Gun Saftey Training Courses Mandatory?

[ZNFYRH]

mark

You just opened up a simple counter to your own argument.

Automobiles are a tool. They require training before licensing.

[mark3748]

mark

You just opened up a simple counter to your own argument.

Automobiles are a tool. They require training before licensing.

but they're not constitutionally protected, and they aren't a tool of self-defense. It's also not a natural (or God-Given, if you prefer) right to drive. It is a natural right to walk, but that doesn't require training, unless you count the training you receive on how to tie your shoes...

If you want to take comments out of context and build a response based on that, you won't have a very strong argument.

[Osborn F Enready]

Prax said:
Sorry Oz, but that just shows the flaws in the bill of rights making owning a firearm a right.

Sorry prax, but thats your opinion, not mine.

Prax said:
If it was something we were all born with and we all had an equal understanding of what they are capable of, then I could see justification for it being a right......

but both you and I know the world is full of idiots.

All the more reason innocent people have a right to keep and bear arms.

Prax said:
We can all learn how to diddle our wangs.... we can all learn how to make our own decisions and opinions..... but I kinda think a training course in firearms being manditory would be a good thing.

As you know, I am always the one championin firearms training, defensive training and responsible gun ownership.

That does not mean I support the federal, state or local government having the ultimate power to ok, or not ok firearms ownership based on any test, under any pretense.

Prax said:
Technically in order to protect what I think is a misinterpretation of the constitution, one could still own/posses a firearm as they see as their right to do so...... but until they get a license or take a safety course, they are not allowed to use them legally

Well, as I have stated many times.

The people are the ones that give this government the authority to operate legitimately, and we can just as easily remove that authority.

Mandating tests such as this is a sure way to invoke violence for no need whatsoever, as people in this country have always had the individual right to keep and bear arms, and it is the staple right that protects all other rights.

The government has no right or authority to prevent ownership of arms except through due process, and all regulatory arguments to the contrary are without constitutional authority.

ZNYFRH said:
Where is my right to travel enumerated?

Haven't we gone over this before Z?

ZNYFRH said:
Blah blah blah Second Amendment blah blah blah.

If you want me to lose respect for you and your argument, that is a sure way to do it.

ZNYFRH said:
Actually, it's the right to bear arms.

Correct, an individual right to bear arms.

ZNYFRH said:
Nothing in there talks about your right to purchase in the first place.

You assume all rights are enumerated, when there is clearly written and adopted the amendment to protect other rights not enumerated.

Using your logic, do you have an explicit right to purchase, own and consume food?

Pffft.

[Osborn F Enready]

mark said:
If you want to take comments out of context and build a response based on that, you won't have a very strong argument.

Get used to this, its one of his main tactics.

[Chancellor]

Driving is a privlidge.
Travelling is not.

You need a license to drive because driving is a privlidge, not a right.

Travelling is a right, and you need no test to operate your own two feet.

Arms for defense are a right, not a privlidge, so the government can't demand a test for ownership and still maintain its current system.

Is it really the individual's operation of a motor vehicle itself that is a privilege or is it the individual's operation of that vehicle on roads within a particular state that is a privilege?

Besides, I wasn't referring to requiring a license to own a gun but, instead, the completion of a gun safety course prior to such ownership.

[brien]

Actually, it's the right to bear arms

Nothing in there talks about your right to purchase in the first place

the phrase reads: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."

In the 18th Century there were no Bass Pro Shops or National Firearms Dealers. A firearm was a houselhold necessity, particularly in the woods. Many guns were simply passed down from father to son. They were often procured from a gunsmith who operated as freely as blacksmith did in the colonies. Of course, the nineteeth century brought manufacturers like Colt.

The framers of the 2nd Amendment would have never even thought to mention procurement of firearms since they were as common in the household as were kitchen tools.

[Osborn F Enready]

Chancellor said:
Is it really the individual's operation of a motor vehicle itself that is a privilege or is it the individual's operation of that vehicle on roads within a particular state that is a privilege?

As you know, on the roads provided for through taxation are the reasoning of the privilidge, and the fee for licensing part of the expense for maintaining those roads.

Chancellor said:
Besides, I wasn't referring to requiring a license to own a gun but, instead, the completion of a gun safety course prior to such ownership.

I have no problem with people being required to take a safety course, as long as their ownership does not DEPEND on the outcome of that course, as in, the form of a test.

You know someone will refuse to take the course, and the government will try to use that as a reason to prevent ownership.

They don't have that rights to prevent ownership.

[Praxius]

The right of self-preservation is something we're all born with. It is a natural right. A firearm is a tool, and everyone has the right to have the best tools available to them. Like any tool it can be misused, but the majority of people are not criminals, and most criminals won't work within the laws anyway.

We all have the right for self-preservation which I supose we're all born with.... but that doesn't mean firearms are manditorily required to protect this right.

And if a firearm is a tool to protect this, so are nuclear arms for countries protecting their way of life against other countries..... they're both weapons which kill..... but depending on how they are used can be interpreted, such as you did above.

[Praxius]

but they're not constitutionally protected

Neither are Firearms.... "Arms" yes... that doesn't mean "Firearms." If you want to follow a consitution like the bible, then don't stick words where they don't exist.

And let's not forget.... for the upkeep of a militia.

I feel in order to properly interp. the US constitution, if you own/posess a firearm, then expect to be drafted when the military needs you..... oh and bring your firearm.

[Osborn F Enready]

Prax said:
We all have the right for self-preservation which I supose we're all born with....

HEY! You noticed!

Prax said:
but that doesn't mean firearms are manditorily required to protect this right.

Firearms are the most reasonable, most efficient and most common tool for this job, which is why we have forbidden the government to prevent or stand between individuals and their right to competent defense, via firearms.

Prax said:
And if a firearm is a tool to protect this, so are nuclear arms for countries protecting their way of life against other countries.....

The right of nations to protect themselves using force against unjust force stems from the right of individuals to protect themselves, from unjust force, using force.

[Osborn F Enready]

Prax said:
Neither are Firearms.... "Arms" yes... that doesn't mean "Firearms."

WHAT?!?

Prax said:
If you want to follow a consitution like the bible, then don't stick words where they don't exist.

Law and religion have little if anything in common. Dont insult my nations laws by assoiciating it with religion.

Prax said:
And let's not forget.... for the upkeep of a militia.

All of the people of the nation are the militia, sir, except a few who hold the position of government offices.

Prax said:
I feel in order to properly interp. the US constitution, if you own/posess a firearm, then expect to be drafted when the military needs you..... oh and bring your firearm.

The military can't draft an unwilling populace, which is one reason we retain the right to bear arms.

The draft is not Constitutional.

[brien]

We all have the right for self-preservation which I supose we're all born with.... but that doesn't mean firearms are manditorily required to protect this right.

You choose your means of protection and I will mine. I won't abridge your rights and I thank you to stay off mine as guaranteed in my 2nd Amendment. It is my right to protect myself with a firearm as enumerated in the 2nd Amendment.