Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-25-2015, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Minnysoda
10,659 posts, read 10,700,905 times
Reputation: 6745

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kell490 View Post
In some states they require you to pass a safety course, or hunting safety test in order to purchase an firearm. I think California put this in place years ago, but maybe this should be required nationwide. There would be no registration just that one has passed a basic safety test. I'm a firearm owner I think most firearms should be legal, but having worked in a gun store a few folks that came in bought a firearm really had no idea how to safely handing it.
You mean like they used to teach in the 8th grade????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-25-2015, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
3,158 posts, read 6,106,272 times
Reputation: 5619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Army_Guy View Post
Guns are not lethal, people are lethal.
Exactly.

This is why the OP is asking that PEOPLE be required to pass a safety test, not the guns.

As for the other argument about Constitutional rights, one must remember that, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not absolute." (D.C. v Heller)

While other rights may not have a test associated with them, the test could be construed as a reasonable restriction on the right to bear arms, just like Second Amendment restrictions on gun ownership by the mentally ill, or even convicted felons.

Such a test could be justified due to the consequences of mishandling a gun. In cases where free speech could be considered dangerous (yelling "fire" in a theater, or inciting a riot), free speech can be regulated. Since the misuse or mishandling of a gun has the potential to be dangerous, a reasonable restriction may be needed to protect the lives of people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2015, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Oceania
8,610 posts, read 7,869,324 times
Reputation: 8318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natnasci View Post
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Let us deconstruct the single sentence to derive it's true meaning..


"Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The commas confuse most so I left but one. It delineates why the People are to keep and bear arms.

As is intended by the overly simple wording, "the People" is the well regulated militia. Why people get hung up on semantics makes no sense. They do the same with the word "earnings".

Is "earnings" the paycheck one receives for a 40 hour work week or what one gets from a savings account?
One is dividends as well as passive.


Jeopardy music playing in the background........................................ .................
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2015, 01:41 PM
 
172 posts, read 238,371 times
Reputation: 327
For the record, there is no doubt whatsoever what the founders intended when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

They wanted the people to not only have firearms but to be trained in their use, essentially making the people their own force of authority contained within independent states. This is unarguable.

The problem is, the concept was rendered mostly obsolete after the Civil War and TOTALLY obsolete when warfare became mechanized and entirely a function of the nation state. As things stand, the 2nd Amendment is mostly flogged by fantasists and utter kooks who sincerely believe that they (and their rifle) are some influential factor in domestic policy. They are not. The only role they play is that whatever political party promises them that they can keep their guns will get their vote.

Even if that party supports profound erosion of basic freedoms. As long as they support their right to 'feel free' and own whatever guns they want, they can pretty much commence with the task of ruining the country, secure in the knowledge that the people with all the guns won't actually use them to resist, so long as they're allowed to keep them.

Hell, most times, its those same 'gun guys' who are some of the biggest authoritarian idiots imaginable, precisely the sort of people the founding fathers warned against when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2015, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Oceania
8,610 posts, read 7,869,324 times
Reputation: 8318
Quote:
Originally Posted by kell490 View Post
In some states they require you to pass a safety course, or hunting safety test in order to purchase an firearm. I think California put this in place years ago, but maybe this should be required nationwide. There would be no registration just that one has passed a basic safety test. I'm a firearm owner I think most firearms should be legal, but having worked in a gun store a few folks that came in bought a firearm really had no idea how to safely handing it.


Does one need to pass a safety course prior to to purchasing an automobile or quantity of alcohol intended for drinking?
How about a container of gasoline and a cigarette lighter?
Plenty of dumb asses have children every day of the week; should one need to pass a safety course prior to coitus?

People can be stupid/careless/mindless with anything...does this mean the whole of society should be subject to what amounts to mandatory behavior modification at the hands of some authoritarian entity because of a few?

Contrary to what you may believe, your initiative would lead to mandatory registration so THEY know where the guns are.

Just curious; is this for all firearms or a select few? Joe Biden suggested women arm themselves with shotguns - an unintended endorsement. Would they be excluded?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2015, 01:53 PM
 
172 posts, read 238,371 times
Reputation: 327
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57 View Post
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.
I agree with the large majority of your post. Also, welcome to the ranks of "Rational Gun Owner". You have few friends. Those who hate guns view you as a 'danger' while the hardcore ideologues resent you for not drinking their kool aid.

The above quote, I am not so sure about anymore. I think for the majority of our history, that was the case but having traveled the world a bit, seeing how people in other places do things and more importantly, paying attention to the temperament and viewpoints of those people and how that is ultimately reflected in their governments and polices (ie, you hang around in Italy long enough and meet enough Italians, you understand how modern fascism was invented there and a lot of contemporary Italian policy is reflective of this mindset), I think America of 2015, the one that elected Bush twice, Obama twice, I think 51% of America would totally support a brutal dictator as long as he attacked the right people.

We value human life VERY cheaply in this county. You look at our policies on things like healthcare and prisons, its reflective of the same mentality that would support some sort of dictator as long as he turned his authority against "THE THUGS" or "THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS" or the (insert group here)."

You have much more faith in Americans than I do anymore. This country has become a total ****show of authoritarians and mean-spirited, martial fetishizing jerks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2015, 02:09 PM
 
Location: Vancouver
18,503 posts, read 15,455,339 times
Reputation: 11937
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Mine in blue.
It appears that you didn't understand the question. I understand what will happen to me if I yell fire in a theater. The question is, do you want YOUR free speech rights restricted based on something that I MIGHT do?

I understood the question perfectly. My answer was showing you that your free speech rights ALREADY have limits. Reasonable limits are fine.

I guess you didn't want to deal with the analogy of the quill, ink, and printing press, did you?

No I dismissed it, since I find the analogy silly. When pen and ink ( the instruments, not words ) start killing people let me know.

And how have those arguments turned out? The people still have the right to keep and bare arms.
Expanding the definition of people to include blacks expands those that enjoy rights, it doesn't do anything to erode rights, which is what the anti-gunners wish to d
o.

Using the term anti-gunners is too extreme a term to label people who want better restrictions. I want strict regulation regarding food production, but I'm not anti-food.
Restrictions aren't new. Calling for better regulation as the OP is suggesting in their question is reasonable.


The meaning of militia hasn't been "nuanced." The Militia Act was passed which completely changed the original meaning of the word.

I was being gentle with you. So if "militia" can be changed in it's meaning, why not " arms "?

Reading is fundamental. Please note the part where I said "basic weapons," and then provided examples. Your hyperbolic response is silly in that context.

I'll give you this one. I guess my response was a knee-jerk one after hearing so many argue the reason they have guns is to protect themselves from government. A silly premise considering todays weapons.

Really? Your rational for further eroding Constitutionally guaranteed rights is that it's OK because other rights have already been eroded?

This discussion is a good illustration of why having our Constitution is so important, to protect us from people like you.


Totally misunderstood my point. I was responding to "What so many anti-gunners don't seem to realize, is that if congress and the supremes can erode rights guaranteed by the 2nd, they can erode any rights guaranteed in the bor...."
My point is that rights have ALREADY been eroded without having to erode other parts. Important rights, that I would put above the right to bear arms.
My stance is that the rights of privacy, being detained without charge etc are much more important that owning a gun. People should be fighting to get back the rights they have lost and fight for saner gun laws at the same time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2015, 02:10 PM
 
3,298 posts, read 2,465,201 times
Reputation: 5517
Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post
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.
Precisely. The First and Second Militia Acts of 1792 are proof positive that our Founders intended the militia to be properly equipped, organized, trained and proficient in the use of weapons, military tactics and discipline.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2015, 02:13 PM
 
Location: WMHT
4,566 posts, read 5,639,434 times
Reputation: 6758
Thumbs down California can have weird rules, but keep them to yourselves.

Show me where the USSC says imposing prior restraint on a constitutional right is acceptable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post
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.
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.

Other parts of the country have done the same thing with mandatory training, impose the requirement, then make it as difficult and time consuming as possible to comply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by neutrino78x View Post
Because most of them won't purchase a gun, unless you're talking about redneck flyover states.
Nice attitude.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2015, 02:26 PM
 
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,055,818 times
Reputation: 2157
Quote:
Originally Posted by marlinfshr View Post
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.
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.

I never handled a firearm until I joined the Navy when I was 21, and they were still able to train me in how to operate one and use it to kill someone if needed.

And I'm still a moderate liberal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top