More stringent Qualification for Permits

[Guardian]

So you support the Second Amendment but not the First.

Hello! It is a message board open to anyone (as long as they obey the rules)! Not just people that think your way!

Good point here. The way it should be is that I disagree with your assessment of the situation and that's it. You have your right to say it and I have my right to disagree with it. Have a great day.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[21bubba]

Very good question!

With every right or liberty, there is the flip side of responsibility. You can't have one without the other. For instance, a violent mugger has shown that he can not handle the responsibility that goes along with the right to keep and bear arms. He has surrendered his basic rights by the act of violating someone else's.

A child, on the other hand, is not capable of taking on the responsibility of many basic rights. He has not yet developed an understanding of other people's inviolate rights; He only understands his own! He may not even understand the finality of death.

So, without the responsibility, there can be no right.

As to how to determine what is the magical age of ascension to full and complete liberties, I have no idea.

You sir have made the most accurate and definitive post I have ever read on this or any forum I belong too. Thank you.

With you permission I would like to use the sentence "without responsibility there can be no right" in the future.

[DaveH]

You sir have made the most accurate and definitive post I have ever read on this or any forum I belong too. Thank you.

With you permission I would like to use the sentence "without responsibility there can be no right" in the future.

+1

[sleepyhead]

You sir have made the most accurate and definitive post I have ever read on this or any forum I belong too. Thank you.

With you permission I would like to use the sentence "without responsibility there can be no right" in the future.

Thanks for the kind words.

I feel silly saying it, but permission granted. :) It's worth every penny you paid for it!

[roge]

(P-1) I've always beleived that when laws are introduced and adopted, it has been for the best interest of the majority of citizens in Nation. And when requirements are impossed on rights and privileges to protect from harm I've always complied. Requiring training and tests on subjects like Driving, Flying, CCW, etc. etc that may affet the safety of others seems like common sense. A license may not save lives, but it implies some knowledge of training,though minimal, but enough to gain trust to share space.

[dsee11789]

I think there should be more stringent qualifications in the Safe Handling / Accuracy Area.

But I also don't like restrictions being put in place and neither do most of us.

Which is kind of the problem.

We want complete fiream freedom and they want complete firearm banishment.

Neither side is willing to compromise.

[roge]

(P-2)I think requiring some extent of training and basic knowledge should be acceptable on issues that could concern the safety and some piece of mind of those who are close to us. Any license required by Govvernment, though may infringe our rights, certifies a completion of basic knowledge on do's and dont's. Its really Society who has who set the rules of Democracy and regardless of individual rights and privileges, we join majority or become resentful minority. Ride,Fly,CCW w/o license= unsafe IMHO.

[DaveH]

(P-1) I've always beleived that when laws are introduced and adopted, it has been for the best interest of the majority of citizens in Nation.

WOW

I agree it should be.

But are??? WOW

[SIGguy229]

I think it would be a good idea to make people pass the test using the weapon they plan on carrying. We had 9 people in my class and everyone in the class used a .22 target pistol except for myself and one other lady (that didn't even know how to operate it). Out of the nine there were only two that I wouldn't be afraid to be around if they had a gun. I grew up around guns and you can tell if someone has ever had one in his hand.

Most of the people got the majority of the 20 shots in the target but there is "NO" way that if they were using something with recoil that they could have passed. Especially in a dangerous situation.

Again...bad idea. Training should be recommended, encouraged--NOT required by the government. While it may be a good idea, the government will find a way to make it difficult or misinterpret the original intent (e.g. 2A).

[SIGguy229]

I wouldn't have told him that he shouldn't anyways. I never met him and don't know anything about him. I sometimes get stuck in the Grey area of thinking.

Kind of like two months ago the 16 year old in front of me on the highway that is swerving and driving slow because they are texting should probably not be doing that but our state has since outlawed it and I think it is great that I can still do it but I realize that the same situation probably happended to some lawmaker in Missouri and that eventually he will get behind a 43 year old doing the same thing and then I will lose my right too!

Laws always seem like good ideas as long as they apply to other people but once they affect you it is a different story.

But wait...this 16 yr old driver was trained, and licensed by the state...and he still did something wrong? How can that be? He was trained and had a piece of paper from the state to prove it. Yet....he was still driving improperly? I don't believe it...