Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And more of the same. To restrict constitutionally guaranteed rights because of something that someone else MIGHT do is ridiculous. To restrict my right to free speech because you might scream fire in a theater is silly. That action has a very real negative consequence, so we make that specific action illegal, rather than encroaching further on my rights.
Fail. Your 'right to speech' is already restricted.
Fire in a crowded theater, threats, etc. The 1st Amendment didn't specify those things, but society determined they were reasonable restrictions. In the 1980's, there was a strong debate over whether or not child pornography was constitutionally protected expression. Thankfully, the answer settled on was no. Absolutism is a losing position, pretty much always. The nature of speech is such that it doesn't conflate with the regulation of potentially dangerous materials, since speech is a human faculty.
Quote:
We already have specific laws covering the possible negative actions that result from the illegal use of firearms. To make me take a test to have a gun, because I might rob or kill you, is silly, when robbing and killing you is already illegal.
Fail again.
Any 'testing' regime proposed in regards to firearm acquisition has nothing to do with whether or not you might rob or kill someone. Its presumably to ensure basic competency and to weed out whack jobs.
With that said, "Fail" to the anti gun rights side who amusingly call for 'better training' for firearm acquisition, usually subsequent to some horrible shooting, based on the whole car/license equivalency when 'training' isn't (nor has ever been) the problem.
If the 2nd Amendment was so unchangeable why are certain " arms " ILLEGAL for you to own?
What specific arms has the supreme court said you don't have a 2nd amendment right to keep and bear? With what words did they say it, in what specific court case?
Voting is a right also. Yet you have to register to vote. And you can't vote more than once in the same election.
Peaceable assembly is a right also (1st amendment). But you have to get a permit if you want to march on the Brooklyn Bridge.
All rights are limited by the rights that other people have.
Exaactly. My having a gun doesn't infringe on your rights what so ever.
For instance, a man and a woman are locked in a room and she has a gun. He asks her why she has the gun, to which she replies "in case you try to rape me". He tells her that he has no intention on trying to rape her. "Well then, you need not worry about my gun."
Should you be required to pass a basic USSC history test before you're allowed to talk politics online?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzile
It's amazing to me that this qualifies as a debate. OF COURSE people should have to pass a safety course, at the bare minimum!
Why? Name another right in the constitution on which prior restraint is permissible? Should a person be required to pass a basic Constitutional law and Supreme Court decision history test before they are allowed to talk politics on the Internet?
And how to prevent abuse? What keeps a state from saying "all buyers must pass our safety course" and then making the training difficult, expensive, and time consuming to obtain? Chicago has basically made carry permits inaccessible to poor inner city residents. Several towns in Rhode Island require a psych eval as a CHL prequalification, but no hospital is willing to actually sign off on the paperwork. North Carolina's Pistol Purchase Permit law is still used to enforce a de facto "no guns for blacks" policy in many counties.
I'm not claiming such a prerequisite might be abused, I have proven it will be abused, in a racist and classist manner.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,071,793 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphamale
Exaactly. My having a gun doesn't infringe on your rights what so ever.
Sure it does. We have to keep public areas safe. So it potentially violates the collective rights of the public.
Quote:
For instance, a man and a woman are locked in a room and she has a gun. He asks her why she has the gun, to which she replies "in case you try to rape me". He tells her that he has no intention on trying to rape her. "Well then, you need not worry about my gun."
Guns make any situation more dangerous. That's why those of us who are trained in firearms say "always treat a firearm as if it were loaded".
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,071,793 times
Reputation: 2158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonesuch
Why? Name another right in the constitution on which prior restraint is permissible?
Voting and protest come to mind. Many others.
Quote:
And how to prevent abuse? What keeps a state from saying "all buyers must pass our safety course" and then making the training difficult, expensive, and time consuming to obtain?
The supreme court has ruled that they can't be unreasonable. As long as they are reasonable restraints it is constitutional.
Quote:
I'm not claiming such a prerequisite might be abused, I have proven it will be abused, in a racist and classist manner.
That doesn't bother me because I want fewer guns among the public, not more. You're the gun nut here.
What specific arms has the supreme court said you don't have a 2nd amendment right to keep and bear? With what words did they say it, in what specific court case?
I think a basic safety course and test is a good idea. It has been many years since I got my LTC but I think nowadays in MA. a test is required. There is a hunter safety course which makes sense.
As for the second amendment The founding Fathers had no idea that #1 guns would be so plentiful in the future and #2 brains would not be.
Guns are lethal so people who want to own one should be schooled in the safe handling and storage of them. We make people take driving tests as a matter of public safety and owning a gun is just as serious as navigating a car.
#2, lol.
And to your point, yes, even with a driving test, look how many people are still killed in auto accidents.
Cars don't kill people, people texting in cars kill people.
SS
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Should you be required to pass a basic USSC history test before you're allowed to talk politics online?
