Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
If you screw up with your gun, people die or become critically injured. If you screw up with your car, people may die or become critically injured. What's so bad about requiring a demonstration of aptitude for both?
Listen, I'm sitting here saying you can have all the guns you want, of any type, you just need to show a certain aptitude and responsibility. That's a far cry from wanting to take away particular guns.
|
the major problem with requiring aptitude and competence to exercise a right is where do you draw the line? do we start with a score of 50%? maybe 75%? and should we just end up saying if you can't be perfect with your gun, you don't have that right? Next, do we hold those requirements equally across the board for all? or do we start making exceptions for federal agents and state/local law enforcement? then judges? prosecutors and politicians? or should we just go right ahead and throw them the exemptions immediately since they get to write the laws anyway? It's great that you're promoting unrestricted gun ownership. It does leave me to wonder what other rights you think should be strictly regulated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
As for the waiting period, people don't buy a new car in the heat of the moment in order to run someone over. Someone with no history, on the other hand, may very well purchase a gun in the heat of the moment in order to exact revenge on someone. Aside for immediate concerns of self-defense, I can think of absolutely no reason why someone can't be patient for 6 months before they get their gun. Is that such a terrible compromise in order to have any and all the guns you want?
|
it is to me. should we start having 6 month waits on car ownership? house ownership? that last might not be a bad thing considering the mortgage bailout fiasco we're dealing with. what say you? a 6 month wait for government approval before you buy a house? maybe 3 month wait before renting an apartment? just to make sure you don't default on rent? A year long wait on buying an animal to make sure you're responsible enough to take care of another life? how about a 3 year wait before having children so the government can license you for parenting classes?
you see where this goes? it's called slippery slope for a reason. Of course alot of people would rather dismiss this theory because 'it couldn't happen here', but look whats been going on for the last 90 years.
-----Added 9/12/2008 at 10 : 59 : 21-----
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
What really grabs me is that people run around saying "I gotta have my gun!" and then when I carry a knife the same people shriek and exclaim "Oh god that's scary! You can't have that!"
It astonishes me that the prevailing attitude in this country seems to be that people should be able to buy an assault rifle, but if they carry a knife that's three inches long they should go to jail.
|
it's ludicrous, isn't it? I think you should be able to carry that knife, or a 6 inch knife, a friggin sword if you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
There truly is no limit on the 2nd amendment, except for the one that the supreme court (in my opinion) unwisely blew straight through - namely the bit about being in an organized militia.
|
First, there are still limits on the 2nd Amendment. Stupid and illogical limits, but that's our nanny state of bliss for you.
Secondly, the 2nd Amendment does not say that the right of the militia can keep and bear arms, it says 'the people'. it merely states that a militia is necessary. In those famous words of old, 'I ask you, who is the militia? It is every able bodied citizen save a few public officials'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Since there's no limit, yes, you can have a nuclear missile if you can afford one. You can have a tank, or a flame thrower, or that ultimate weapon of mass terror, a bowie knife.
|
If you can backpack that nuclear missile, go for it. I don't see it happening, but there it is. In truth, using logic and common sense, one should be able to realize that 'arms' as it states in the 2nd, is talking about any arm that a individual soldier would carry in to war. Therefore, missiles, rockets, and aircraft launched ordinance should obviously be disallowed, but then we're having to deal with people that don't agree about private gun ownership and obfuscate the issue with jackassed interpretations.