I’d disagree on the mandatory training part- but agree on the rest. “You can’t own that weapon! It’s a dangerous tool of war with no practical civilian use! Oh... but you’re willing to grease the wheels a few grand. Well... enjoy it responsibly citizen...” Bullet tax and bullet registration requirements.... uhg. Don’t get me started. That’s why I just wish that people who know about firearms could sit down and work out reasonable laws. We end up with laws that don’t really make much difference to “bad” gun owners, but make life a mess for “good” owners. Then when the new laws fail to make a difference (duh...) they say “see?! We need more laws! Stricter laws!” No. We need laws that make freaking sense and actually can help prevent irresponsible and illegal weapons use and mitigate the damage, versus laws which seek to simply make it so difficult and obtrusive to own firearms that law abiding citizens don’t bother.
It's not the training I take issue with, it's the way civvies with no experience will try to legislate bullshit standards like "disabling shots" or unreasonable standards of "excessive force", all while trying to mandate certification, which is just roundabout registration.
The standards for excessive force are flawed, but they just need little tweaks. A center mass hit on someone who could reasonably be inferred to be an immediate threat to property or safety is not unreasonable. Panicking and putting 10 rounds in someone is not ideal- but that one needs some dressing- but reloading or putting 40 rounds in someone, shooting someone without a fire arm after they’ve gone down or while they are escaping (where they did not use violent force-) those are a bit excessive. The whole “you shoot you lose” definition some states employ is ridiculous. One should be required to call the police if prudent. But such cases should also be reviewed by a panel with experience to say wether a civilian virgin shooter acted with the judgment levels one would hold as sound for such a person and the scenario. Not just any fat bastard with a hammer and a degree in law.
Certification I’m less with you on. I do agree that it is a sort of backdoor loophole to registration. You’ve got a roledex of gun owners and a legal president to hold them to a standard of operation and judgment. However- certification in a general class of firearms- even where one specific model is recorded as used- doesn’t give them the information on every gun younown- and most legal purchases are registered in the system to an owner anyway. While there is a possibility for abuse of the information and it does give a possible twinge of “big brother-“ it is sensible and defensible to require some degree of responsibility. Every right carries with it responsibilities, and if we want to hold up our feeedom to enjoy rights we can’t negoect the fact that there are costs to every right.
Laws exist because the “honor system” doesn’t work. A promise or pledge or assurance that a person will familiarize themselves and follow the practices of safety, responsible operation and basic care and function of a weapon is useless. Guns aren’t toys. They are tools, potentially dangerous tools. It makes sense to me that there be a system in place which teaches the responsible use and ownership. I’d like to see them do the same to bicycles honestly. If you rode motorcycle and have any business doing so- you won’t learn anything in an MSF program. However- I still support that many states require or make it extremely difficult to get a license if you don’t take such a course. The people you don’t have to worry about- you already don’t have to worry about. It’s the people you DO have to worry about that cause the rest of us problems.
I just get uncomfortable with any measure to force people to qualify for a right.
That turns it into a privilege, and self-defense/contributing to the security of a free state should not be a privilege.
Imagine if people had to qualify for free speech, or privacy.
No, I much prefer the individual prove that they can't handle the responsibility, rather then the state withhold natural rights by default.
Every time someone shoots themself in the foot, or some kid gets on a liter sports bike and lane splits at 120 after having a beer- they become statistics. Statistics that are used when someone wants to point to responsible users and say that the passion is inherently dangerous and the numbers don’t lie. If you show me a stat that 90% of people using power tools are injured I’d believe it. Because if believe that 90% of people are ignorant, don’t take things serious, are irresponsible, or are just plain too dumb or clumsy to have any business operating something as dangerous as a stapler. But if we take as a truism that the majority of people lack the discipline or dedication, the grasp of the gravity of a thing to the point we need laws about not watching DVD’s while you pilot 3000lbs of metal through populated areas in ever changing conditions- yeah. It’s no surprise that the “average” person shouldn’t be given many types of responsibility without proving they have a level of...
.. competence and will in the matter. So making people take classes makes sense to me. A lot of people could learn a lot from it, and those who already knew are at least showing they give enough of a shit about it to sit through a class and pass a test. It’s easy to exercise a right or even abuse it when you think or it seems there is no responsibility and nothing expected of you. Every right we have has an expectation. Citizenship isn’t a card or a way to exclude people- it’s a certification that a person has accepted the rights and responsibilities conferred by and expected by the United States and the principals for which it stands. The oft quoted Kennedy quote: ask not what your country can do for you- but what you can do for your country. I can make a meaningful pledge backed by action to be a responsible gun owner, and to help ensure others do the same so that we can continue to enjoy that right and it isn’t taken from us because those who do not understand the right live in fear
It is not the responsibility of a private citizen to reassure people.
Others can say whatever they want, with whatever statistics they want. Rights are inherent, to deny them without just cause and due process is an affront to liberty, nature, and (if you're so inclined to believe), an affront to God.
Thankfully, operating a vehicle or piece of heavy equipment is not a right. However, forcing people to qualify for rights or resign themselves to living as second class citizens or otherwise "guilty until proven innocent" is something that must be fought by any means necessary. Be it with strong words, firmly written papers, cold steel, or hot lead.
Furthermore, these classes and certifications can and have had their cost in time and money artificially inflated, effectively restricting these rights to the wealthy, or an otherwise favored class.
Hell, even zoning ordinances have already been used as a backdoor to outlaw otherwise legal gun stores and firing ranges.
Overall I agree with you. However- no right is unqualified. As you say- every single one carries expectations and regulations. It is in the legal and constitutional power of the government to limit the exercise of rights. Your right to exercise any of your rights only extends so far as thatrifjt does not impinge or endanger the rights of others. Your right to free speech is not unlimited to say anything g you like at any where or any time without legal consequence. Your right to own a weapon is not unlimited and in fact- you are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. That is what the constitution says. It does not say WHERE or HOW one may do so. You cannot bear arms on an aircraft. You cannot bear arms in a federal building. It is upheld as constitutional that one he required to store or lock weapons in various ways and in transport- and we can infer from that that it is in THEORY then legal to dictate WHERE one keeps those arms- for instance requiring all private guns to be...
Kept at some sort of armory of safe deposit when not in use. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again- if you genuinely believe you have an unqualified right to bear arms then go to a public appearance of a president in an open carry state and bring a long arm. You can be told when and where you may use a gun, what kind of gun you may own, no constitutional provision prevents a waiting period of prohibitive length to take possession of a gun, nor does it say anything about ammunition, we may infer it to if we wish- but the document is very vague on what exactly the right to bear arms is or what restrictions may be placed upon it. A non gun related felony can block your right to own a gun just as a non voting related felony can block your right to vote- so there also isn’t a provision to limit under what circumstances one forfeits that right, and like any right it can be forfeited or suspended.
IM NOT SAYINH IT SHOUKD BE OR THAT ANY OF THIS STUFF SHOULD BE DONE. I’m saying that it can. That in our representative republic democracy in which the constitution can be ratified, and laws can be used to stipulate and refine the scope of rights, that those things COULD happen. Treating rights as inalienable is dangerous. Every right we enjoy has been fought for, sacrifices for, and upheld by those in service to their country. Every right is a fragile thing, freedom is a fragile thing. We do need to protect it. So IF we can sit down across the isles of pro and anti gun ownership and come up with sensible laws which allow the preservation of a a vital right- then we should. Gun laws keeping passing and shootings keep happening. Eventually the non gun owning majority will get tired enough of the whole thing to just rewrite the constitution so that guns aren’t a right at all. So it’s the responsibility of gun owners to show in good faith that we are willing to commit to being...
accountable and to take demonstratable actions to display that commitment. If they made safety certification a requirement I would go out that same day and set up my classes. I do agree on principal that we shpikdnt have to- as long as it’s a constitutional right. But on principal Our “war on terror” and the steps taken afterwards legally were also wrong. When you put principal on one side of a scale and start stacking dead bodies on the other- most people reach a point where they no longer are willing to fight for principal. That’s America. People see mass shootings and they want them stopped. They’ll do irrational and extreme things to see that happen. It would be nice if before it had to become law- private parties took the initiative. If the gun industry started its own programs and simply refused to sell to those who didn’t comply. That would be a good start that wouldn’t infringe in any way on the constitution. I find it unlikely though- and as long as shooters and the...
... industry fail to self regulate, there will be problems that can be pinned back on those who aren’t part of the problems. That means wide sweeping, poorly thought out, vaguest legal and cumbersome laws imposed on the hobby and industry by those feeling irrational fear and seeking any remedy that satisfies their emotional need for a feeling of security. So yeah- I’m principal I just want to be able to buy, own, and shoot my guns. I’m not knocking over convenience stores or shooting up concerts, I keep my weapons secure from theft and don’t do stupid shit. I just want to do my thing. But- it is what it is.
The constitution does not give us rights. The rights are endowed by nature or our creator.
But that's irrelevant, the letter of the law does not matter so long as enough people believe in the spirit.
Make it so prohibitive to exercise your rights, and myself plus two million of my best friends, and tens of millions more militiamen, LEO's, hunters, NRA members, and fellow patriots, will correct that mistake.
Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, and enough of us accept that the tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of tyrants and patriots alike.
It’s a sweet theory. But who wins? There comes from that civil war, military uprising. Who’s to say what commanders and which troops would fight for which side? There are just as many who wouldn’t be happy but would see armed rebellion against a country and a democracy they chose to represent as treason. While the Us military and civilians fight each other to the death- what do you think the rest of the world- many of whom we’ve made enemies of or would love to have a chance to knock us down and take our place will do? The quest for this singular freedom could cost us countless lives, that very freedom, and the entire scope of American freedoms were we to be occupied. In the aftermath, of the “pro” gunners lost or were overpowered- what do you think the push back from the government or foreign occupying government would be after an armed rebellion about guns? Think it would be easier or harder to own a gun after thousands or more died in a war for guns by guns?
And what separates these pro gun fighters from the taliban or any other terrorist organization that would use violence against their government and country men because they think the government is wrong? Why do you think that quote includes the blood of tyrants and patriots? In the end the winner is going to decide who was which. When a majority of the world says you’re wrong- by what supreme authority do you come to the conclusion that it is all of them who are wrong, and only you and those like you are right? Now- being in the majority DOESNT make you right by default- but it’s a very important question to ask because very few tyrants in history thought they were “the bad guy.” Saddam and his buddies, Bin Laden, Stalin- all claimed to be champions of right and the people. All claimed the moral high ground and that those who died were necessary sacrifices on the road to their high morality.
Hardly be much of a fight, when only one side is armed.
But let's we lose and history condemns us and everything we stood for.
That's the nature of war.
The only reason Washington isn't just another disgruntled, treasonous officer mentioned in some obscure history book about the colonies is because he won.
If Saddam won he'd be the great leader who stood up to the strongest tyrannical empire in the world, but he didn't.
Hitler is only an evil tyrant because enough men were righteous or desperate enough to stop him.
In defense of certain ideals you need to be willing to risk everything. Your standing, your life, and your legacy. Otherwise what's it matter?
What gives me the right to tell the world to shove it? Me and whoever's willing to stand, kill, and die beside me.
Are we right? That's for whoever's left to decide.
Better to die with a weapon in hand, upon a bed of spent brass, beside my brothers and sisters, than to live on my knees as an outcast of a society that doesn't want me.
One side would not be the only armed side. Here I am, a gun owning and feeedom loving American, debating you on the point. Just because someone isn’t willing to wage open war and commit what many would argue to be treason because they think a law is unjust- doesn’t mean they aren’t armed. Do you really think the whole of the United States military would turn their weapons against their own families and neighbors? Some might. But not all. I don’t even think most. The majority of police officers wouldn’t desert their oath to uphold the law either. Again- some would, some like those in Washington state right now-would see such laws as unjust and refuse to enforce them. But the whole reason so many people have the freedom to be anti gun is because they have a lot of guns defending them.
There is a reason they send young people to war beyond physical fitness. It’s BECAUSE young people are far more likely to agree to throw their lives away on false notions of glory- this is why so many suicide bombers and terrorists are young. With age and wisdom one comes to value life. They realize that the act of sacrificing ones self for a belief is not inherently noble, but the nobility of the act of sacrifice comes from understanding what one is sacrificing for and why.
Rather than die with a weapon in my hand and my brothers and sisters besides me, and rather than to bend a knee- I would prefer to survive. With all my brothers and sisters besides me. To enjoy every day and know that as long as we are alive there is a fight. To use that same democratic process to fight what I see as unjust, to pass my beliefs on and to share lymperspective with others who think differently in the hopes that they might see the logic and change. You can’t change anything if you’re dead- unless your plan is martyrdom- in which case enjoy your virgins in the afterlife with all the terrorists before you. With all the people who were so sure they were right that they decided to take the freedom of others and silence their voices by force. Can you see the irony in being so upset that a democratic process produced a result you felt was against freedom- that you would seek to take the feeedom from the people who made that decision? It doesn’t make your cause more noble-
It makes it just as bad. What you end up with is not the blood of patriots and tyrants- but the blood of tyrants trying to replace other tyrants. The only advantage- the only logic behind that move isn’t an imposition of tyrany, but the desire to be the tyrant making the decisions. So there is no higher purpose here or moral high ground at that point. There’s no glory or fantasies of nobility or enlightenment or righteousness. Just ugly people doing ugly things to get their way. That’s what most conflicts become- but it’s even worse when they start out that way- with no goal asides to be in power for the sake of power.
I believe that a man needs to have principles he will fight for no matter the cost to his own health or wellbeing.
My principles preclude lying down when someone wants to strip me of my rights. I believe that losing one will lead to losing everything, so to defend any of them I would hold nothing back.
Thankfully the fight is handled well enough on paper in courtrooms, but the day the spirit of the constitution is so blatantly usurped is the day myself and others exercise the "...Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".
Because any process that would strip away natural rights without cause cannot be just, it cannot be trusted, and anyone who would stand in defense of it is an enemy of the constitution myself and millions of others swore to support and defend.
How can you peaceably invoke change when those who disarmed you strip your right to speak against them, peaceably demonstrate against them, deny you habeas corpus, quarter their forces in your home, seize your papers at a whim, etc.?
I love my country. I served in combat. I would lay down my life for her. I have lost faith with the government since it was proven that prior to the Iraq war that there were no violations of the arms programs that Saddam Husain was permitted/forbidden to produce. The first time we went into Iraq , I believed and still do, that it was justified. I think removing Suddam was a huge mistake. Christians and Jews were a lot safer with that murderous asshole controlling the country. They have been slaughtered by the Muslims that had more fear of saddam than hate of other religions. I would die for my country , but I want any sacrifices I make to be honorable and not based on lies and bullshit.
Thank you both. Please don’t get me wrong. I sincerely believe that it is the responsibility of any citizen to oppose tyrany- and if that tyrany be so absolute- to abolish an unjust government as dictated by the founding principals of our country. The right to own arms is not just a fundamental freedom- but an important check and balance against tyrany. On the “paper battlefield” you CAN be blatantly denied the protection of just law. We’ve seen corruption and illegal rulings time again. If the elite and powerful male you fight on their battlefield by their rules controlled by their peers- the only victory is the one they allow you to have. So maintaining a reason to fear the “Everyman” IS important. The right to defend ones self, home, or even lord forbid it come to it- country- aren’t negotiable. The particulars of that right however are. So that we maintain the practical ability to do these things if needed, with minimum risk in times of peace.
It makes sense to deploy nuclear arms in anticipations or as deterrent to conflict- Troops, materiel. When threat is imminent it makes sure to have them ready on standby and armed. However when such threat is low- you keep these assets secured to prevent abuse, theft, or rogue action. It’s responsible- and even our military which is directly and constantly engaged in matters of security exercises protections and restrictions to arms from side arms to tactical weapons- because having the hardware to do the job means being responsible with it and for it.
Reply
deleted
· 5 years ago
Violent games aren't the problem so i seriously doubt this will help
Agreed. There has been no conclusive evidence either for or against whether violence in video games correlates to violence in the real world. For every study that finds in one way there's another that find in the opposite. In fact the best anyone can say is that people who are violent may be violent people and those who aren't violent may be not violent people and doesn't that just sum up the whole thing.
That turns it into a privilege, and self-defense/contributing to the security of a free state should not be a privilege.
Imagine if people had to qualify for free speech, or privacy.
No, I much prefer the individual prove that they can't handle the responsibility, rather then the state withhold natural rights by default.
Others can say whatever they want, with whatever statistics they want. Rights are inherent, to deny them without just cause and due process is an affront to liberty, nature, and (if you're so inclined to believe), an affront to God.
Thankfully, operating a vehicle or piece of heavy equipment is not a right. However, forcing people to qualify for rights or resign themselves to living as second class citizens or otherwise "guilty until proven innocent" is something that must be fought by any means necessary. Be it with strong words, firmly written papers, cold steel, or hot lead.
Furthermore, these classes and certifications can and have had their cost in time and money artificially inflated, effectively restricting these rights to the wealthy, or an otherwise favored class.
Hell, even zoning ordinances have already been used as a backdoor to outlaw otherwise legal gun stores and firing ranges.
But that's irrelevant, the letter of the law does not matter so long as enough people believe in the spirit.
Make it so prohibitive to exercise your rights, and myself plus two million of my best friends, and tens of millions more militiamen, LEO's, hunters, NRA members, and fellow patriots, will correct that mistake.
Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny, and enough of us accept that the tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of tyrants and patriots alike.
But let's we lose and history condemns us and everything we stood for.
That's the nature of war.
The only reason Washington isn't just another disgruntled, treasonous officer mentioned in some obscure history book about the colonies is because he won.
If Saddam won he'd be the great leader who stood up to the strongest tyrannical empire in the world, but he didn't.
Hitler is only an evil tyrant because enough men were righteous or desperate enough to stop him.
In defense of certain ideals you need to be willing to risk everything. Your standing, your life, and your legacy. Otherwise what's it matter?
What gives me the right to tell the world to shove it? Me and whoever's willing to stand, kill, and die beside me.
Are we right? That's for whoever's left to decide.
My principles preclude lying down when someone wants to strip me of my rights. I believe that losing one will lead to losing everything, so to defend any of them I would hold nothing back.
Thankfully the fight is handled well enough on paper in courtrooms, but the day the spirit of the constitution is so blatantly usurped is the day myself and others exercise the "...Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".
Because any process that would strip away natural rights without cause cannot be just, it cannot be trusted, and anyone who would stand in defense of it is an enemy of the constitution myself and millions of others swore to support and defend.
Thank you for serving before me.