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.
Maybe we should also require liability insurance just like a car!!
No automobile liability insurance required in my state.
Also, no state requires insurance to purchase or possess a car, only to operate a car on public roads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianf408
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.
I agree. High school has a basic citizenship curricula, why not a basic gun safety course? We can just teach them about the revolutionary war twice instead of four times in order to free up time to shoehorn in the class sometime between third grade and graduation.
Maybe not infringe on rights but it might be more appropriate that those whom sold guns gave significant incentives for training. $ for guns and ammo, shooting ranges, reaches where people live .
By providing significant discounts for training, and good safe handling practices ,people might be more inclined to participate voluntarily.
Govern from with in; rather then throwing it on the government, which is where we don't want it.
Also those that sell guns should have the right to refuse service to any one, for any reason; religious, moral, or political.
People can change, civil to militant , and back.
However the seller should have the right to refuse to sell, if some one that feels wrong from their point of view, training or not.
I say this because people are abusing the discrimination to homosexuals for wedding cakes issue.
A businessmen should have the right to refuse service for any reason available.
Registration is not necessary if one is carrying certification from recognized trainers and businesses . These can be discovered and proven ,with out getting the government involved.
Face it ,if you were getting a 10% discount for ammo at Walmart showing proof of training, and those that had no proof of training had to pay the full price, what would you do?
No it doesn't. The Constitution is supposed to guarantee the First Amendment. And let's be real, you owning a few guns isn't going to stop a tyrannical government from taking your rights. That's a fantasy. In the case of some nutjobs, a wet dream.
Assuming that the course was cheap or free, I'd have no huge problem with it. Because I don't trust many governments to do that (in fact, we are seeing today states and cities, forced to grant greater firearms rights under the Constitution, either directly or indirectly impose cost-prohibitive fees for firearm training, etc.), I'll remain opposed to such plans in practice.
I would not have a problem with it and imposing licensing requirements is fully constitutional. None of the Bill of Rights are unlimited or off-limits to state regulation. I do think it should be a state issue with only some very basic federal requirements like a universal background check.
I really don't get these people who equate small arms with freedom. I have an AR-15 and the damn thing is mostly an $800 decoration until I have time to make to the range during its open hours - which I don't much these days.
It's ridiculous to think that weapon makes you free. Iraq was awash in small arms and that didn't keep Saddam Hussein from maintaining control as a brutal, oppressive dictator. In the 1980s people in Baghdad would fire guns after victorious soccer matches, so much so that the Hussein government issued warnings to Baghdad residents to be careful of stray bullets from people firing in the air. What he maintained his control with was support from the people. Not all of them, but enough of them.
Military weapons will beat civilian weapons any day and who controls the army will usually remain in control of a country. If they've got tanks and you've got a rifle - you're going to lose. This goes back to the middle ages -- groups of peasants revolted all the damn time against their oppressive overlords; pitchforks, scythes, hammers, spears, etc... can be deadly weapons but were useless against the warrior class who had swords & armor made out of higher quality metals and who dedicated their lives to fighting as professional killers. In the end, enough people supported the existing power structure anyway, just like enough people supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq and his military.
What makes the U.S. free are its ideas, not the actual weapons. People in the U.S. and other free countries would not support a brutal dictator.
Getting back to the gun issue - I would like to see more crazy person control as opposed to gun control. Other than the guns, the connecting thread in the sensational gun incidents seems to be crazy people.
Last edited by redguard57; 02-25-2015 at 12:19 PM..
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 TaxPhd
Study up a bit on the meaning of that word, in the context of the 2nd amendment, at the time it was written, and get back to me.
It doesn't mean what you think it does.
It means "trained" in that context. So yes, it means exactly what that person thought it meant. The founding fathers intended for there to be training for the militia. Of course we don't need a militia anymore because we have a standing army now. We had the militia because we didn't have a standing army, and at the time, we didn't want one.
The role that would have been filled by the militias in 1776 is now filled by the United States Army (and the other branches although the militia was mainly for ground defense, so Army).
That's why we pass a defense bill every two years, because the Constitution says we are to decide every two years if we still want a military or if we want to go back to a trained civilian militia.
btw yes I am a vet. US Navy submarines 1999 to 2003, STS3(SS). I stood armed watches while the boat was in port so I'm qualified on 9 mm pistol, M-16, M-14 and 12 ga shotgun.
Quote:
Also, in that sentence, what noun is being qualified by the adjective "regulated"?
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,071,793 times
Reputation: 2158
I would support not only firearms safety test but also a psychological examination. And being on medications for depression or things of that nature should be a red flag on the NICS database.
I would support not only firearms safety test but also a psychological examination. And being on medications for depression or things of that nature should be a red flag on the NICS database.
Yes. I would argue the psych evaluation is more important than a safety course.
Most of the school shootings that have occurred are related to schizophrenia, depression or some other kind of mental illness and it's an even bigger problem with regard to gun suicides. We should not be letting THOSE people get guns - they are a danger mostly to themselves but sometimes to others.
Because most of them won't purchase a gun, unless you're talking about redneck flyover states.
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.
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.
