It's a right. Put the same criteria on the other rights and try and rationalize the proposed strategy.
Printable View
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.
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.
I said that and the OP asked Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
sounds like there's some white-lash going on here.
WHY? ................................WHY NOT?
I caught that and tried rephrasing the concept.Quote:
Originally Posted by Great-Kazoo
Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
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.
Doh!
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.