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.
Would you support mandatory training if...
- Thread starter Playboypenguin
- Start date
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.
JuanCarlos
New member
Exactly. They do call them nuclear "arms," after all. Should I be able to go buy one of those at my local Wal-Mart?
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).
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.
I often wonder if it would be better for society if such things were indeed handled by the schools in a standardized manner at the onset of adolescence. However I realize that doing so would open the door to a number of other things. You can bet your ass if this door was opened I would say that teaching children myths and fairy tales and to ignore science is as detrimental to society as never teaching them about sex or proper firearm safety. Making sure kids are not indoctinated as such would be a very compelling public interest.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
To answer the question:
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 -
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 -
FirstFreedom
Moderator
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.
Of course we all know that those last two things will always end up in corruption, unfairness favoring the elite/connected, and ultimately a complete ban, just as it already is the case in certain counties & areas in Calif, NY, and elsewhere with respect to CCW permits.
Funny thing is, when I got my driver's license and/or bought a vehicle, I don't recall having to do either:
-Demonstrate good moral character, nor
-Show a reason why I need a car
So two of the 3 things are utterly NON-analygous, and yet he insists on using this as an alleged analogy. So not only does he want to ban handguns, as is the natural end result of that kind of system, but he's also stupid beyond belief in making that analogy (either that or he thinks WE are stupid beyond belief and is lying to us). I cannot fathom why republicans of ANY sort like this guy.
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.
Of course we all know that those last two things will always end up in corruption, unfairness favoring the elite/connected, and ultimately a complete ban, just as it already is the case in certain counties & areas in Calif, NY, and elsewhere with respect to CCW permits.
Funny thing is, when I got my driver's license and/or bought a vehicle, I don't recall having to do either:
-Demonstrate good moral character, nor
-Show a reason why I need a car
So two of the 3 things are utterly NON-analygous, and yet he insists on using this as an alleged analogy. So not only does he want to ban handguns, as is the natural end result of that kind of system, but he's also stupid beyond belief in making that analogy (either that or he thinks WE are stupid beyond belief and is lying to us). I cannot fathom why republicans of ANY sort like this guy.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
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?"
I 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?
Yet 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.
That 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.
Some people even went as far as to say things along the lines that there is no evidence that training would make people safer. C'mon, do they even believe that themselves? Common sense alone tells you that a person trained properly can perform a function better than an untrained one. Even if that act is safe handling of a firearm. Every gun professional, from marksman to gunshop owner, has always said it is best to take a safety course before carrying a handgun. Why does that suddenly change in this situation?
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 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.
OK then show me where compelling public interest is mentioned in the constitution as a means of infringing on the rights of individulas
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 be
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?
According to the constitution who else gets to be on the committee for the determination of compelling public interests.
You gonna put any Quakers on that committee?
Any body here ever have to show a need for a car or pass a moral character test to get a license?
This is a paraphrasing of an old G&A article
1)I can own as many cars as I want and drive as much as I want as long as I do not leave my property
2) I do not have to register any of my cars as long as I do not drive them on public streets
3) DL and tag fees and a portion of my taxes go toward maintainence of public roadways and public education about driving
4) I can drive at sixteen and, at least you used to could, buy a car at any age with out a background check
5) There is no age restriction on buying gasoline and no federally mandated age difference between being allowed to buy it for a car or lawn mower
5) I can buy or sell a car from anyone and anyone can buy or sell a car to me. There is no federal licensing program
6) Felons are not prohibited from owning cars
Is Rudy suggesting that all of these things also be applied to firearms or is he saying that he will put gun control type restriction on automobile ownership.
This is a very dangerous man, mostly because he seems to be really stupid
JuanCarlos
New member
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:
Your argument was using definition #1, which is an entirely different definition of the word. However, "arms" in the Constitution and "nuclear arms" are both using the same definition of "arm," namely #2 there.
What you describe is not victory but a redsignation to defeat
As opposes to those who shamefully hide their 2A cards and resign themselves to gratefully accepting permission fron their betters
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 being
What you describe is not compromise but the capitulation we have grown so used to that we can't tell the difference.
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.
For many years the gun crowd made compromise after compromise to the point that we were very real danger of losing those magical little rights.
When Florida stood up and said no more and the other states started to follow suit, when voters started putting the anti gun politicians out of work and pro gun politicians in we started to reverse the trend. Why willingly go back wards now?
Why not just compromise and advise congress to enact a ten round limit on magazines, because no honest citizen needs more than that, so that they wont go for a more expansive ban?
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Put words in other people's mouths much, Joab?
As for the rest of your post, you seem to be very frightened of compromise for some reason. You seem very adamant that anything short of 100% victory is actually a loss. I am glad I never had to serve under any commanding officers with that attitude.
In my opinion, you also seem to have a somewhat deluded perspective on gun rights. 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."
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
You mean word like
I take it you did not read the entire post, especially the part where I spelled out what compromise got us
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 victory
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.
Instead of offering a way to compromise our rights away further we came up with a way to bring in politicians that understand that we would not allow for these wholesale compromises
Playboypenguin
Moderator
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?
Also, show me how gun rights and popular gun opinion are better now than in 1977.
As for my remarks on the constitution that you pasted, you are way off base. I stand behind the constitution for what it is...the will of the people. You seem to not understand that the constitution can change and making alot of bullying demands based on one narrow interpetation of one amendment can cause the amendment to be repealled. Then what would happen to your platform of "do it solely because the constitution says you have to do it."
JuanCarlos
New member
Hey, my point is that nuclear weapons would very much fit the definition of "arms" used in the Constitution. Are you arguing with this?
I'm not saying that any given citizen should be able to own one, because I'm not the one pointing at the words and demanding each one be interpreted both literally and as broadly as possible. You are. As soon as you admit that nuclear weapons (which are most definitely "arms") are not to be owned ("kept") by the People, you've already admitted that a broad and literal interpretation is not appropriate. At which point it's time to discuss things like compromise and reasonable restrictions (as in, not being allowed to own nuclear weapons), etc.
You can't on the one hand (with nuclear weapons) say that a literal interpretation of the text is ludicrous then on the other (concealed carry) it must be rigorously upheld. It makes no logical sense.
To take a less extreme example, my right to own a RPG launcher or shoulder-fired surface to air missile is being infringed every day. Should I be able to own those? They're "arms" too, and not nearly as extreme as nuclear weapons. Maybe you do think the People should be able to keep and bear those, maybe you don't. Either way the question becomes "where do you draw the line?" The implication at that point being that you are admitting that there is a line to be drawn.
JC made the point that "arms" as used in the 2A are not unlimited. (nuclear, automatic, felonies, etc create dead ends for private citizens)
Joab, you ignored that to make a joke. You also seem to ignore that the CURRENT state of affairs is much worse than the hypothetical being presented.
Currently, there is the issue that a CCW in one state may or may not be reciprocated. This would solve that.
Currently, there are there is training and testing to get a CCW. This wouldn't change that (though you are arguing it would for some reason?)
Currently, there are MANY sheriffs, LEO, etc, against people having CCW. This COULD solve that to some extent.
This has nothing to do with registering.. it is no different from your current CCW except that it puts in a standard that all states would agree to (now that part of the hypothetical is a hurdle). That's it.
Joab, you ignored that to make a joke. You also seem to ignore that the CURRENT state of affairs is much worse than the hypothetical being presented.
Currently, there is the issue that a CCW in one state may or may not be reciprocated. This would solve that.
Currently, there are there is training and testing to get a CCW. This wouldn't change that (though you are arguing it would for some reason?)
Currently, there are MANY sheriffs, LEO, etc, against people having CCW. This COULD solve that to some extent.
This has nothing to do with registering.. it is no different from your current CCW except that it puts in a standard that all states would agree to (now that part of the hypothetical is a hurdle). That's it.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
One thing that DOES make sense and I WOULD be in favor of, is the state legislatures mandating that all kids in middle or high school take at least one semester of gun safety & marksmanship - that oughtta be a prerequisite for graduating, just like history, math, science, and english. Have the bill provide funding enabling the schools to bring back high school shooting teams, while you're at it.
On a related note, high school kids ALSO ought to be required to take one semester in basic logic, and one semester in the free market capitalist economy. The fedgov needs to BUTT OUT if it ain't in their enumerated powers.
On a related note, high school kids ALSO ought to be required to take one semester in basic logic, and one semester in the free market capitalist economy. The fedgov needs to BUTT OUT if it ain't in their enumerated powers.