A few questions

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

HelgeS

New member
Hi again,

I read a bunch of books and articles about the gun issue and a few questions come to mind:

a) Why is there all the discussion about non-pistols? I mean, the purpose of having a gun is to be able to defend yourself against a criminal. For that, all you need is a pistol. I mean, you don't need a submachine gun, rifle, bazooka or AT gun to fend of your average criminal, do you? Why not forbid all non-pistol weapons? Is there any reason not to?

b) Why is training such a big issue? Pretty much all other tools that allow you to harm others require training (cars, construction gear, scientific equipment, chemicals, etc). What's wrong with forcing people to make a "gun license", just like a driver license. Wouldn't that actually be GOOD? I mean, if everybody with a gun had the appropiate training then gun accidents would be drastically reduced and self defence would be much more succesful. The training could include theory (ballistics, first aid, self defence law) and practice (shooting range, first aid training, etc). Maybe the same duration as the driver license training. Is there any reason not to enforce such a thing?

These are the two things I failed to understand. I read a lot of stuff from people protesting against these things, but nobody ever gave any real argument against it...

cheers

Helge
 
Answer to both is the Second Amendment.

However since we have "decided", not to address the Second Amendment issue, these questions can't be answered without a really long drawn out argument about the nature of man, God, and goverment.

So if we you want to discuss these questions we need to open up the Second Amendment debate.

Oh and why aren't you writing me anymore?
 
What part of:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Do you not understand?

"(cars, construction gear, scientific equipment, chemicals, etc)." In most instances do not require formal training and in many instances do not even require licensing. Where license is required, then the operation is a priviledge and not a right.



------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
HelgeS, I disagree with almost everything reply and comment you have written. I wasn't going to post a reply to this.

Then, I noticed that this post only contained questions. I can give an answer, just notice, that the answers I give are free, and you get what you pay for.

1) Go shooting some time. Seriously.
Other then that, realise there is a thread here on TFL about Police now being armed with rifles, in addition to the previously used shotguns, and handguns.

2) Accidental death by firearm is a non-issue. There are more children killed accidental deaths by drowning in buckets then accidental shootings by firearms.

As far as I know, accidental deaths by automobile are 99%+ of the automobile deaths. Training, licensing, testing has done nothing to stop those deaths.

Shooting a firearm is not a difficult task. I let my 8 year old shoot. He is smart enough to remember the 4 rules. Just because others aren't, doesn't mean the right should be taken away from everyone else.

Sprig
 
Meiji,
I answered your last email, anwered the one from your friend as well. Then I got nothing back, so I assumed that you were still on your trip.

Rest:

Aha, the constitution again. But that's just a piece of paper with writing on it, right? I mean, the reasons I gave above are good solid reasons FOR licensing and training. Are there reasons against it? (reasons, not pieces of paper. "It reduces crime" is a reason, "it was always like this" is not a reason... or we wouldn't have any progress at all).

And which dangerous tool does not require training? Cars do, construction gear does, scientific equipment (dangerous one) does, chemicals do... which one doesn't?

give me reasons please...

thanks

helge
 
Sprig:

1) I know how to shot... was training to do it for a few years. But what does this have to do with the questions?

2) That depends on your definition of "accident". I am not only concerned about "mechnical" accidents (look into the barrel and it goes off), I am interested in all form of damage done by guns because they were not used right. This does include for example the "stop the threat, neutralize it, THEN kill it" "accident" (from the other thread). That is a crime, thus, it is something bad happening in conjunction with the presence of a gun. Something that could be prevented (or the number of those things could be reduced) with training.

3) I don't understand the automobile thing. The ONLY way to cause damage with an automobile is if an "accident" happens. Thus, of course, the "accident" rate is 100%. But that's a meaningless statistic, right? The correct statistics would be: How many car accidents happen per year in a country with good driver training VERSUS How many car accidents happen per year in a country with no driver training
And I am 100% sure that there are more accidents in a country that has no training...

cheers

Helge
 
Helge,

Do you honor your right to an abortion? (If not replace abortion with speech/speak in what follows.)

Suppose that right were restricted to only *needed* abortions? Is there ever an absolute *need* for an abortion?

I really don't want to go to the topic of abortion. The topic is *rights*. A right is yours without let, hinderance or question. Restricting a right based on need is a *wrong*.

There are also incorrect assumptions underlying your questions. That guns are *only* for protection from crime; and that only handguns are useful for this purpose.

We can handle training later.

Bentley

“[The right to bear arms] has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic."
-- Justice Story, 3 J. Story, Commentaries §1890, p. 746 (1833).
 
Okay.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>a) Why is there all the discussion about non-pistols? I mean, the purpose of having a gun is to be able to defend yourself against a criminal. For that, all you need is a pistol. I mean, you don't need a submachine gun, rifle, bazooka or AT gun to fend of your average criminal, do you? Why not forbid all non-pistol weapons? Is there any reason not to?[/quote]

Self-defense is only one use of a firearm. I, personally, find it difficult to hunt deer, dove or clay pigeons with a pistol.

Having chased more than my fair share of critters, the only time you'll find me facing a criminal when I'm armed with only a pistol, is when I couldn't get to my shotgun or rifle.

Submachine guns, bazookas and antitank weapons were licensed by the Gun Control Act of 1968, and are now 'forbidden'.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Why is training such a big issue? Pretty much all other tools that allow you to harm others require training (cars, construction gear, scientific equipment, chemicals, etc). What's wrong with forcing people to make a "gun license", just like a driver license. Wouldn't that actually be GOOD? I mean, if everybody with a gun had the appropiate training then gun accidents would be drastically reduced and self defence would be much more succesful. The training could include theory (ballistics, first aid, self defence law) and practice (shooting range, first aid training, etc). Maybe the same duration as the driver license training. Is there any reason not to enforce such a thing?[/quote]

Because wherever the Government has decided to license weapons, the Government winds up taking away those weapons.

If the Government were to mandate training for everybody, say, in High School (like they do for Drivers Licenses), then I would have no objections.

This way, the Government would only know that the entire population has the training. If only those who desire to keep and bear arms were to take the training, then the Government has a list of everyone who owns a weapon. Once they have a list, like they did in California and New York City, they start taking the weapons away.

Besides, if everyone has the training, wouldn't it be that much safer?

LawDog



[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited July 27, 2000).]
 
Helge
In most places a person does not require formal training to operate an automobile, a backhoe, a tractor, a laser etc etc. One can be totaly self taught or learn from a friend or relative. Even some aircraft fall within this scope. Even in the jurisdictions where a license is required, most do not require training; just the payment of a tax and passage of a token exam.

Can you argue for the training and licensing of lawnmower operators? They are a significant maimer and killer of children.

Yes the second is a part of a piece of paper. That piece of paper is a contract. That contract is still in force and has yet to be renegotiated. Those who would violate the tenants of that contract do so in violation of the law of the land.

The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic. The citizens of that Republic are Freemen, unlike the residents of many other countries whose existance is at the whim of the party or ruler in power and subject to alteration with every change in the national politics.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
Why would somebody who doesn't want a gun be required to make a training course for it? You don't need to make a driver license if you don't want to drive a car.

As for the "then the government takes the guns away", well, why would they want to do that? It is not like I endanger my car and have to be afraid every day that the government takes it away just because I have a driver license...

But if that's really such a big deal, well, you could offer the mandatory training courses on a private basis. Then an institute would issue the "certificate" and a watermark or some such would proof the authenticy of it. No need to register the names of the folks who took the course.

Abortion:
I am not sure what you are talking about. Abortion has no potential to harm anybody. But lets say I have the right for free speech. Well, I am happy that the government requires me to make those free speeches such that they do not infringe on the rights of others. Why? Because that also means that nobody else can infringe on MY rights in their speeches.
Same with guns. I would be happy to do the training, simply because it means that all the other gun people will have that training too.. thus, I am saver when I walk down the street.

The 2nd:
""The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed""

A gun training would not infringe. Everybody has the right to own a gun, they just have to make the gun training first. It is not like anybody cannot get a gun. I mean, everybody has the right to be heard by a lawyer. Yet, it is commonly accepted that you have to wait a few hours to allow the lawyer to drive to the jail. Same here. Why is it not commonly accepted that certain necessities have to be met in order to smoothen the process?

Guns:
what else are guns for? crime prevention... anything else? Oh, well, there is hunting and sport. Ok, I will let that one count. So allow hunting rifles. Nobody goes hunting with an Uzi or a Bazooka, right? (at least not where I am from... heard that there are really big deer in Texas...)

Handling of dangerous tools:
I haven't been to a european country yet that gives you any of the things you listed without a training course of some kind. I had to go through 40 hours of theory and 60 hours of driving practice with a driving instructor to get my driving license (which I could first get when I was 18). Result: I am a good driver. Overall Result: There are a lot less car accidents in the country, despite the lack of speed limits on the high ways. That can only be good, can it? I mean, less accidents, less dead people... isn't that what we all want?
To operate the high power laser here in my laboratory every of my assistants had to take a course. A tractor requires a driving license (see above).

cheers

Helge
 
Interesting.........I have driven in seven European countries on the highways and streets, raced motorcycles in six of them. Have held FIM and FIA driving licenses. Before ever taking a formal driving course. Distinctly remember speed limits nearly everywhere except some stretches of autobahn. Also distinctly remember instances of great carnage resulting from so called trained drivers overdriving their capabilities on the autobahn.

I learned to drive and shoot from my parents, my children learned from me, my grandchildren are learning from my children. So far there has not been an unintentional shooting in my family.

In a free society, the citizen should be responsible for their actions. In your elitist world, the government rules the actions of the residents, thereby removing some of the responsibility and nearly all of the thinking required of the people.

My elders fled the oppression upon their homeland of Scotland by the royals. Many came to America to be free. Some were scientists, some were warriors, some were bums; but all were free to be all that they would be.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HelgeS:
Why would somebody who doesn't want a gun be required to make a training course for it? You don't need to make a driver license if you don't want to drive a car.[/quote]

Off the cuff, this would be equivalant to requiring military service in order to vote. It shows a certain degree of involvement and responsibility in order to take advantages of the benifits offered in a free society.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>As for the "then the government takes the guns away", well, why would they want to do that? It is not like I endanger my car and have to be afraid every day that the government takes it away just because I have a driver license...[/quote]

"They" would want to do that in order to consolidate the power of force within their sphere of influence. Any force not under their control is a threat to their control. They "grant" a certain limited amount back to the people (an acceptable threat level) in order to placate them.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>But if that's really such a big deal, well, you could offer the mandatory training courses on a private basis. Then an institute would issue the "certificate" and a watermark or some such would proof the authenticy of it. No need to register the names of the folks who took the course.[/quote]

Any mandatory training would have governmental oversight and control. It would not matter how many private insitutions were involved. They results would still be "mandatory" by government.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Abortion:[/quote]

I'll leave that one alone...

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The 2nd:
""The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed""

A gun training would not infringe. Everybody has the right to own a gun, they just have to make the gun training first...[/quote]

It would if it were mandated by government. True freedom accepts certain risks. This involves personal responsibility, something that is sorely lacking in today's society.

Unfortunately with this lack comes the overwhelming government involvement in its ineffective effort to "solve the problem". It doesn't work; the government is made up of those very same people.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Guns:
what else are guns for? crime prevention... anything else? Oh, well, there is hunting and sport. Ok, I will let that one count. So allow hunting rifles. Nobody goes hunting with an Uzi or a Bazooka, right? (at least not where I am from... heard that there are really big deer in Texas...)[/quote]

You really need a history primer, don't you? Or you still don't get it.

Listen this time, okay?

Guns serve many functions. (this list is NOT exhaustive)<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>First and foremost, they serve as a deterent to government abuses. Without an equivalant force (this would mean bazookas and the like) in the hands of a free people, the government would have only the integrity of the elected to protect them from governmental abuses. That's like asking the fox to guard the chicken house. Granted, private gun ownership has not stopped our government in some high profile cases, but I believe that is because of the lack of moral integrity and generational brain washing that has reversed the role of government that was originally set up at the founding of this country. Remember, the government is to be our servant, but that role has radically reversed in the last generation or two.

<LI>Guns are used for self defense,

<LI>Guns are used for hunting,

<LI>and lastly, guns are used for sport.

</UL>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Aha, the constitution again. But that's just a piece of paper with writing on it, right? I mean, the reasons I gave above are good solid reasons FOR licensing and training. Are there reasons against it? (reasons, not pieces of paper. "It reduces crime" is a reason, "it was always like this" is not a reason... or we wouldn't have any progress at all).
[/quote]

My first reaction to this statement?

"Well HelgeS, your post is nothing but flying electrons, so there's nothing solid to it. And if your reasons were all that solid we would not be having this debate, now would we."

We can not have this conversation without the Constitution. Why? Because that "piece of paper", as well as the Declaration of Independence (Oh, yes. Another "piece of paper") contains the very reasons that we are opposed to mandatory training, IF it involves that that training take place BEFORE you are "allowed" to own a gun.

As was already explained to you, the Constitution is a contract between the government and the people on HOW the government is to govern and in what areas it has authority to govern. Outside of its contractual boundries the power goes to the people and to the states.

"Progress" is not always that. Many times "progress" is a reversal that has been misdiagnosed.

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com

[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited July 27, 2000).]
 
Licensing is something that is granted by the state, they can take it away just as easy as they can grant it. Therefore it becomes a privelege not a right.

Why would they want to ban guns, Well maybe you should ask the california politicians why there is a long list of guns banned in this state.

Dont forget that just because you have a drivers license that they cant take it away if they decide to.

Your "The ONLY way to cause damage with an automobile is if an "accident" happens. " You forget that some of these "accidents" are intentional. Like the dead kids in so cal who were crushed under some guys cadillac who decided to ram a day-care center. I think the parents of those dead kids would disagree with your statement.

Helges you need to wake up, it's very sad reading your distorted point of view. I doubt that you honestly believe such non sense and that you do it purely to rile up some of the members on this forum. I will give you that, you do a good job of it.

Ciao.

------------------
The beauty of the second Amendment is that it is not needed until they try to take it. T JEFFERSON

Do you really think that we want those laws to be observed? We want them broken. We're after power and we mean it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breakings laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted-and you create a nation of law breakers--and then you cash in on guilt.

A RAND
 
"Aha, the constitution again. But that's just a piece of paper with writing on it, right? I mean, the reasons I gave above are good solid reasons FOR licensing and training. Are there reasons against it? (reasons, not pieces of paper. "It reduces crime" is a reason, "it was always like this" is not a reason... or we wouldn't have any progress at all)."

Helges, ALL laws are just pieces of paper with writing on them. The Constitution, including the 2nd amendment, is a law. In fact, the highest law of the land.

If the government doesn't obey the laws which apply to it, what moral standing does it have to demand that we citizens obey the laws it passes? Especially in cases such as we're discussing here, where we, the subjects of those laws, regard them as morally and legally illegitimate?

Is the rule of law only for the ruled, and not for the lawmakers?



------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Let me try and explain this in the most simple terms I can. Life is the most precious thing we have. No one has the right to take another’s life, unless in self defense or capital crimes committed. From this we get the right of self defense. The first law of nature is that each living creature has the right to defend their own life by any and all means available to them. For humans it just so happens that firearms are the best means of defense available. Self defense both from individuals and governments. Yes governments sometimes do try and take life from others outside of the law.

Now taking this basic premise and carrying it forward….. No one can have the right to deny others their right and the means to defend themselves. If the power to deny the basic right of self defense is available then the right itself is useless. No one individual or group of individuals (being human with normal prejudices) has the capacity to make that decision. Who has the right to say that this person shall be able to defend themselves and this person can not? Which life in this case is more valuable? Is one life more valuable than other? By who’s standards?

This is the problem that I have with most of your questions and proposals…. When ever you put in a law, such as mandatory training, or gun licensing, etc. you place the decision of the right to self defense and thus the right to life in the hands of an individual. Someone has to approve that gun license. Someone has to say that you completed that training course. What if that person does not like you? Can they not say that you flunked that training course and thereby deny you the best means of self defense? Can they not deny you the gun license? If you look at history, you will see that these are only tools to control and deny others their rights. For example the black codes in the south. At times there were reading requirements before one could vote. Everyone was required to take a test to determine if they could read. Of course whites did not have to take the test. They were assumed by the person giving the test that they could pass it. Blacks on the other hand, never could pass it. See the person giving the test, if the Black could read, was given a foreign newspaper to read.

I don’t know about you, but my life and the life of my loved ones are to valuable to me to trust someone to determine if I can have the means of defense. To me this is the same as giving them the power to determine if I have the right to life.

This is the basic principal upon which the 2nd amendment was written…. As a warning to our government that we the people retain the right of self defense and do not delegate that power.

"Resistance to sudden violence, for the reservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."
--- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851).
 
HelgeS: "a) Why is there all the discussion about non-pistols? I mean, the purpose of having a gun is to be able to defend yourself against a criminal. For that, all you need is a pistol. I mean, you don't need a submachine gun, rifle, bazooka or AT gun to fend of your average criminal, do you? Why not forbid all non-pistol weapons? Is there any reason not to?"

Self-defense is ONE of the reasons to own a gun. People own a gun for recreation, professional reasons, hunting, etc. Have you ever tried to shoot a flying bird with a pistol? Different firearms are task specific - just like there are different types of hammers and wrenchs. There is a fundamental reason to not forbid ownership of ANY kind of firearm and that is because it treads heavily on the right of the individual.

HelgeS: "b) Why is training such a big issue? Pretty much all other tools that allow you to harm others require training (cars, construction gear, scientific equipment, chemicals, etc). What's wrong with forcing people to make a "gun license", just like a driver license. Wouldn't that actually be GOOD? I mean, if everybody with a gun had the appropiate training then gun accidents would be drastically reduced and self defence would be much more succesful. The training could include theory (ballistics, first aid, self defence law) and practice (shooting range, first aid training, etc). Maybe the same duration as the driver license training. Is there any reason not to enforce such a thing?"

Yes, because once the right can be licensed it can be taken away. For examples see Washington D.C. and Chicago (although there are many others). Both cities effectively banned gun ownership simply by refusing to issue any new licenses. The process can also be abused at the local level - ask anyone living in a "may-issue" state where local law enforcement decides who can carry concealed. There concealed-carry permits are used as a fund-raiser. Need is irrelevant. It effectively creates an unjust system where rights are limited to the elite.

I would happily agree to mandatory firearm training; but only if it was required for EVERYONE as part of the standard school curriculum.
 
I wasn't gonna get into this one, but here goes anyway.

Helge's mind is an example of someone who grew up in a country where the paradigm of an absolute right is something totally alien.

He doesn't seem to grasp the concept of God-given right. Not because he is stupid, ignorant or pig-headed; just because he has no concept of it. In his country, Government is the Father figure to whom you have to ask permission to do the simplest of things, pay a fee or do a "chore" for it, and then enjoy your "granted right" in an orderly, hopefully good-citizenly fashion until it pleases Big Daddy to change his mind and take the toy away from you again.

You have to convince Daddy that anything you want to do, own, say, drive, plant, earn, build or handle is something you absolutely "need". Hence his overly-creative and painfully overly-intellectual attitude towards life. In America, it's simple: a right is a right, no whys ifs or buts. In Germany (whence I presume our friend hails from), in order to demonstrate a "need," you have to talk about the semantics of the Holy Scriptures' different translations, about the statistic incidence of predatorial instinct among carnivore species, the relative anthropological merits of fleeing vs fighting back, the philosophical value of "all life" (hopefully quoting as much Kierkegaard, Leibnitz, Kant, Espinoza and Plato as you can), and, if you can throw it in as a bonus, even the question of the Universe's finiteness versus relativity - just to intellectualize it a bit more.

I am reminded of a dear friend from college (and TFL member)..... When confronted with a person of foreign extraction who was doggedly adverse to the most basic American values and was trying to engage him in a highly-philosophical verbal duel.....

He would casually shrug, take a thoughtful, long sip of a 7-eleven slurpee and candidly ask:

"So, wh'the heck d'you come 'ere for?....."

------------------
Private gun ownership is the capital sin in the left's godless religion. Crime is merely a venial mistake.

Check out these gals: www.sas-aim.org

Get some real news at www.worldnetdaily.com


[This message has been edited by 416Rigby (edited July 27, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HelgeS:
Hi again,

I read a bunch of books and articles about the gun issue and a few questions come to mind:

a) Why is there all the discussion about non-pistols? I mean, the purpose of having a gun is to be able to defend yourself against a criminal. For that, all you need is a pistol. I mean, you don't need a submachine gun, rifle, bazooka or AT gun to fend of your average criminal, do you? Why not forbid all non-pistol weapons? Is there any reason not to?[/quote]

Each type of gun has its purpose. A rifle is used for hunting and longer range defensive; shotgun has other uses. These weapons are used for target shooting, plinking, etc. A pistol can be used for close range defensive work or hunting, etc.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
b) Why is training such a big issue? Pretty much all other tools that allow you to harm others require training (cars, construction gear, scientific equipment, chemicals, etc). What's wrong with forcing people to make a "gun license", just like a driver license. Wouldn't that actually be GOOD? I mean, if everybody with a gun had the appropiate training then gun accidents would be drastically reduced and self defence would be much more succesful. The training could include theory (ballistics, first aid, self defence law) and practice (shooting range, first aid training, etc). Maybe the same duration as the driver license training. Is there any reason not to enforce such a thing?
[/quote]

Training is always a good thing. It makes you more proficient with the tools, and it's generally fun. Requiring a license for a gun negates the fact that gun ownership and the ability to 'bear' them are rights. Driving your car is not a right mentioned directly in the Constitution, but RKBA is. As soon as guns become registered and owners licensed you'll know that RKBA is gone.
 
HelgeS,

You ask for reasons and quite a few of the TFL members have given you good, sound reasons. I am surprised that no one has yet been this blunt about it: we discuss non-pistols because those are the tools that government oppression are fought with. People have mistakenly allowed the idea to circulate that the 2nd is about hunting and sport. It's not. The 2nd is about war. Plain and simple. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The founding fathers didn't specify hunting or sport, they specified "the security of a free state". They didn't have any problem with the people owning weapons of war, such as submachine guns or bazookas...canons were the heavy artillery of the day back then and many were privately owned. This is what the founding fathers wanted...private ownership of weapons of war so that in the event of war, the militia (aka the people) would be able to defend their "free state".

And training? You keep talking about cars or construction gear. Lets talk about little and personal gun-sized articles. Power drills, chainsaws, lawn edgers, lawn mowers, chlorine, muratic acid, drain cleaner, etc. Each one of those things is readily available to me from my garage or under the kitchen sink. Each is potentially lethal and I don't have to have anyone's "license" to use them. Each one of those items causes irresponsible users pain, injury and even death every year...Tell me, should I be required to get a license to clean the pool deck or unclog my drain???

QUOTE: That is a crime, thus, it is something bad happening in conjunction with the presence of a gun. Something that could be prevented(or the number of those things could be reduced) with training.

HelgeS, I ask you, do you really believe that if we require a whole lot of training that criminals will stop comitting crimes?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top