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.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,067,341 times
Reputation: 2158
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonesuch
Show me where the USSC says imposing prior restraint on a constitutional right is acceptable?
The second amendment says the militia is to be regulated (well trained). The militia isn't regulated if psychotics are a part of it. They didn't have good tests for it back then but in 1776, if somebody was a known psycho, I don't think the militia would let that person join.
Quote:
Check out how the psychological evaluation for a carry permit works in Rhode Island. Several towns have this requirement, use it insure that certain rich and politically connected white people are the only ones who can obtain a permit.
Good that means I don't have to deal with people running around with firearms who are not going to be responsible with them. It should be difficult to obtain a firearm whether your means of obtaining it is legal or illegal.
Only the smarter students will realize you can read the book backwards
My goal is to provide every American student with a magazine showing the functioning of the primary types of firearm, including how to render each type of gun "safe", unload it, and disassemble into the primary components.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x
It's a good point. But for one, it means you would be exposing the kids to unnecessary dangers with having them handling a firearm. Secondly, many parents (including me if I were a parent) may object to their kids being indoctrinated with the idea that firearms are not something to be avoided.
What danger? Knowing how to safely handle a firearm doesn't necessarily have to conflict with the idea that firearms are something to be avoided. I feel that motorcycles are something to be avoided, but I am glad I know how to safely deal with them. I'm sure California would be able to work "guns are evil" into their safety training.
It is possible to teach firearms safety without ever handling a fully-functional firearm with live ammo. To get a Massachusetts carry permit (which is so restricted it is nearly worthless), I was required to take a $100 course in MA; all training was done with non-functional firearms and air-driven non-firing handguns on a virtual marksmanship range.
True, most won't purchase a gun but it would be nice if everybody who may at some point later in life came in contact with one would no how to safely handle it.
Kind of like house fires, most will never have to deal with one but it's good to know what to do/not do if you were ever unfortunate enough to be in one.
There are millions of gun owners in this country, including me. I have a conceal carry permit and I did not have to pass a test. I have been trained and know how to safely handle a weapon...all without government intervention.
If you think gun safety is so important, then lets make it a requirement in schools. Just like sex education!
Since conservatives like to push "Common sense" so much
I'm surprised that they don't support "Common sense" when it comes to requiring a basic test to keep guns from crazy people.
There are millions of gun owners in this country, including me. I have a conceal carry permit and I did not have to pass a test. I have been trained and know how to safely handle a weapon...all without government intervention.
If you think gun safety is so important, then lets make it a requirement in schools. Just like sex education!
If you read my previous post you'd see that I am NOT for a test to purchase a gun as I believe it may set off a precedent for registration, which I am against.
What I am for is having gun safety taught in schools. That way anybody who later may come into contact with a gun should know the proper way to handle it. The kids don't even need to learn on real or operable guns and don't have to shoot it. Let them learn the safe handling and how not to handle one and give them a test.
How about a $500 fee? Sounds crazy? Seriously considered by IL, NJ
If people in California can't be trusted to buy a handgun without first passing a safety class, California is welcome to pass a law requiring such a class. Go for it, and we'll see how the Supreme Court responds in a decade or so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dopo
Since conservatives like to push "Common sense" so much
I'm surprised that they don't support "Common sense" when it comes to requiring a basic test to keep guns from crazy people.
The problem with this "Common Sense" idea isn't just that it's been done before, but how it ends up being used -- to take rights away from the "wrong folk", anybody with different political ideas than the people in power, different skin color than the people in power, or just the economically disadvantaged.
How about a basic test to keep illiterate people from voting? We can call it a literacy test. And maybe a small poll tax, just to cover expenses?
Or maybe we can do like towns in Rhode Island, require a psychological certificate that no psychologist will issue. Or a training course that is only offered once a year, during the work week, at a facility that cannot be reached by public transit. There's a million ways to turn a "common sense" requirement into a hurdle the poor and undesirable cannot pass.
Since conservatives like to push "Common sense" so much
I'm surprised that they don't support "Common sense" when it comes to requiring a basic test to keep guns from crazy people.
So progressives don't support common sense? Good to know.
How would passing a basic gun safety test "keep guns from crazy people." Show me the logic in that statement.
If you read my previous post you'd see that I am NOT for a test to purchase a gun as I believe it may set off a precedent for registration, which I am against.
What I am for is having gun safety taught in schools. That way anybody who later may come into contact with a gun should know the proper way to handle it. The kids don't even need to learn on real or operable guns and don't have to shoot it. Let them learn the safe handling and how not to handle one and give them a test.
I'm sorry. Looks like we agree on this issue. I don't support a required test, but I fully support more education of people of all ages about the safe handling of guns.
My goal is to provide every American student with a magazine showing the functioning of the primary types of firearm, including how to render each type of gun "safe", unload it, and disassemble into the primary components.
What danger? Knowing how to safely handle a firearm doesn't necessarily have to conflict with the idea that firearms are something to be avoided. I feel that motorcycles are something to be avoided, but I am glad I know how to safely deal with them. I'm sure California would be able to work "guns are evil" into their safety training.
It is possible to teach firearms safety without ever handling a fully-functional firearm with live ammo. To get a Massachusetts carry permit (which is so restricted it is nearly worthless), I was required to take a $100 course in MA; all training was done with non-functional firearms and air-driven non-firing handguns on a virtual marksmanship range.
I think that any firearms safety presentation requires the handling of a fully functioning firearm. There is no need for it to be loaded by a student, but a key element in any firearm safety lesson is to approach every weapon as if it is loaded, and a person needs to see what a chambered round looks like and how to safely eject a round.
What an absurd view. You think the right to own guns is more important than the rights guaranteed under the 1st Amendment?
Absurd? On the contrary. The 2nd affords us the opportunity to protect ourselves against tyranny. When a tyrannical regime is in power, and if there is no 2nd, what do you think will happen to all of your other rights? The 2nd is the defender of everything else. An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject.
Quote:
You should do the same. The founders never wanted the Constitution to be static and dogmatic. And they were also men of their time, not omniscient gods. They were imperfect people whose views were the product of the time. They owned slaves, fathered children out of wedlock, etc. If we were to model ourselves and this nation after them so fully we would be the worse for it.
The founders were pretty bright guys, and provide a way to make changes through the amendment process. Thank God they made it a difficult process so as not to be changed willy-nilly.
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.
Only the smarter students will realize you can read the book backwards
