what kind of constitution do you wish to create...National or Federal.

[Master PO]

IMO driving is a right, not a privilege given to us from the all mighty government. Driving philosophically driving isnt any different than walking. At the very least driving is a liberty. And in some places driving is a necessity of life.

to "travel" is a right.

driving is a privilege because it is licensed, by getting approval from a government bureaucrat.

rights are not licensed or need government approval.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I'm not entirely sure of all the reasons for driving being a privilege in most areas.

I can understand the need for required training/competence demonstration (driving classes/practice/tests) to educate new drivers about road laws & etiquette.
But in many cases I'm not sure it sticks....

Is it possible to have a conditional right that is dependent on demonstrated competence? That wouldn't be a right though, would it...

It is a right of every American to be free and have certain liberties, unless we abuse those rights, and liberties. Prisons are a testament to incompetence. Meaning that freedom is constitutional. In the case of driving being required to have a drivers license is conditional. Everyone in this country has the right drive but under certain conditional requirements.

If driving was only for the privileged, it would mean that the government could stop you from driving for no good reason. Just think how the public would react to being told that they cannot drive without having done anything wrong. My guess is that us citizens would revolt, maybe even violently. Not all rights are enumerated you know. I am pretty sure that the founders would be appalled if someone told them that riding a horse is a privilege and not their right as free peoples.

Building permits are required to build your home. No one really denies property rights because we need permits. It isnt a privilege to own property it is a right. A motor vehicle is private property I every right to own and operate it as long as I meet the legal requirements, for operating said vehicle in public. Operating in public is the crux of the situation. I can drive any vehicle in any condition on private property as long as there are no laws prohibiting the use of the vehicle in the town, county or state. I have a friend that works on a ranch he lost his license because of DWI's. He can legally drive on the ranch property but cannot leave the property.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

to "travel" is a right.

driving is a privilege because it is licensed, by getting approval from a government bureaucrat.

rights are not licensed or need government approval.

The point of a motor vehicle is to travel. Taking away a motor vehicle makes it harder to travel. So taking away a motor vehicle hedges the right to travel.

So if something needs a license or needs government approval it isnt a right? Taxation doesnt come into the picture at all? What about business license or building permits? Does that mean owning a business is a privilege and owning a home isnt a right?

 

[paddymcdougall]

For those of you who think driving is a right-

are you against the sensible laws around driving? That give us safe cars, that try to ensure drivers pass a basic competency test, that you can't drive, drunk, etc?

And of course I'm leading to sensible laws around guns....

 

[Master PO]

The point of a motor vehicle is to travel. Taking away a motor vehicle makes it harder to travel. So taking away a motor vehicle hedges the right to travel.

So if something needs a license or needs government approval it isnt a right? Taxation doesnt come into the picture at all? What about business license or building permits? Does that mean owning a business is a privilege and owning a home isnt a right?

rights require that others stand back and let not hinder the exercising of a right.

privilege requires and action by government for it to be exercised.

business license is a tax ID. ..for tax purposes only

building permits are to see building in within code so it is safe for health and safety of the public.

you have a right to commerce.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

For those of you who think driving is a right-

are you against the sensible laws around driving? That give us safe cars, that try to ensure drivers pass a basic competency test, that you can't drive, drunk, etc?

And of course I'm leading to sensible laws around guns....

Of course laws are necessary. The rationale is that your rights should not impede others rights. In order to stop the wanton trampling of others rights we need laws. But those laws cannot unduly hedge rights.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

rights require that others stand back and let not hinder the exercising of a right.

privilege requires and action by government for it to be exercised.

business license is a tax ID. ..for tax purposes only

building permits are to see building in within code so it is safe for health and safety of the public.

you have a right to commerce.

And a drivers license ensures that the driver can safely drive. While at the same time providing tax monies for the road system. It isnt any different than a building permit.

 

[Master PO]

And a drivers license ensures that the driver can safely drive. While at the same time providing tax monies for the road system. It isnt any different than a building permit.

a building permit, is used to see a building will be safe and the government takes money for having an inspector check that it is.

governments job is to secure rights...so health and safety code are created by government to protect the public.

 

[Master PO]

Of course laws are necessary. The rationale is that your rights should not impede others rights. In order to stop the wanton trampling of others rights we need laws. But those laws cannot unduly hedge rights.

you are correct here...government does create some privileges [positive law] which violate rights [negative law]...

privileges are never to override a right.

 

[paddymcdougall]

So obviously I was using "driving as a right" to look at "guns as a right"

If driving was in the constitution, could we have DUI laws? could we require drivers' licenses? insurance? could we give tickets? could we have a speed limit? could we make people drive on the right side of the road, stop at stoplights, etc?

While I still think the second amendment applies only if you are in a militia, even if we say it applies as a right to have guns in your house even if you aren't in a militia, I fail to see why we can't impose safety rules like trigger locks, limited magazines, real training to get a license, perhaps a license renewal every so often that at least checks your eye sight (and yes, I know, blind people have guns).

Also seems reasonable if you ever abuse a gun - it drops out of your pocket at a theater or you leave it in a public restroom or you shoot your kid accidentally pulling it out of a truck - you don't get to own one for awhile - suspended license.

But hey, it just seems like people will accept any number of deaths in order that they, personally, get to own a gun with no restrictions. We wouldn't do this with cars, which are needed for commuting. It's a shame the courts have let us do this with guns.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

So obviously I was using "driving as a right" to look at "guns as a right"

If driving was in the constitution, could we have DUI laws? could we require drivers' licenses? insurance? could we give tickets? could we have a speed limit? could we make people drive on the right side of the road, stop at stoplights, etc?

While I still think the second amendment applies only if you are in a militia, even if we say it applies as a right to have guns in your house even if you aren't in a militia, I fail to see why we can't impose safety rules like trigger locks, limited magazines, real training to get a license, perhaps a license renewal every so often that at least checks your eye sight (and yes, I know, blind people have guns).

Also seems reasonable if you ever abuse a gun - it drops out of your pocket at a theater or you leave it in a public restroom or you shoot your kid accidentally pulling it out of a truck - you don't get to own one for awhile - suspended license.

But hey, it just seems like people will accept any number of deaths in order that they, personally, get to own a gun with no restrictions. We wouldn't do this with cars, which are needed for commuting. It's a shame the courts have let us do this with guns.

Except that I dont need a license or insurance to operate a vehicle on private property. I also dont need any of those things to merely own a vehicle.

I can own a firearm without ever firing it. I can also carry a unloaded firearm without fear of it accidentally harming someone. I could also (despite your naive belief that a magazine is more dangerous the more ammo it can carry) carry multiple magazines. Of course laws are meaningless to those who are determined to break them. People drive all the time with no license or insurance.

I am all for requirements if you wish to carry a loaded firearm in public. I am opposed to ridiculous laws that infringe on rights, freedoms, and liberty. Seatbelt laws while good for children is a bit overreaching on adults. If I want to be stupid enough to drive without a seatbelt that should be my personal decision. ANd compulsory insurance is a racket.

Actual laws though that saves lives are those that actively try to stop dangers to the public. Things like pointing a firearm at a human whether loaded or not should be a crime, everywhere. Basically you take gun safety and consider what laws can be made from that concept. Things like trigger locks, limited magazines, firearm training/qualifications/permits have their places but not in every case. If my firearms are in my home they are already kept safely, I dont need the government to tell me how to safely store my own property. One bullet can kill a person, limiting how much ammo a firearm is loaded with is a false security if you know anything about firearms. Many people know a lot about firearms and many do not. The same goes for driving a motorized vehicle. A license isnt the same as being trained.

 

[paddymcdougall]

Except that I dont need a license or insurance to operate a vehicle on private property. I also dont need any of those things to merely own a vehicle.

I can own a firearm without ever firing it. I can also carry a unloaded firearm without fear of it accidentally harming someone. I could also (despite your naive belief that a magazine is more dangerous the more ammo it can carry) carry multiple magazines. Of course laws are meaningless to those who are determined to break them. People drive all the time with no license or insurance.

I am all for requirements if you wish to carry a loaded firearm in public. I am opposed to ridiculous laws that infringe on rights, freedoms, and liberty. Seatbelt laws while good for children is a bit overreaching on adults. If I want to be stupid enough to drive without a seatbelt that should be my personal decision. ANd compulsory insurance is a racket.

Actual laws though that saves lives are those that actively try to stop dangers to the public. Things like pointing a firearm at a human whether loaded or not should be a crime, everywhere. Basically you take gun safety and consider what laws can be made from that concept. Things like trigger locks, limited magazines, firearm training/qualifications/permits have their places but not in every case. If my firearms are in my home they are already kept safely, I dont need the government to tell me how to safely store my own property. One bullet can kill a person, limiting how much ammo a firearm is loaded with is a false security if you know anything about firearms. Many people know a lot about firearms and many do not. The same goes for driving a motorized vehicle. A license isnt the same as being trained.

So -if your gun is in your own house - no restrictions. Have what you want, do what you want with them (assuming you don't injure/kill another person).

But if they leave your house - then we can do restrictions such as the only times a gun is outside the house it has to be for something like transporting from shop to house or house to target range or to hunting area. It has to be unloaded and in the truck (like liquor - can't have open containers in the car). No carrying it in your pocket into a theater where it drops out and fires (just to name one notorious incident). CCW would be severely limited.

Still wouldn't stop crooks, but might cut back on rage-incited shootings.

Oh, and if your gun is stolen from your house - maybe you are responsible for what happens, since it was your job to keep it secure.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

So -if your gun is in your own house - no restrictions. Have what you want, do what you want with them (assuming you don't injure/kill another person).

But if they leave your house - then we can do restrictions such as the only times a gun is outside the house it has to be for something like transporting from shop to house or house to target range or to hunting area. It has to be unloaded and in the truck (like liquor - can't have open containers in the car). No carrying it in your pocket into a theater where it drops out and fires (just to name one notorious incident). CCW would be severely limited.

Still wouldn't stop crooks, but might cut back on rage-incited shootings.

Oh, and if your gun is stolen from your house - maybe you are responsible for what happens, since it was your job to keep it secure.

DO you feel this way about all dangerous objects?

 

[paddymcdougall]

DO you feel this way about all dangerous objects?

Nope. Just dangerous objects whose only purpose is to kill.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So -if your gun is in your own house - no restrictions. Have what you want, do what you want with them (assuming you don't injure/kill another person).

But if they leave your house - then we can do restrictions such as the only times a gun is outside the house it has to be for something like transporting from shop to house or house to target range or to hunting area. It has to be unloaded and in the truck (like liquor - can't have open containers in the car). No carrying it in your pocket into a theater where it drops out and fires (just to name one notorious incident). CCW would be severely limited.

Still wouldn't stop crooks, but might cut back on rage-incited shootings.

Oh, and if your gun is stolen from your house - maybe you are responsible for what happens, since it was your job to keep it secure.

Rage incited killings? You are aware this blood on the streets bs has been proven wrong in every state that's enacted shall issue carry right?

See someone with as little knowledge of the subject as you have expressed ( in that you constantly say stuff that's demonstrably wrong) should seek more education before attempting to argue the subject "rage incited killings" are statistically so low that ccw restrictions maximum possible effect is not high enough to justify the costs of such laws

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Neither the options you have provided are so extreme that neither of them will fit my philosophy on government. Of course the federal government should not be making zoning decisions, but they should not be so limited that states get to make whatever decisions they want with impunity as long as it does not encroach on national defense or interstate commerce

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Nope. Just dangerous objects whose only purpose is to kill.

So firearms designed for target shooting primarily, are ok? What about crossbows/archery or knifes, daggers, spears and swords?

My point is that your opinion on firearms isnt everyones opinion. There are many arguments against strong gun control laws. Guns in of themselves are not to blame for them being used for crime, its the users that break the law that are to blame. Criminal law is the proper channel for controlling gun crimes, not a Constitution.

 

[paddymcdougall]

Rage incited killings? You are aware this blood on the streets bs has been proven wrong in every state that's enacted shall issue carry right?

See someone with as little knowledge of the subject as you have expressed ( in that you constantly say stuff that's demonstrably wrong) should seek more education before attempting to argue the subject "rage incited killings" are statistically so low that ccw restrictions maximum possible effect is not high enough to justify the costs of such laws

I said nothing about how rare or how frequent these killings are. You insult my knowledge, but you are arguing about something I never brought up so maybe you need to re-read before responding. But when cases like the kid who got shot by a man because the kid's music was too loud happens, that's the kind of thing that would probably be stopped if the gun was unloaded and in the trunk.

FreedomFromAll brought up the idea about "anything goes" at home, but not outside of the home in the first place. I'm continuing that discussion.

I understand those of you who are very pro gun will never accept any restrictions, any limits, and (apparently) have no ideas how to reduce the numbers of deaths by guns, both accidental and deliberate and don't (apparently) care about the results.

Some of us care.

I say those like you apparently don't care, because if you did, it seems you would join with the rest of us in looking for solutions to the violence (beyond "lock them up once they've killed"). Instead, you look for reasons to "pooh pooh" any suggestions.

 

[paddymcdougall]

Criminal law is the proper channel for controlling gun crimes, not a Constitution.

Which is why my preference would be to leave them out of the constitution altogether, so they can be controlled like any other potentially deadly object.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Which is why my preference would be to leave them out of the constitution altogether, so they can be controlled like any other potentially deadly object.

They are in the Constitution because a armed citizenry is part of the checks and balances system of government that makes America what it is.

 

[sangha]

They are in the Constitution because a armed citizenry is part of the checks and balances system of government that makes America what it is.

IMO, that was a part of the intent but given how things have changed it doesn't really make sense any more. A bunch of people having guns is in no way a check on a govt that has a standing army of professional soldiers.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I said nothing about how rare or how frequent these killings are. You insult my knowledge, but you are arguing about something I never brought up so maybe you need to re-read before responding. But when cases like the kid who got shot by a man because the kid's music was too loud happens, that's the kind of thing that would probably be stopped if the gun was unloaded and in the trunk.

FreedomFromAll brought up the idea about "anything goes" at home, but not outside of the home in the first place. I'm continuing that discussion.

I understand those of you who are very pro gun will never accept any restrictions, any limits, and (apparently) have no ideas how to reduce the numbers of deaths by guns, both accidental and deliberate and don't (apparently) care about the results.

Some of us care.

I say those like you apparently don't care, because if you did, it seems you would join with the rest of us in looking for solutions to the violence (beyond "lock them up once they've killed"). Instead, you look for reasons to "pooh pooh" any suggestions.

Anecdotes, check. False dichotomy, check. Strawman, check

Exactly the point I made. In fact pro gun people have been very active in seeking solutions, we got three strikes and hard time for armed crime passed in Washington which drastically reduced gun crime rates, and now the social justice crowd is working overtime to undermine those laws and put violent people back on the streets at the same time they demand people be put in jail for 11 bullets or lending a gun to a known friend....

 

[EMNofSeattle]

IMO, that was a part of the intent but given how things have changed it doesn't really make sense any more. A bunch of people having guns is in no way a check on a govt that has a standing army of professional soldiers.

Whose oath is to the constitution, which should contain a strong RKBA measure

 

[sangha]

Whose oath is to the constitution, which should contain a strong RKBA measure

Your response is a bit off point.

If people with guns were trying to overthrow the govt, the soldiers would follow orders and put a stop to it. Using the militia to stop insurrection is also a part of the constitution. The fact that people had a right to own guns would not cause soldiers to hesitate in putting down an insurrection.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Your response is a bit off point.

If people with guns were trying to overthrow the govt, the soldiers would follow orders and put a stop to it. Using the militia to stop insurrection is also a part of the constitution. The fact that people had a right to own guns would not cause soldiers to hesitate in putting down an insurrection.

That is not born out by history, not universally anyway, history is full of examples of military officials not putting down rebellion. The October revolt in Russia, is the most prominent. The governor of Tennessee chose not to activate the national guard during the McMinn county war is another