ccw9mm

God didn't grant that. The framers of the U.S. Constitution did, though in acknowledgement as a "right" and something that preexisted. But, the granting of freedom of choice was done. The granting of choice to humans must allow that society's right to be free from unreasonable, uncontrollable misuse holds as much weight as one's right to defend one's self, particularly when such usage cannot be controlled and managed in a safe manner and directly puts everyone in range at risk of death. Hence, legal systems, which are in place to stop people at exactly that point where one "right" crosses the line and infringes on others' rights to freedom from such damages.

Using a pencil is one thing, as only the individual and others' views of him can be damaged. Using a knife is one thing. But a firearm is a distance weapon. It requires a measure of skill and control in order to avoid negligent usage, striking the proverbial three-year old child in the background, etc. It's much like using a 3500-lb car: each can damage others, if they cannot be properly controlled. IMO, at the point where one can no longer adequately control use of a deadly weapon, society's right to be free from harm supercedes one's right to walk around with that weapon ... car, firearm, or otherwise. Doesn't mean that someone cannot defend himself, but it does mean that doing so in such a manner that severely risks others must meet minimum standards of physical/mental ability. Can't control a firearm? Get a knife. Can't use a knife? Get OC/spray. Can't control any of those? You're up a creek and probably in need of some 24x7 care. Sad but true.

__________________
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Reports: CZ P01 pt1, pt2.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
Tip: Use the <search> feature.

Ron

I can see how my comments could be construed the way you construed them, but that was not my intent. I was responding to Mark's comments, in terms of the question I raised in my post, which is whether we reach a point where our ability to effectively use a weapon to protect ourselves and family has deteriorated to the point that we should voluntarily stop carrying, the emphasis being on voluntary. It was only in that context that I used the word "qualified."

Ron

Old_Painless

The Founding Fathers would be the first to tell you that you were 100% wrong.

They said, time and time again in their writings, that they did not "grant" any rights. They said that our rights are "unalienable", meaning "given by God", and that no government had the a legal authority to deny these rights.

The Bill of Rights does not "grant" rights. Instead, it tells the government that it cannot violate these rights. Notice the First, "Congress shall make no law..."

It restricts Congress, not me.

The Second says, "shall not be infringed", a limitation on Congress, not me.

My rights are "unalienable" rights.

hsuCowboy98

The Bill of Rights does not "grant" rights. Instead, it tells the government that it cannot violate these rights. Notice the First, "Congress shall make no law..."

It restricts Congress, not me.

+1

So long as the person who carries the weapon is mentally capable of doing so, their age should have no factor in them doing so.

__________________
Fear No Evil.

gimpy

The title of this thread will always stir strong feelings which will be motivated either by belief in one's rights, or those who fear that someone could abuse those rights. It is hard to compare the "right to bear arms" to something such as the "privilege of driving a motor vehicle", but I believe both situations require the exercise of common sense beyond looking at someone's chronological age. I have observed people who at age 80+ exhibited the alertness and responsiveness of someone half their age. Then again, I have observed others who in their sixties were dealing with infirmities brought on by genetic conditions beyond their control such as crippling arthritis, dementia, or God knows what else. I hope that each one of us can appreciate that fact and be blessed with the ability to self-determine when our capabilities no longer measure up to our desires.

__________________
"Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other. Its progress is only apparent, like the workers of a treadmill. It undergoes continual change; but this change is not [an improvement]. For everything that is given, something is taken."
Ralph Waldo Emerson

hsuCowboy98

I have observed people who at age 80+ exhibited the alertness and responsiveness of someone half their age.

I regularly play racquetball with a gentleman who is turning 82 in mere months....and I regularly get beat by him. (Im 22)

__________________
Fear No Evil.

ccw9mm

Tomatah, tomato. Not nitpicking over individual words. The point is, the BOR spelled it out; other writings indicated inborn rights were already there. Nothing mistaken.

At issue is: shall someone's apparent right to have no bounds? To my way of thinking, if someone cannot control the car, weapon, whatever, there should be limits to when/where that device may be used. (ie, got 20:800 vision? You've got no business carrying a firearm out in public. Nor driving a vehicle.) This point has zero to do with folks that can operate the device without problem. For those who would misconstrue these comments in that manner, don't do that.

__________________
Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
Reports: CZ P01 pt1, pt2.
Thoughts: Justifiable self defense.
Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
Tip: Use the <search> feature.