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.
Why would anyone think that. It would take the belief that predators, human or otherwise ceased to exist and that the entire population turned vegan. I would assume that the founders expected just what turned out a weapon in every family unit with a few maintainers of vast armories. Only the rapid reload of relatively lightweight weapons may have been unimaginable science fiction.
The Founding Fathers also had no idea that the Federal Government would have access to nuclear weapons or bunker busters or bullet proof tanks, either. What they did know, and what is the true basis of the 2nd Amendment, is that history has proven over and over that governments can be corrupt and tyrannical and therefore, citizens MUST have an unfettered right to keep and bear arms for their own protection.
Driving a car is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
1) The 2nd Amendment has been a total, total failure in regards to it being some sort of tempering instrument against government overreach. All the rights it was written to protect have been systemically eroded away, yet there has been no uprising. There will be no uprising even though the 'gun world' is full of Walter Mitty's hoarding more and more guns and ammo to protect their guns and ammo from hordes with guns and ammo, sincerely believing that some cataclysmic event will occur (BECAUSE HURRICANE KATRINA! says the guy who lives in Oklahoma... OR THE LA RIOTS! says the guy in Nebraska) or that they are going to overthrow a government if it ever 'goes too far' in an already active police state where random roadblocks are legal, cops abuse people, the government is TOTALLY out of control... But yeah. Harry over there, he has an AR15 and he believes he's going to 'save the country from the baddies!' ... meanwhile, he just voted for the guy who supports torture, warrantless surveillance and the 'drug war'. Because, ya know. FREEDOM. AND THE THUGS!
Also, seriously, I realize you know the first two Amendments, probably some vague idea about the 4th and 5th but the 9th Amendment was put in there specifically to head off idiots who asserted that anything not specifically written in the constitution was otherwise 'unprotected' as a fundamental right. Driving may not be specifically written into the constitution (because, ya know. There were no cars) but the right has become as essential as anything else. It is regulated. Likewise the 2nd Amendment can be regulated*... unless, of course, you think that a Hi Point vending machine in a high school is something that cannot be prohibited because CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!
[ * - and this is without even getting into a semantic debate over use of the word 'regulated' in the 2nd Amendment itself, which the gun anarchy proponents do correctly point out wasn't intended to mean 'controlled by the government' but in fact did essentially mean 'disciplined'/'orderly']
Part of me would like to see that people learn about guns before they can get one. However, IMO, requiring a test to purchase one seems like it would be one step closer to registration which I feel is a big NO. So how about a compromise? Have a bit of gun safety taught in school, for everybody. That way, not only future purchasers will have learned a bit, so will people who will never intend to buy a gun but at some point may come in contact with one (visiting a friend).
I remember while in elementary school, firemen would come in and go over fire safety, We'd learn general common sense safety about other things in life as well and be tested about it. Why not have a cop come in and go over gun safety and then be tested on it as well. For those who absolutely hate guns, the kids wouldn't need to shoot them, just learn a bit about them and the do's and don'ts.
I taught the Hunter Safety Course in my state for 11 years. The youngsters (aged 11 and up) and the older students were serious, enthusiastic, and anxious to obey all the laws. That course is not mandated for anything but hunting, and is a prerequisite for a hunting license.
I was an NRA instructor for 7 years. I trained mostly folks who wanted to get a concealed carry permit (CCW). I was also a rangemaster at my local gun club. Participation was free. People who rant about "gun nuts" have no idea of just how rigorous the rules and controls are at a certified range, and how attentive the shooters are to the commands of the rangemaster. These shooters are among the finest people I have ever met.
Were there gun-owners in my state that I never trained or hunted with? Yes. Were they reckless? No, for nearly all of them. Mandating training - of any sort - is not needed. Criminals will never go for any type of training. Any firearm owner who wishes to acquire more training, can get it for free or at very minimal cost - and without government mandates.
Ownership of cars doesn't require paperwork, just driving on public roadways
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jukesgrrl
Absolutely yes. We have to have a license to drive that involves passing a test. We also have to keep our cars registered (and in many states tested for safety on a regular basis). Our licenses to drive have to be kept up-to-date, too. Failure to do these things carries heavy fines. We even have to have our pets licensed! A firearm in the hands of anyone who is simply able to purchase it, without any testing or registration, is absurd. It's a piece of equipment that is every bit as dangerous as a vehicle.
All of the restrictions on automobiles, are only if you want to operate on public roads.
I was driving on private property when I was 12. I owned my first car at 15 (no license plate, no title, no registration), and today I still own a vehicle without a title or registration for it, I just cannot take it on public roads except on a trailer.
So no, we don't have to have a license just to buy a car.
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.
Maybe we should also require liability insurance just like a car!!
Part of me would like to see that people learn about guns before they can get one. However, IMO, requiring a test to purchase one seems like it would be one step closer to registration which I feel is a big NO. So how about a compromise? Have a bit of gun safety taught in school, for everybody. That way, not only future purchasers will have learned a bit, so will people who will never intend to buy a gun but at some point may come in contact with one (visiting a friend).
I remember while in elementary school, firemen would come in and go over fire safety, We'd learn general common sense safety about other things in life as well and be tested about it. Why not have a cop come in and go over gun safety and then be tested on it as well. For those who absolutely hate guns, the kids wouldn't need to shoot them, just learn a bit about them and the do's and don'ts.
Excellent idea, and I agree that basic gun safety should be taught in public schools. It wasn't that long ago that public schools still had shooting sports and leagues. Teaching gun safety in school will reinforce the basic safety guidelines to kids with families who own guns, and introduce the children of hoblophobes to guns and gun safety and allow them to make their own rational decisions about guns and gun ownership.
The biggest reason I see a requirement for gun safety in schools is by looking at all of the anti-gunners. They know so very little about guns other than "semi-automatic" and "assault" in the name must mean it is extra scary. I cannot take any argument against gun rights seriously when the person doesn't know basic facts about the guns themselves, and likely has never held a gun or even been in the same room as a gun. I wouldn't dare argue against something without being informed about it.
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.
Ownership of cars doesn't require paperwork, just driving on public roadways
