the militia and, therefore, it makes perfect sense that the Framers would expect that we would train. GREAT point!
Neat stuff. Enjoyed it.
I hate to be the one to break the news and I'm sure you know it by now, but you got yourself smack in the middle of a no win situation with this thread!
Guns and gun control in any form seems to get three main reactions. One is the hardcore "no restrictions at all because it's my right, by God ". Then there's the opposite group, just as hardcore, that want an outright ban on all civilian owned guns - except maybe their own. Finally, there's a third group that most of us probably fall into. We realize there need to be some controls and restrictions, but only the minimum needed to keep to keep our society reasonably safe and anarchy free .
We seem to be a "silent majority" most of the time, with the other two groups shouting at us "'if you're not with us you're against us" (does that sound familiar??). Their view seems to be total war, all or nothing, no compromise and no prisoners taken. My opinion is that there are times when you have to give a little to get something in return.
As for the right own and carry a gun being "God given", I don't believe I've read anywhere in the Bible where God mentions guns and who can own one. The right to keep and bear arms is stated in the U.S. constitution, which was written by men, for men. What man gives, man can also take away. All it takes is an amendment to the constitution to do it. We need to be watching what our PC, which way is the wind blowing today, what does the latest poll say politicians are up to rather than quibble and argue over the price of a training class or being asked to sit few a few hours of training every few years. So you can’t afford a training class or license because it may mean a box or two less of ammo or you might miss a football game on TV by going to class? When our “public servants” manage to slip by us the next gun control law while we’re infighting about how much is too much or preaching to the choir that if we “give ‘em an inch they’ll take a mile”, let‘s all look in the mirror when we need someone to blame.
What other Right do you and I have to apply for a permit for? What other right requires testing prior to you being allowed to exercise it?Quote:
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Do the people of Vermont and Alaska shoot each other at a higher rate than people in Illinois and New Hampsire?
Is any law going to keep criminals from carrying concealed weapons?
Should I be required to take an government mandated test before being allowed to write, assemble, protest, or run for office?
The term 'Slippery Slope' may be simplistic, but it's appropriate.Quote:
verb infringed, infringing
1. To break or violate (eg a law or oath).
Example: You are infringing the copyright by using that material
Thesaurus: violate, break, infract.intr
2. To encroach or trespass; to affect (a person's rights, freedom, etc) in such a way as to limit or reduce them.
Thesaurus: encroach, intrude, transgress, overstep, trespass, violate.
Form: infringe on something (especially)
Form: infringe upon something3. To interfere with (a person's rights).
If the rights recognized by the constitution are inalienable, and the right to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed, how can testing or certification be permissible? If a person doesn't pass the test, you would take their rights away... without due process, right? Wasn't this tried before? I recall reading about a Poll test being given to voters some years back. Must have seemed reasonable at the time.Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights
A victimless gun crime isn't a crime at all. Nobody is recommending that we take away the ability to prosecute people who commit a crime, even the crime of negligence.
Does that mean that I want my wife or children shot by someone who doesn't know how to handle a weapon, but chooses to carry one anyway? Of course not! Am I willing to deny myself a constitutionally protected right to lower the already tiny chances of something like this happening? No way!
I'm all for training. CCW without proper training is stupid. Making stupidity illegal is even more so.
Sorry about the long rant, you touched a nerve on this one.
You beat me to it, Jon!
My main argument against such measures is the fact that I just don't want to do it! Others have already made the point very clear that RIGHTS are not to be treated as privileges. For the time being, I don't need a permit to buy a pencil or use this keyboard to express my opinion, or a permit to sit in Zazen/chant the sutras, etc, so why do I need it to defend my life?Quote:
I'd like to know what folks here would argue in response to the following hypothetical beliefs
But practically speakng, I like the "Officially Certified Good Guy" aspect of a permit/licensing system. Perhaps a good compromise between the "It's my right" and the "Make sure CCW'ers are trained/competent" school of thought would be a system of greatly reduced liability and enhanced authority/legal protection to intervene for CCW people... Joe Blow would still be able to defend himself but would held to current strict liablity standards for his actions, whereas Gweneth Gunbunny CCW holder would have more latitude in drawing down on the punks she catches vandalizing her dog groomer's sister's neighbor's grandma's house!!
Or something like that...off to bed with me....
Sounds like you need to do some more reading on the subject :) I highly recommed anything by Larry Pratt.Quote:
I don't believe I've read anywhere in the Bible where God mentions guns and who can own one.
Judges 5:8, the time of Deborah and Jael, the people forsook God, and they were, therefore, disarmed and oppressed
I Samuel 13:19,22 Israel was captive to the Philistines, and disarmed
Luke 11:21-22 first you take their weapons, then you take their goods
Proverbs 25:26 A righteous man who falters before the wicked is like a murky spring and a polluted well.
Nehemiah 4:17-18 Those who built on the wall, and those who carried burdens loaded themselves so that with one hand they worked at construction, and with the other held a weapon. Every one of the builders had his sword girded at his side as he built.
This may sound strange coming from someone who makes an occasional buck from teaching CCW classes and NRA First Steps classes here in Minnesota but I believe in the Vermont method. If you can legally own a gun, you can legally carry one. No permit with a lot of useless restrictions or requirments for citizens to jump through. This doesn't mean that I don't advocate education in both how to handle and shoot a gun safely and properly, and in the laws pertaining to self protection. I just feel that the constitution didn't say anthing about permits and if you involve the government you get high expence and low quality. Look at what they've done about arming pilots.
Hehe, it's worse than you may think- you need a license for protest (Right to Free Assembly, Redress of Grievances,and Free Speech), and if it passes, there is a bill requiring radio and television stations to give free air time for rebuttal of editorial statements. No voice but the voice of the people in charge. Cabbage soup and black bread, anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmidkiff
Nope. Again, check my initial post -Quote:
Originally Posted by rachilders
... hypothetical ...
Close. You almost got it all, but you'll have to go a bit deeper to nail it. The right to keep and bear is, in fact, referred to in the Constitution as you suggest. And, yes, the Constitution was written by men for men as you also suggest. But, what your post suggests you may not realize the Constitution did not create the right - it only recognized it as pre-existing, and then addressed it only in the context of protecting it from governmental infringement.Quote:
Originally Posted by rachilders
A premise taken as a given by the Framers was something Jefferson and the other guys meant by "inalienable rights" - the notion that we have certain rights not because the government gives them to us, but simply by virtue of being living human beings. If you subscribe to that school of thought - that our inalienable rights do not come to us by anything earthly, then they can only be God-given (if you believe in God, of course).
So, the parts you missed were that God gave us certain rights, not the Constitution, and that our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, recognizes, depends on and, in fact seeks to protect these rights, not create them. In that way, I'm saying that our 2nd Amendment Rights are God-given. I hope that explains it, because I'd hate for you to waste time continuing to search the Bible for direct references to gun control - not that you'd have too anyway; cmidkiff already got that part pretty well covered in his post.
The state of our rights is indeed bad, but you still don't need a license to protest (yet).Quote:
you need a license for protest
You need one to orginize a protest on public property, but I can protest all by myself all I want, and I can gather as many people as I want on private property. Not that I agree that you shouldn't be able to protest on public property without a permit...
I don't see how they can require private broadcasters to offer equal time for opposing positions, but it's long been seen as fair to do so, and I think it's required on publicly funded stations.
Perhaps the reason that 2A supportors express a willingness to accept various levels of regulation (to be sure that people carrying guns around my family are competent) is because for several generations now we have been watching the whole concept of personal responsibility being eroded. We have watched the American people getting stupider and stupider. We know that there are people who shouldn't have/carry guns.
The problem with trying to keep them from having/carrying guns is similar to trying to "keep guns out of the hands of criminals"; regulate, to whatever degree, everyone's ability to have/carry guns. The end result is has several facets. First of all, the criminals always seem to be able to get around any such regulation. Second, fewer and fewer non-criminals have guns. Finally, the body of knowledge of safe, responsible gun posession is being concentrated in fewer and fewer people and is being replaced with stylized imitations based on the needs of Hollywood/Playstation marketing.
The end result is that we cannot trust people to be exercise the necessary responsibility and look to some outside standard to certifiy people as card-carrying good guys. However we must look at any law (oh how I hate to quote Lyndon Johnson) not in terms of the good it will do if correctly applied, but in terms of the damage it will do if incorrectly applied. And we know, from bitter experience, regulatory laws will always en up being misapplied.
While God does not mention guns (a rather specious argument, don't you think) he does mention arming yourself and defending yourself in several parts of the Bible.
In the preamble to the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution our founding fathers recognized that they were simply enumerating the rights granted to us by God.
When we abrogate the most basic of human rights, that of self preservation, we forfeit the very right to exist. If that is an "extreme" position, than I am an extreamist & will remain so.
And that's been the way of the world since guns and knives and swords have been invented.Quote:
We know that there are people who shouldn't have/carry guns.
The nature of law as we know it is designed to be reactive, not preventative, in the criminal arena - if you do something wrong, you get punished. You are not punished nor have rights taken away because you *might* do something.
I don't support taking guns away from people with a history of violent crime or those with mental illness - if those people are now safe to be on the street, they're safe enough to excercise their rights. I rather like the Old West approach of give 'em their guns back when they're released from jail you see occasionally, true or not, in the old Westerns.