orionengnr
New member
"compelling public interests"
"it's for the children..."
same misdirection, different wording...
No.
"it's for the children..."
same misdirection, different wording...
No.
I haven't read the rest of the thread but so far I agree with this post.Would you support more involved mandatory handgun training classes if this set system would mean that all 50 states followed the same criteria and therefore offered CCW permits and recipricocity to all other states?
What I mean by "more involved" is making all people seeking a CCW permit attend a thourough 3 day course. Day one day would be safety and handling training. Day two would be mechanics, maintainence, accident prevention and legal/storage training. Then, finally, day three would be actual range/shooting qualification with emphasis on handling (no requirements on real accuracy).
The clases would have to be offered at a variety of times and people would have to given options as to when to take the course and be given a certain period of time to attend all three classes.
Once completing the class and passing a background check (which is the norm now) you would be issued a DL type hard picture ID that was good nationwide.
A lot of parents would fight that with a passion. The same way that no government employee has the authority to teach my child about sex that same government employee has no authority teaching my child about firearms. It's a decision that should be left solely up to the parent. If they want to raise their child believing that guns are evil and should all be destroyed then we have no business telling them otherwise.easyg &aashooter said it best make it happen in school
Yeah, so is preventing minors and mentally ill from purchasing guns as well as preventing everyone from keeping and bearing rocket launchers. There will always be an infringement. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean that it should be a free for all.Mandating how a person can keep or bear arms is an infringement on their right to keep and bear arms.
Yeah, so is preventing minors and mentally ill from purchasing guns as well as preventing everyone from keeping and bearing rocket launchers. There will always be an infringement. "Shall not be infringed" does not mean that it should be a free for all.
A lot of parents would fight that with a passion. The same way that no government employee has the authority to teach my child about sex that same government employee has no authority teaching my child about firearms. It's a decision that should be left solely up to the parent. If they want to raise their child believing that guns are evil and should all be destroyed then we have no business telling them otherwise.
And so do I but doing so requires being against the notion that the parent knows what's best for the child. I really don't know where I fall on that because I was taught about sex long before it ever came up in school. My parents were smart enough not to shield me away from the realities of nature and by 9 I could rattle off every part of the human reproductive system. I also knew what was going to happen to me during puberty (of course at the time I was certain that girls did indeed have cooties) and was shocked that my friends had no clue.See, and I think teaching kids safety is a compelling public interest. Both with guns (since we can't guarantee they'll never lay hands on one away from mom and dad, and bullets don't just kill idiots) and with sex (negative externalities from unwanted children, as well as spread of disease).
That was exactely the point. This was a hypothetical exercise. The hypothetical situation was "would you agree to mandatory safety training (which most states that issue CCW require to some degree already) IF it meant that all 50 states would do the same and honor all other states permits?"NO - because states that have reasonable permit systems are moving towards reciprocity. The states that have hard and fast antigun positions lor negative on shall issue permits like NY, CA, IL, MA, MD, DC (not a state and in the courts) would never accept such a mandate as they are against shall issue period.
Thus, I regard the proposal as not practical and too hypothetical. Sorry -
OK then show me where compelling public interest is mentioned in the constitution as a means of infringing on the rights of individulasI do believe there are compelling public interests involved
Also nothing in the constitution about mandatory indoctrination of school children into a specific mindset. Offering it in school would be acceptable, mandating it would not bemake it happen in school
As long as we are making ludicrous suggestions, they also call those things hanging off of my torso arms. Anyone think that the founders were protecing my right not to become an unwilling amputee?They do call them nuclear "arms," after all. Should I be able to go buy one of those at my local Wal-Mart
According to the constitution who else gets to be on the committee for the determination of compelling public interests.See, and I think teaching kids safety is a compelling public interest
Any body here ever have to show a need for a car or pass a moral character test to get a license?That's hilarious. Guliani says:
1. Handguns & Cars are completely analygous; we should treat them the same way with respect to licensing, and then
2. That we should register handguns, and that to possess a handgun, you must pass a written test, must demonstrate good moral character, and must show a need or reason to have one.
My suggestion was intentionally extreme, but you're being obtuse. "Arm" has multiple definitions. I'll quote you the two relevant ones, from the dictionary:As long as we are making ludicrous suggestions, they also call those things hanging off of my torso arms. Anyone think that the founders were protecing my right not to become an unwilling amputee?They do call them nuclear "arms," after all. Should I be able to go buy one of those at my local Wal-Mart?
arm
n 1: a human limb; technically the part of the superior limb
between the shoulder and the elbow but commonly used to
refer to the whole superior limb
2: instrument used in fighting or hunting; "he was licensed to
carry a weapon" [syn: weapon, weapon system]
What you describe is not victory but a redsignation to defeatI would see all 50 states starting to offer CCW permits with complete recipricocity as a huge victory for gun rights. Would anyone disagree with me on this?
As opposes to those who shamefully hide their 2A cards and resign themselves to gratefully accepting permission fron their bettersYet most people became completely indignate about taking a simple safety class. They started thumping their laminated, wallet sized copies of the 2A without even considering the reality of the situation.
We The People have allowed the government to dictate to us what is a right and what is a privilege. This has happened the exact same way the the driving privilege came into beingThat reality is that it has been decided time and time again that the 2A does not allow you the right to carry concealed. To the best of my knowledge, every time this has been used as an argument in states that ban concealed carry it has failed. Therefore CCW permits are not a constitutional right and would be a great victory for pro-gun people.
What you describe is not compromise but the capitulation we have grown so used to that we can't tell the difference.So in this case, alot of people seemed unwilling to compromise at all on the training (even though it is already required in many states) even though it would have meant a major victory for concealled carry and gun rights as a whole. This shows, to me personally, a complete lack of ability to win this fight. This is not a fight that will be won by bullying, posturing, or thumpng the constitution. Compromise is necessary.
My fear is that some seem to forget that this country is based on that silly little document that you seem to put so little stock in. When we cease to hold that piece of paper up as a testament from our respective deities then it becomes worthy of nothing more than the disrespectct you seem to have for it.My fear is that all too much constitution thumping will eventually cause is a repeal of the 2A altogether. People like to think the constitution is somehow a testimate to these magical rights bestowed upon them by their respective deities but in reality the most important words in the entire document are "We the people..." Then would come "do ordain and establish..." This all comes down to the reality that the people gave you the right and the people can take it away. Where will arguments that rely solely on the 2A be then? I would guess you would have no argument at all then...because if you had arguments that worked as well you would not revert to quoting a highly contested amendment.
Put words in other people's mouths much, Joab?My fear is that some seem to forget that this country is based on that silly little document that you seem to put so little stock in
But you somehow cannot fathom that mine was also deliberately ridiculous for obvious reasonMy suggestion was intentionally extreme,
You mean word likePut words in other people's mouths much, Joab?
They started thumping their laminated, wallet sized copies of the 2A without even considering the reality of the situation.
all too much constitution thumping
People like to think the constitution is somehow a testimate to these magical rights bestowed upon them by their respective deities
This all comes down to the reality that the people gave you the right
Where will arguments that rely solely on the 2A be then? I would guess you would have no argument at all then.
.because if you had arguments that worked as well you would not revert to quoting a highly contested amendment.
I take it you did not read the entire post, especially the part where I spelled out what compromise got usAs for the rest of your post, you seem to be very frightened of compromise for some reason.
Not sure what that has to do with anything, but I am equally glad not to have served under officers that believe that surrender was the way to victoryI am glad I never had to serve under any commanding officers with that attitude.
The world obviously goes on beyond your narrow field of experience. If you stop an equal number on the streets in my area you would have a completely different opinion. But then we quit the compromise at any cost routine thirty years ago.The majority opinion on guns seems to me to be "they are bad." Stop 100 people on the street and ask them if they think just anyone should be allowed to carry a gun and you might be shocked. If this "they are bad" mentality continues, how long do you think it will be before it becomes "they are a thing of the past."
Really? Who is this "we" of which you are speaking? Also I love how you automaticall turn any compromise into "compromise at any cost." Are you only able to deal in extremes or do you subscribe to the slippery slope mindset?But then we quit the compromise at any cost routine thirty years ago.
But you somehow cannot fathom that mine was also deliberately ridiculous for obvious reason
If you can somehow draw a parallel to the manner in which a conventional small arm is carried to possession of a weapon of mass destruction then you have definitely run out of intelligent conversation
If your only reasoning for the comparison is that "They call them nuclear ARMS"
Then I guess we have to agree that China really is a Democratic Republic