Hypothetical Question...

[stodg73]

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]

Right after the impose the same restrictions on people who want to vote.

[stodg73]

Right after the impose the same restrictions on people who want to vote.

Why?

[cstone]

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.

[stodg73]

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]

Elmer is that you?

I have a hard time believing anyone could come up with such a stupid scenario. (unless they are a democrap)

[Irving]

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]

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.

[cstone]

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]

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?