Gun control I definitely oppose

[SMTA]

I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for someone who goes out and buys a gun, then injures themselves because they didn't learn to safely handle it.

However, this is the kind of accident that could be prevented by requiring everyone to take a basic gun handling course that involves shooting actual guns before being allowed to buy a gun.

I don't have any sympathy for weak kneed people who feel the need to pad the world for everyone else.

If are afraid of everything around you, feel free to protect yourself.

Leave the rest of us alone.

 

[molten_dragon]

I don't have any sympathy for weak kneed people who feel the need to pad the world for everyone else.

If are afraid of everything around you, feel free to protect yourself.

Leave the rest of us alone.

So because I want people to take the extremely sensible precaution of actually learning to use a gun before buying one, I'm weak kneed and afraid of everything around me? That's a little bit of a stretch.

Would you say the same thing if I recommended that people be required to present proof that they knew how to drive a car before buying one?

 

[Lutherf]

So because I want people to take the extremely sensible precaution of actually learning to use a gun before buying one, I'm weak kneed and afraid of everything around me? That's a little bit of a stretch.

Would you say the same thing if I recommended that people be required to present proof that they knew how to drive a car before buying one?

Wanting that is fine. Forcing it on people isn't.

 

[molten_dragon]

Wanting that is fine. Forcing it on people isn't.

I see nothing wrong with it. If you want to own a gun, you should know how to shoot a gun. If you want to own a car, you should know how to drive a car.

I also think that gun safety classes that include range time firing real guns should be taught in high school though.

 

[SMTA]

I see nothing wrong with it. If you want to own a gun, you should know how to shoot a gun. If you want to own a car, you should know how to drive a car.

I also think that gun safety classes that include range time firing real guns should be taught in high school though.

Of course you don't.

How about a license required to buy a pair of scissors?

When will the control stupidity end?

 

[Black Dog]

I see nothing wrong with it. If you want to own a gun, you should know how to shoot a gun. If you want to own a car, you should know how to drive a car.

I also think that gun safety classes that include range time firing real guns should be taught in high school though.

Owning a car is a privilege not a right.

 

[molten_dragon]

Of course you don't.

How about a license required to buy a pair of scissors?

When will the control stupidity end?

A pair of scissors, while dangerous if used improperly, is not nearly as dangerous as a car or a gun if used improperly.

And children are taught how to use scissors in school or by their parents (I know my teacher taught us not to run with scissors).

I'd be fine not requiring proof of taking a gun handling class if it was taught to everyone in school. But that's never going to happen. Guns are too controversial. So teach it in school to the ones who want to learn, and require proof that you've been taught to buy one. I don't see how that's any more restrictive than the current system. You already can't buy a long gun until 18 and a handgun until 21, so anyone who wants to buy one at that age would have the chance to take the class in school first.

 

[molten_dragon]

Owning a car is a privilege not a right.

So what? Rights can be restricted too. It happens all the time.

 

[SMTA]

A pair of scissors, while dangerous if used improperly, is not nearly as dangerous as a car or a gun if used improperly.

And children are taught how to use scissors in school or by their parents (I know my teacher taught us not to run with scissors).

I'd be fine not requiring proof of taking a gun handling class if it was taught to everyone in school. But that's never going to happen. Guns are too controversial. So teach it in school to the ones who want to learn, and require proof that you've been taught to buy one. I don't see how that's any more restrictive than the current system. You already can't buy a long gun until 18 and a handgun until 21, so anyone who wants to buy one at that age would have the chance to take the class in school first.

Oh, control the big, bad world for the ignorant!

I'll pass.

Kids do own guns - like mine.

 

[Black Dog]

So what? Rights can be restricted too. It happens all the time.

Rights are restricted only when it violates someone's rights. Privileges are not the same thing. Not knowing the difference is part of the problem.

 

[AngryOldGuy]

Not knowing the difference

is the problem!

 

[AngryOldGuy]

yeah buddy when 'rights' become 'privileges'

 

[ttwtt78640]

I see nothing wrong with it. If you want to own a gun, you should know how to shoot a gun. If you want to own a car, you should know how to drive a car.

I also think that gun safety classes that include range time firing real guns should be taught in high school though.

Comparing constitutional rights with state issued privileges is not exactly apples to apples. Can these constituional rights classes, tests and "rental fees" now be applied (by state and local gov'ts) to all constitutional rights except the right to vote?

 

[molten_dragon]

Oh, control the big, bad world for the ignorant!

I'll pass.

Not the point I was making at all. It's not about control, it's about basic common sense.

Kids do own guns - like mine.

No, you own guns and you allow your kids to use them.

 

[molten_dragon]

Rights are restricted only when it violates someone's rights. Privileges are not the same thing. Not knowing the difference is part of the problem.

No, part of the problem is buying into the whole fiction of inalienable rights in the first place. All of our 'rights' are restricted in some way or another. We have never had, and will never have any unrestricted rights. Once you realize that then it makes perfect sense to enact restrictions that are beneficial.

 

[molten_dragon]

Comparing constitutional rights with state issued privileges is not exactly apples to apples.

I'm not saying it's an apples to apples comparison.

Can these constituional rights classes, tests and "rental fees" now be applied (by state and local gov'ts) to all constitutional rights except the right to vote?

If there's some benefit to doing so, sure. In fact we've done so with most of our rights.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'm not saying it's an apples to apples comparison.



If there's some benefit to doing so, sure. In fact we've done so with most of our rights.

The primary benefit is obviously state gov't revenue ($140 per person in Texas). Many states have decided that they can benefit from requiring those perfectly able to legally buy (keep) a handgun to then rent permission from the state to legally carry (bear) that handgun. Obviously, nobody that cannot leaglly buy (keep) a gun is being allowed to carry (bear) it, yet the 2A makes absolutely no disticntion between the right to keep and bear arms. Some states simply decided carrying (bearing) arms was a completely different right from buying (keeping) arms entirely and then made a law to gain additional revenue from it.

 

[molten_dragon]

The primary benefit is obviously state gov't revenue ($140 per person in Texas). Many states have decided that they can benefit from requiring those perfectly able to legally buy (keep) a handgun to then rent permission from the state to legally carry (bear) that handgun. Obviously, nobody that cannot leaglly buy (keep) a gun is being allowed to carry (bear) it, yet the 2A makes absolutely no disticntion between the right to keep and bear arms. Some states simply decided carrying (bearing) arms was a completely different right from buying (keeping) arms entirely and then made a law to gain additional revenue from it.

See, if you were required to take the safety training (which would be offered for free in high schools) in order to buy a gun, there would be no need to license people to carry one, since the safety training that is prudent for a person to have before carrying a gun in public has already been taken.

 

[Black Dog]

No, part of the problem is buying into the whole fiction of inalienable rights in the first place.

You lose right here. This has nothing to do with you trying to compare a right to a state issued privilege.

All of our 'rights' are restricted in some way or another. We have never had, and will never have any unrestricted rights.

The first part is wrong. The second part is mostly wrong according to our law.

Once you realize that then it makes perfect sense to enact restrictions that are beneficial.

The restrictions you want are not beneficial nor would they be legal because it is a right.

 

[ttwtt78640]

See, if you were required to take the safety training (which would be offered for free in high schools) in order to buy a gun, there would be no need to license people to carry one, since the safety training that is prudent for a person to have before carrying a gun in public has already been taken.

But that is not the Texas law, now is it. I agree that the 10 hour course is not a bad idea, but why was it made to cost so much? A driver's license in Texas costs $24 and includes any written and practical testing required, the CCW permit in Texas costs about $100 for the "NRA" course, $20 in ammo (50 rounds) and a $140 non-refundable "application fee". If a constitutional right costs 10x more than a mere state issued privilege then something is terribly wrong.

 

[molten_dragon]

You lose right here. This has nothing to do with you trying to compare a right to a state issued privilege.

It has a lot to do with it, since there is no realistic difference between rights and privileges.

The first part is wrong. The second part is mostly wrong according to our law.

Neither part is wrong. I'm not talking about our laws, or our ideals, I'm talking about reality. If you do believe we have unrestricted rights, name one.

The restrictions you want are not beneficial nor would they be legal because it is a right.

Both of those things are merely a matter of opinion.

 

[molten_dragon]

But that is not the Texas law, now is it. I agree that the 10 hour course is not a bad idea, but why was it made to cost so much? A driver's license in Texas costs $24 and includes any written and practical testing required, the CCW permit in Texas costs about $100 for the "NRA" course, $20 in ammo (50 rounds) and a $140 non-refundable "application fee". If a constitutional right costs 10x more than a mere state issued privilege then something is terribly wrong.

Yeah, I agree the current setup kind of sucks. I understand that it costs some money to process applications for CCW permits and stuff, but it shouldn't cost as much as it does.

 

[Black Dog]

It has a lot to do with it, since there is no realistic difference between rights and privileges.

Neither part is wrong. I'm not talking about our laws, or our ideals, I'm talking about reality. If you do believe we have unrestricted rights, name one.

Both of those things are merely a matter of opinion.

I suppose you believe the Constitution is a "living document" as well. :lamo

PS please point out where I said anything about "unrestricted rights?" I already told you why they can't be unrestricted and why you can't arbitrarily restrict them as a privilege as well.

Why do liberals have such a problem with rights and the Constitution?

 

[molten_dragon]

I suppose you believe the Constitution is a "living document" as well. :lamo

Of course it is. You're delusional if you think it isn't.

PS please point out where I said anything about "unrestricted rights?"

5 posts up, where you replied to my comment about us not having any unrestricted rights with "That's wrong".

Why do liberals have such a problem with rights and the Constitution?

I don't have a problem with rights, I have a problem with people who use them like a bludgeon in an argument, and rather than actually offering a counter-argument, just respond with "You can't do that because it infringes my rights".

And I don't have a problem with the constitution either. I have a problem with people who treat it as holy writ.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Used firearms don't have manuals and who reads the safety section about anything? Many people buying a handgun know nothing about them and may never have even fired a handgun before.

WTF!!!?? If you are unwilling to learn about a firearm before you buy one then you are not smart enough to own one! Geez, we ALL know this is NOT a TOY, hence the issue with gun control.

Gun safety is as important as , if not more so, marksmanship. You learn how a weapon works, and how to use it properly, THEN you learn how to shoot it.