Unfortunately for you, you didn't write the 2nd Amendment.Thats great and all but I dont like being flagged by morons at the shooting range and I dont want to be robbed/killed by a criminal who has a gun because he broke into some soccer moms suv and found it in the glovebox.
I am all for a barrier to entry for firearm ownership.... as well voting (land owning tax payers). But I never get my way.
What behavior is not acceptable for someone with a knife, bow and arrow, ball bat, chain, large rock, or anything else that can be used to harm people? Why should firearms be different?
The age should be up to the parents. I got my first shotgun at 11 and bought my first handgun at about 14. I had already been shooting for several years. The parents are supposed to be responsible for their children and should be the ones to decide the age question.
A lot of ppl replied/disagreed with me so I will try to give a blanket answer instead a polluting this thread.That, my friend, is a greased slide the Jim Crow Dems embrace.
The founders had phenomenal insight to write the BOR in a way that's timeless.
I believe everyone should have an education on what a firearm is, isn't and how to safely handle them. Setting up gubmint mandates creates other problems.
What would you suggest as a barrier?
How is that taking away rights? There is already plenty of barriers to exercise that right. To expect some proficiency and competence in using a weapon is less egregious than non violent felons losing their rights which most people seem fine with.Never suggested taking away rights, just adding barriers to use them? Sounds like taking away rights to me?
Shall not be infringed?How is that taking away rights? There is already plenty of barriers to exercise that right. To expect some proficiency and competence in using a weapon is less egregious than non violent felons losing their rights which most people seem fine with.
What do you call the NFA and permit process? Hate to break it to you but that is just a bumper sticker slogan at this point. Our 'conservative' Supreme Court still refuses to hear gun cases.Shall not be infringed?
I believe felons should have the right to protect themselves if they have concluded their sentence. I agree that people should have knowledge of safe gun handling but not as a requirement to own or carry a gun. I'm not saying this is the safest thing in the world but such is the price for freedom of self protection.How is that taking away rights? There is already plenty of barriers to exercise that right. To expect some proficiency and competence in using a weapon is less egregious than non violent felons losing their rights which most people seem fine with.
Who is going to decide how proficient one must be to qualify? The standards can be set so high that nobody can qualify. Just because there are barriers already in place does not mean that they should already be in place. It certainly does not make it fine to impose more barriers. Being able to refuse to allow you to exercise your right means it is not actually a right but a privilege.How is that taking away rights? There is already plenty of barriers to exercise that right. To expect some proficiency and competence in using a weapon is less egregious than non violent felons losing their rights which most people seem fine with.
Check their schedule for Nov. 3rdWhat do you call the NFA and permit process? Hate to break it to you but that is just a bumper sticker slogan at this point. Our 'conservative' Supreme Court still refuses to hear gun cases.
Nope, none of the above. A right is a right. You have to take the good with the bad. Voting isn't a right so in that case I think you need to pass a current events test.A lot of ppl replied/disagreed with me so I will try to give a blanket answer instead a polluting this thread.
I never suggested taking away rights. On the other hand, I think there is nothing wrong with a barrier for entry which begins with what you suggested (military/vet/leo being excluded of course). There needs to be legit vetting..... meaning weapons handling, storage, carrying, drawing from holster. These rubber stamp pay to play CC courses are not good enough. Perhaps my attitude changed after I had to take a concealed carry course after moving to NC. After seeing so much ignorance and unsafe weapons handling I actually felt less safe knowing these people would be carrying in public. A lifetime ago when I carried weapons for a living, if you had 1 safety violation you were gone. Call it gate keeping or un American, that is just the way I feel about 'casual gun ownership'.
A current events test? That sounds like the kind of thing that would fail a guy based on his media propaganda network choice.Nope, none of the above. A right is a right. You have to take the good with the bad. Voting isn't a right so in that case I think you need to pass a current events test.
Land ownership and/or employment status...skin in the game requirements make more sense to me.
There are lots of infringements on gun ownership now. When I was a kid you could order a gun right out of the Sears & Roebuck catalog, no questions asked. We didn't go around shooting people or "accidentally" shooting family members back then. I wonder how we survived without any government instructions?What do you call the NFA and permit process? Hate to break it to you but that is just a bumper sticker slogan at this point. Our 'conservative' Supreme Court still refuses to hear gun cases.
Where did you move from?A lot of ppl replied/disagreed with me so I will try to give a blanket answer instead a polluting this thread.
I never suggested taking away rights. On the other hand, I think there is nothing wrong with a barrier for entry which begins with what you suggested (military/vet/leo being excluded of course). There needs to be legit vetting..... meaning weapons handling, storage, carrying, drawing from holster. These rubber stamp pay to play CC courses are not good enough. Perhaps my attitude changed after I had to take a concealed carry course after moving to NC. After seeing so much ignorance and unsafe weapons handling I actually felt less safe knowing these people would be carrying in public. A lifetime ago when I carried weapons for a living, if you had 1 safety violation you were gone. Call it gate keeping or un American, that is just the way I feel about 'casual gun ownership'.
Thats the benefit of growing up in a homogenous and high trust society, lucky you. Those days are long gone. I think you are missing the point of my posts. There is nothing wrong with a more informed and better trained society when it comes to firearms. As far as I am concerned, if you cant respect weapons and others around you when you are handling them, you have no business owning a firearm.There are lots of infringements on gun ownership now. When I was a kid you could order a gun right out of the Sears & Roebuck catalog, no questions asked. We didn't go around shooting people or "accidentally" shooting family members back then. I wonder how we survived without any government instructions?
People who think that the gov will protect and look out for them are the same guys that think the stripper at the nightclub really likes them.
VA, vets get a pass on the course.Where did you move from?
So you favor restrictions that you're exempt from yourself?VA, vets get a pass on the course.
Some animals are more equal than others.So you favor restrictions that you're exempt from yourself?
Most do 🤔So you favor restrictions that you're exempt from yourself?
My post was saying that in VA, veterans do not have to take a concealed carry course. They get finger printed and thats it. I have put in my time and am not a liability to others when carrying a weapon. Service to your country should come with some perks besides preferred parking at Harris Teeter.So you favor restrictions that you're exempt from yourself?
I never suggested taking away rights. On the other hand, I think there is nothing wrong with a barrier for entry which begins with what you suggested (military/vet/leo being excluded of course). There needs to be legit vetting..... meaning weapons handling, storage, carrying, drawing from holster.
These rubber stamp pay to play CC courses are not good enough.
I think you're saying you're a "but". As in, I support the 2nd, but...My post was saying that in VA, veterans do not have to take a concealed carry course. They get finger printed and thats it. I have put in my time and am not a liability to others when carrying a weapon. Service to your country should come with some perks besides preferred parking at Harris Teeter.
A lot of ppl replied/disagreed with me so I will try to give a blanket answer instead a polluting this thread.
I never suggested taking away rights. On the other hand, I think there is nothing wrong with a barrier for entry which begins with what you suggested (military/vet/leo being excluded of course). There needs to be legit vetting..... meaning weapons handling, storage, carrying, drawing from holster. These rubber stamp pay to play CC courses are not good enough. Perhaps my attitude changed after I had to take a concealed carry course after moving to NC. After seeing so much ignorance and unsafe weapons handling I actually felt less safe knowing these people would be carrying in public. A lifetime ago when I carried weapons for a living, if you had 1 safety violation you were gone. Call it gate keeping or un American, that is just the way I feel about 'casual gun ownership'.
To expect some proficiency and competence in using a weapon is less egregious than non violent felons losing their rights which most people seem fine with.
The problem with your statement is WHO, exactly, gets to conduct this needed vetting for people to exercise a right.
There needs to be legit vetting
Never suggested taking away rights, just adding barriers to use them?
I agree that people should have knowledge of safe gun handling
Who is going to decide how proficient one must be to qualify?
A current events test?
So you favor restrictions that you're exempt from yourself?
The problem, as I see it is, if you have a so called gateway/barrier is that those in charge can and will constantly move said gateway/ barrier.
In my Best Doc Holiday voice.............I know, let's have a spelling contest!"Legit vetting" is part of the same lexicon as "common sense gun control" and is neither "legit" nor "common sense".
In my Best Doc Holiday voice.............I know, let's have a spelling contest!
Give me a list of words and 2 weeks time and I'll take you up on that.In my Best Doc Holiday voice.............I know, let's have a spelling contest!
In my Best Doc Holiday voice.............I know, let's have a spelling contest!
Give me a list of words and 2 weeks time and I'll take you up on that.
Exactly, those that get the real news get to vote, those that get their news from the mainstream media do not.A current events test? That sounds like the kind of thing that would fail a guy based on his media propaganda network choice.
Land ownership and/or employment status...skin in the game requirements make more sense to me.
Done. Here are your two words.
supercalifragilisticexpialidocio and pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanokoniosis
You could use "parse" and complete the set.Know, Know, Know. Eye wood knot pass.
supercalifragilisticexpialidocio
I have an absolutely wild idea. Hear me out…this is extreme and goes against my communist ideals…but:
What if we let people own what they want, go where they want, worship how they want, and do what they want as long as it doesn’t harm another person or put them in immediate and actual danger? Hear me out y’all…I know this is wild. But then we can just concentrate on punishing people who harm others and save a load of money by not churning every Tom, Dick, and Jamal through the legal system when they do something mildly distasteful to us.
You wanna smoke weed with your gay neighbors? Awesome! Just don’t drive. You want to collect water on your own land? Sweet, just don’t flood my property. You wanna buy a fully automatic AR-47? Rock on! Let the big dog eat! Just don’t aim it at anyone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk