What should your rights in regards to weaponry be?

[Goshin]

I should be able to buy a plasma rifle in the forty kilowatt range.

 

[TurtleDude]

i should be able to buy a plasma rifle in the forty kilowatt range.

ok ahnold!

 

[1750Texan]

You can get crab cakes all day long on the west coast. What are you smoking? Pass it here.

On the op. Everything short of strategic nuclear weapons and some particularly nasty chemical and biologicals.

But not the better tasting right coast kind. The right crab is far more tasty.

 

[Thom Paine]

What should your rights in regards to weaponry be?

Specifically this :

Grandfather Shoots Home Invader, Stops Attempted Gang Rape Of Granddaughter

.......................According to WBTW News, the three armed suspects knocked on the door of 67-year-old Kenneth Byrd's home around 10 p.m. They then "stormed" into the house, forcing Byrd and his wife to the rear of the home and demanding he open a safe at gunpoint.

Police say the three suspects also tried to "rape the teen girl" in the house, but Byrd..............................

Grandfather Shoots Home Invader, Stops Attempted Gang Rape Of Granddaughter

Another point for the good guys.

Thom Paine

 

[molten_dragon]

I don't believe in testing people for constitutional rights. what we should do is punish those who use firearms in a harmful or illegal manner

Well, I see no reason why someone who wants to own a gun should not be able to demonstrate that they know how to use it properly.

 

[blackjack50]

Well, I see no reason why someone who wants to own a gun should not be able to demonstrate that they know how to use it properly.

Who is defining the use? I don't need someone who has never fired a gun telling me how to safely handle a firearm. And the last thing I want is a government employee telling me how to handle a firearm. Ever seen how police handle firearms? It is scary.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, I see no reason why someone who wants to own a gun should not be able to demonstrate that they know how to use it properly.

its called the constitution.

 

[munson]

Well, I see no reason why someone who wants to own a gun should not be able to demonstrate that they know how to use it properly.

If someone needs to demonstrate how to use and item before he is permitted [by the government] to own said item, this is a "privilege" and not a "right". Now, I do believe that we should respect our right enough that we should take the responsibility upon ourselves to be well educated and trained.

 

[molten_dragon]

its called the constitution.

Did you forget the premise of the thread?

I would like to hear people's opinions on what your rights "ought to be" and why, putting the existing constitution aside.

 

[molten_dragon]

Who is defining the use? I don't need someone who has never fired a gun telling me how to safely handle a firearm.

Get a group of firearms instructors together and have them come to an agreement on what constitutes being able to demonstrate basic proficiency with the weapon. I'm not thinking anything too strenuous.

For a handgun, probably something like demonstrating the ability to safely load and unload it, and the ability to hit a man-sized target with an entire magazine (or cylinder) from 15 feet. Or something similar to that.

If someone needs to demonstrate how to use and item before he is permitted [by the government] to own said item, this is a "privilege" and not a "right". Now, I do believe that we should respect our right enough that we should take the responsibility upon ourselves to be well educated and trained.

Okay, then call it a privilege rather than a right. I don't believe there's a practical difference between the two.

 

[TurtleDude]

Did you forget the premise of the thread?

84 posts, there have been all sorts of diversions

there is no rational argument for laws that only impact honest people

 

[munson]

Okay, then call it a privilege rather than a right. I don't believe there's a practical difference between the two.

No practical difference? There is a distinct difference. One requires permission, via demonstrating how to use one, and the other doesn't. It's quite simple, really.

 

[molten_dragon]

there is no rational argument for laws that only impact honest people

To make sure those honest people are mature and responsible enough to handle a weapon before you allow them to have one. There's the rational argument. It's not about keeping them away from criminals. That boat sailed a long time ago.

And we currently limit gun ownership by age. How is that better than limiting it to people of any age who have proven themselves responsible?

 

[molten_dragon]

No practical difference? There is a distinct difference. One requires permission, via demonstrating how to use one, and the other doesn't. It's quite simple, really.

Most of our rights require permission in some for or another too. People get really hung up on the concept of rights, but it's just a word.

 

[TurtleDude]

To make sure those honest people are mature and responsible enough to handle a weapon before you allow them to have one. There's the rational argument. It's not about keeping them away from criminals. That boat sailed a long time ago.

And we currently limit gun ownership by age. How is that better than limiting it to people of any age who have proven themselves responsible?

1) sorry, constitutional rights should not be subject to subjective tests

2) we limit the right to vote and contract by age as well

3) your suggestion has no value in stopping crime

 

[munson]

Most of our rights require permission in some for or another too. People get really hung up on the concept of rights, but it's just a word.

You're correct. The word "right" is just a word, but the Constitution gives it direct meaning. We must defend our Rights from any who dare infringe upon it, both foreign and domestic.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I should be able to buy a plasma rifle in the forty kilowatt range.

Hey, just what ya see, pal.

 

[blackjack50]

Get a group of firearms instructors together and have them come to an agreement on what constitutes being able to demonstrate basic proficiency with the weapon. I'm not thinking anything too strenuous.

For a handgun, probably something like demonstrating the ability to safely load and unload it, and the ability to hit a man-sized target with an entire magazine (or cylinder) from 15 feet. Or something similar to that.

Again. I don't need someone hired by the government trying to make me demonstrate anything to use a right. You seen the video of the DEA agent who shot himself?

Accidents happen. You can't legislate stupidity out of existent. You can legislate it into existence, but never away.

Okay, then call it a privilege rather than a right. I don't believe there's a practical difference between the two.

There is though. One can be revoked, and one does not just RECEIVE it. Rights you get automatically.

 

[Crimefree]

What do you think its purpose is?

I don't think anything and what I think along with what anyone else thinks is irrelevant.

But I do assume a few Americans have read the Declaration of Independence. Not that they remember the words or anything important or consider why they were stated.

I'm willing to listen on what grounds should limitations be imposed?

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.
-Hamilton

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
-Webster

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
-Tucker

"Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States."

Noah Webster, "An Examination into the leading Principles of the Federal Constitution." in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States , at 56 (New York, 1888).

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

 

[Crimefree]

Get a group of firearms instructors together and have them come to an agreement on what constitutes being able to demonstrate basic proficiency with the weapon. I'm not thinking anything too strenuous.

For what PROVEN purpose is this?

For a handgun, probably something like demonstrating the ability to safely load and unload it, and the ability to hit a man-sized target with an entire magazine (or cylinder) from 15 feet. Or something similar to that.

Is there a problem this will fix?

Okay, then call it a privilege rather than a right. I don't believe there's a practical difference between the two

I do not believe anyone here cares if you sell your soul to the devil either as long as you do not try to enforce it on others out of fear or just because you want to be repressive. There are many people who want to enjoy their rights and you have no business trying to stop them do you.