View Full Version : Hypothetical Question...
Remember this is a hypothetical question, so no bashing, flaming, name calling, etc.
If a law was proposed stating that in order to own a gun, one must first pass a two hundred hour class, 100 hours of lab work, and pass the same type of background and psychological tests that a teacher, social worker, paramedic, law enforcement, etc. must pass, would you support it?
If so, would you take the classes?
Assume that the classes are free and those already owning gun, you would have a 10 year opportunity to take the class at your convenience.
Great-Kazoo
11-11-2016, 20:45
Right after the impose the same restrictions on people who want to vote.
Right after the impose the same restrictions on people who want to vote.
Why?
No.
Making it more difficult for citizens to protect themselves by imposing onerous regulations is a prime example of bad government. Good government assists citizens in promoting freedom and productivity. If a government cannot be good then all I ask is that it do nothing at all.
No.
Making it more difficult for citizens to protect themselves by imposing onerous regulations is a prime example of bad government. Good government assists citizens in promoting freedom and productivity. If a government cannot be good then all I ask is that it do nothing at all.
So you are saying that the government should stay out of our lives, so we should take away laws for speed limits or drug use, as a comparison?
Please remember this is all hypothetical.
HBARleatherneck
11-11-2016, 21:29
Elmer is that you?
I have a hard time believing anyone could come up with such a stupid scenario. (unless they are a democrap)
A 200 hour class is 33 days of 8 hour classes (with lunch and bathroom breaks). I can't think of a single class on a single subject that has similar requirements.
I can't realistically discuss this scenario because it is not based in reality.
Zundfolge
11-11-2016, 21:43
No. Because the "test" would quickly turn into a political purity test and eventually the mere fact that you want a gun would be a fail.
So you are saying that the government should stay out of our lives, so we should take away laws for speed limits or drug use, as a comparison?
Please remember this is all hypothetical.
I've reread my post and couldn't find where I said that the government should stay out of our lives or what laws should be taken away. Your hypothetical asked a specific question about what I would consider a draconian regulatory scheme based presumably on the notion that we as a nation would be safer with those rules. I disagree with the premise and defy you or anyone else to provide evidence that such strict regulatory oversight would produce the safety it promises. Speed limits are routinely disobeyed in throughout the nation, as are drug laws. Would you propose more laws making speeding even more illegal? How about we make possession of controlled substances super secret felonies?
The government is in our lives because we are the government. Groups of people decide how they want to improve our society and when enough people agree on something they try to use the power of the government to impose their will on the rest of us. Some laws are necessary, but most are just intrusive and manipulative. The only real product of laws is criminals. No one needs to pass a law telling anyone that they are free to do something.
JohnnyDrama
11-11-2016, 21:44
No. We have a right to self protection. As far as speed limits and drug use, tests are administered before you can legally drive, and when you are prescribed drugs, a medical person or the pharmacist gives you instructions as to their use. Of course, there are lots of people out there who speed and take non-prescribed/illegal drugs.
I'm wondering, 200 hours of classroom work and another 100 hours is seven and a half weeks of eight hour days. That's roughly equivalent to an academic quarter. What would you cover in all that time?
I have a hard time believing anyone could come up with such a stupid scenario. (unless they are a democrap)
Not a stupid scenario, just a hypothetical question.
Please remember to keep it civil, no name calling, just lively discourse.
If a law was proposed stating that in order to speak or freely associate or practice your religion, or freely publish , one must first pass a two hundred hour class, 100 hours of lab work, and pass the same type of background and psychological tests that a teacher, social worker, paramedic, law enforcement, etc. must pass, would you support it?
See how this works?
buffalobo
11-11-2016, 21:48
I've reread my post and couldn't find where I said that the government should stay out of our lives or what laws should be taken away. Your hypothetical asked a specific question about what I would consider a draconian regulatory scheme based presumably on the notion that we as a nation would be safer with those rules. I disagree with the premise and defy you or anyone else to provide evidence that such strict regulatory oversight would produce the safety it promises. Speed limits are routinely disobeyed in throughout the nation, as are drug laws. Would you propose more laws making speeding even more illegal? How about we make possession of controlled substances super secret felonies?
The government is in our lives because we are the government. Groups of people decide how they want to improve our society and when enough people agree on something they try to use the power of the government to impose their will on the rest of us. Some laws are necessary, but most are just intrusive and manipulative. The only real product of laws is criminals. No one needs to pass a law telling anyone that they are free to do something.
Well said, as usual.[Beer]
There are speed limit signs on my street, but I wasn't required to take any classes to utilize them.
Not a stupid scenario, just a hypothetical question.
Please remember to keep it civil, no name calling, just lively discourse.
It's pretty stupid.
GilpinGuy
11-11-2016, 21:59
So you are saying that the government should stay out of our lives, so we should take away laws for speed limits or drug use, as a comparison?
Please remember this is all hypothetical.
Yes.
What problem are you solving with this law?
Follow up: what happens when the criminals, crazies, and terrorists still find a way to get guns without taking your course/process? I have to believe that would continue because even complete gun prohibition hasn't been able to stop it.
Are we going to get paid? The other you list are professions, we are buying a tool, not learning a new career.
would you hypothetically require the same type of classes to own a knife, a baseball bat, a can of potentially toxic or flammable spray such as spray Paint? Or to buy a car, a boat, an airplane? All those are deadly.
if any of these questions are strikingly easy, then your question should answer itself. If it doesn't I am inclined to believe a great amount of stupidity has engulfed your brain and Maybe you need some lab work and some classes.
It's a right. Put the same criteria on the other rights and try and rationalize the proposed strategy.
On top of all that, very few people have the ability, or even desire to take two months off of work at a time. Spreading the class out over even a year would be detrimental as when learning something, it is best to go through the material all at once. At least that is my own personal experience with taking large courses. The class is free, but who is going to provide those classes?
All that said, to answer your question, despite having paid nearly $1,000 each for two 20 hour courses (3 days a piece) that expire after a year without me paying more money to keep the certificate...no, I don't think I'd take that theoretical gun class.
Zundfolge
11-11-2016, 22:35
The belief that rights should only be allowed for those that "prove themselves worthy" undermines the idea of rights.
We either have rights or we have privileges. Privileges can be revoked at the whim of those in charge.
"...shall not be infringed."
There really are stupid questions.
Great-Kazoo
11-11-2016, 22:38
It's a right. Put the same criteria on the other rights and try and rationalize the proposed strategy.
I said that and the OP asked Why?
sounds like there's some white-lash going on here.
WHY? ................................WHY NOT?
I said that and the OP asked Why?
I caught that and tried rephrasing the concept.
Great-Kazoo
11-11-2016, 22:49
I caught that and tried rephrasing the concept.
Thank you.
While he said it was Hypothetical... I see he managed to "deflect" instead of answering.
I guess some are taking Hilary's loss harder than others ;)
Odd. A quick look at OPs history lists only a handfull of topic starts most of them pointing to articles of a contolling nature, and always asking for politeness. While there are a ton of posts most of them are in the word association thread. (At least until I got tired of scrolling in Tapatalk).
Care to be up front with your intention about this question?
Until you do I will pass on your silly game.
GilpinGuy
11-11-2016, 22:58
Doh!
KevDen2005
11-11-2016, 23:04
I'm curious as to how or why this is a proposed question.
First my thought is firearm ownership is a guaranteed right, directly written in our Constitution. Although I am not suggesting stronger regulations for motor vehicle ownership, driving them on public roadways is not written in the document. Furthermore, those restrictions like speed are set in place by sets of criteria, cities, and engineers based on type of roadway, where they are, how many lanes, and so on. Increased speed in a car accident is a factor in death and serious bodily injury, proven with science. Carrying and owning a firearm does not increase your chance of death, proven by statistics. However, in both firearms ownership and vehicle ownership, there is no requirement to follow certain laws on private/personally owned land than there is in a public area. Almost everyone drives a car and if you have been to Denver or third world countries you may see the necessity of traffic laws. You are more likely to be killed by another driver texting and driving (or violating any traffic law you choose), rather than someone carrying a gun. Although I do see your point that it would be nice (and I really wish they would) for people to take it upon themselves to make sure they are properly trained prior to carrying said firearm, I cannot support such a requirement because that's against their basic freedom they have and is a slippery slope in limiting the Constitution.
The only privilege of driving, in my opinion, is being able to afford it in the first place.
...would you support it?
No...no I would not support it. Moreover no one would apply the same requirements for any other right.
Let's see...two gays want to get married. Gee...you have to go thru blah classes and take exams...LAWSUIT!
That ends the discussion.
Soros plant?! Evil mountain hippie. Burn it with fire.
thedave1164
11-12-2016, 06:46
Where do people come up with this crap?
Another question, would you support having a hunter safety card in order to own a firearm?
HBARleatherneck
11-12-2016, 08:28
A thousand posts in the last 7 or 8 months and only about 9 of them had anything to do with anything. My question is why do you belong to this forum? This is a real question. Clearly you are not here to be a part of the community as you only post in 1 non firearm category. Are you here to troll? What? I am asking, because I cant see why you would join a firearm forum and less than 1% of the time your posts have been about firearms. Less than 1%.
I saw your new thread yesterday and then looked at your name and post count. I thought how could this guy have over 3000 posts and I dont know who he is? I spend much, much too much time here reading. Why hadnt I seen your name? Well because you only post in the word association thread. Is this to drive up your post count so you look like a legit member, just so you can troll our membership? We really dont need that here.
Another question, would you support having a hunter safety card in order to own a firearm?
we dont support anymore government regulation. We are not democrats here. We dont want more government.
Another question, would you support having a hunter safety card in order to own a firearm?
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with "hunting". Self-preservation is a natural right. This is a non sequitur. Next question.
A thousand posts in the last 7 or 8 months and only about 9 of them had anything to do with anything. My question is why do you belong to this forum? This is a real question. Clearly you are not here to be a part of the community as you only post in 1 non firearm category. Are you here to troll? What? I am asking, because I cant see why you would join a firearm forum and less than 1% of the time your posts have been about firearms. Less than 1%.
Is this to drive up your post count so you look like a legit member, just so you can troll our membership? We really dont need that here.
we dont support anymore government regulation. We are not democrats here. We dont want more government.
I read about the AR platform a lot, I have used this forum to purchase different guns. You have not seen where I am also looking at different posts of others. I have learned from posts here, how to ladder a load for each individual firearm, how to safely reload, what not to put on the firearm to make sure that I am NOT a firing range idiot. No, I am not a troll, I am using the knowledge of this place to further my education about the platform.
My apologies if it seems like I am doing this, however I do have a point to make here. Just not yet.
HBARleatherneck
11-12-2016, 08:49
If you are here to learn, thats good.
We just dont like trolls. Not that any forum wants people stirring up trouble and trolling their membership.
Bailey Guns
11-12-2016, 08:59
...however I do have a point to make here. Just not yet.
Why not now? Do we have to endure 200 hours of bullshit before you get to your obviously tortured point?
Why not now? Do we have to endure 200 hours of bullshit before you get to your obviously tortured point?
OK, you asked nicely. This is how the anti's work, call for something outlandish, uproar from people, then give a little, and eventually all the little cuts have removed a fundamental right.
No kidding? It's called "incrementalism". A preferred tactic of the left.
This is one of the reasons I don't care for Dudley's approach of all or nothing trying to move the bar in our direction.
http://i789.photobucket.com/albums/yy180/stodg73/IMG_20130320_153233_zps9bd36d4a.jpg (http://s789.photobucket.com/user/stodg73/media/IMG_20130320_153233_zps9bd36d4a.jpg.html)
Time to go to my safe space and reload......[Coffee]
buffalobo
11-12-2016, 09:10
So question answered. Thread done.
Disappointing that as a group we can barely get through such a simple exercise.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.