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.
In our society,we request people who operate hazardous or sensitive to the public health machines to be qualified...
We also categorise them.
One license for passenger car drivers,another for big trucks etc,
One license for small airplanes,a different one for commercial or airliners...
So,it's only logical to require licenses for shotguns/rifles.
The more stringent the qualifications needed,the better the face we show to the people...
In our society,we request people who operate hazardous or sensitive to the public health machines to be qualified...
We also categorise them.
One license for passenger car drivers,another for big trucks etc,
One license for small airplanes,a different one for commercial or airliners...
So,it's only logical to require licenses for shotguns/rifles.
The more stringent the qualifications needed,the better the face we show to the people...
But... driving is a privilege, not a right (unlike the right to bear arms).
why does any police, state or federal agency need to own a automatic weapon outside of the military?
heck, you can even add in armored vehicles too.
I don't include law enforcement in this question. As far as I'm concerned, I don't have a problem with law enforcement having access to automatic weapons.
I have a problem with watering down or doing away with the Second Amendment however. But I still don't understand why John Q. Public needs to own automatic weapons that serve no purpose other than to thoroughly kill human beings in a manner untouched by their non-automatic counterparts.
I don't include law enforcement in this question. As far as I'm concerned, I don't have a problem with law enforcement having access to automatic weapons.
I have a problem with watering down or doing away with the Second Amendment however. But I still don't understand why John Q. Public needs to own automatic weapons that serve no purpose other than to thoroughly kill human beings in a manner untouched by their non-automatic counterparts.
The word "need" and the word "right" doen't coexist. No "need" is necessary to exercise a right. For example, you don't have to have a need to speak in public to have that right. You have the right to speak in public regardless of any need existing or not existing.
It is a slippery slope to entertain or even associate the word "need" with rights. After all, why do you need to go to church every Sunday, or to pray every day. I could see once a year, but do you really NEED to go to church every Sunday!!!!!! Those two words have no business in the same sentence.
Last edited by semperarmati; 04-20-2010 at 01:29 PM..
Reason: Misread poste
I don't include law enforcement in this question. As far as I'm concerned, I don't have a problem with law enforcement having access to automatic weapons.
I have a problem with watering down or doing away with the Second Amendment however. But I still don't understand why John Q. Public needs to own automatic weapons that serve no purpose other than to thoroughly kill human beings in a manner untouched by their non-automatic counterparts.
Let us discuss "need" and "purpose". My or your need may differ from anothers, as you or I define it for ourselves. As far as purpose, well that falls on the individual to decide what their purpose is.
.50bmg rifles. They were banned in California, some at the federal level would like to do the same. Those that promoted the ban used those exact words, " who needs one?, what purpose do they serve other than to shoot a helicopter?"
Not one of these .50 rifles have ever been used in a crime yet they took their self defined definitions and banned them on the sake. Fact is many long distance target shooters do use them, to them they serve a purpose, yet based on emotional propaganda they were banned. What is interesting is a box cutter was used to bring down a aircraft, not a .50bmg rifle yet there is no movement to ban them.
To be precise, driving on a public road is a privilege. Driving on private property is not a privilege and no license is required.
We shouldn't play with words.
The results matter.
"Bad " licensing of drivers,pilots etc leads to accidents & deaths...
"Bad " licensing of gun owners ,even if it doesn't lead to deaths,looks bad to the public.
But... driving is a privilege, not a right (unlike the right to bear arms).
I have the (human) right and need to urinate and defecate sometimes. Can I do either in your yard at a time of my convenience . . . errr need? Or in the street running in front of your house?
I have the (human) right and need to urinate and defecate sometimes. Can I do either in your yard at a time of my convenience . . . errr need? Or in the street running in front of your house?
A person's rights stop at the point they interfere with someone elses.
You should have the right to own a weapon,but use it to rob or murder and you overstep your rights
You should have the right to drive 100mph on a desert road,but do it on a crowded highway and you overstep your rights.
You should have the right to drink or do drugs, but steal to feed the habit or drive DUI and you overstep your rights.
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.
