Gun Owners Should Have Licenses

[38 Super Auto]

OK, I have read the entire thread. I don't think anyone mentioned that we should pass a national law to make it illegal to do mean things with guns.

Can we get Schmuckie Schumer and DiFi on this immediately?

 

[Sans Authoritas]

People should have to pass a test similar to the Driver's Exam and be checked out by some basic training course before they can own a gun.

Sans Authoritas wrote:

And why not? Having a driver's license is proof that you are a continually safe driver. You don't have a right to safely conduct yourself on roads you helped pay for. The individuals in government give you the right to safely drive on roads. You can walk wherever you want.

Similarly, with self-defense, you don't have a right to defend yourself with the best means in existence. A majority of a population have to say that you can defend yourself with the best means in existence. You have the right to use your fists until the majority says otherwise. Don't like it? Move to China. This is how we do things here.

Hook686 wrote:

Sans do I get permission from you as to what constitutes 'Best means' ?

It's not my permission you need, Hook. Only the Will of the People. In Constitutional, free America that depends on the majority of voters who select individuals who "represent" them. (This person also ignores what the voters want unless it endangers their careers. As it is, the awesome power wielded by the voter ensures that their careers are seldom in danger if they do anything short of stomping on a small kitten on national T.V.)

Again, you don't need my permission, you need to get not only your neighbor's permission, but also all the other people who vote. Now, I don't vote, because I don't think I have a right to use anyone else's money for anything. But you go ahead and convince your "representatives" that you should be able to have a firearm. Tell them that defenseless people have a right to live, too. Tell them it's in the Constitution somewhere. They'll listen. Because they want to do the right thing.

Hook686 wrote:

I'm disabled and there are an infinate number of disabilities. Does each disabled American have the right to self defense, the best self defense they can muster ?

No. Every American has a right to use what he was born with. That does not include his ingenuity, intelligence, and labor used to create property with which one can defend one's property. The choice of what you can do with your property and money belongs to those who "represent" you, and those who vote for them to represent you. So far, the majority is nice enough to allow you to keep about 60% of your labor.

Hook686 wrote:

I'm actually stunned that you would deny me the best defense I can come up with to defend my poor old disabled body. I think it odd that my life would depend upon a majority vote. I do not like your view on this matter.

You can defend yourself anyway you like, as long as it's not with any weapons besides what you were born with. The government and society give you the right to everything else. Those are the rules.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Sans Authoritas wrote:

A majority of a population have to say that you can defend yourself with the best means in existence.

Fletcher wrote:

The constitution's amendments aren't based on majority rule. If they were, we could just choose to ignore those pesky little things like the 13th amendment with a majority vote.

I was unaware that the 2nd Amendment hadn't been plowed under the earth like so much manure. The majority of voters, through their representatives, seemed to do a pretty good job in decimating the Second Amendment in 1917, 1934, 1968, 1986 and 1994. And that pesky piece of parchment known as the Bill of Rights didn't lift a finger to stop them. It just laid there, insensate and non-sentient, much like the majority of voters.

Sans Authoritas wrote:

Similarly, with self-defense, you don't have a right to defend yourself with the best means in existence.

Fletcher wrote:

Per the US constitution, we don't have a right to defend ourselves at all. However, we do have the right to keep and bear arms.

Per the U.S. Constitution, you don't have a right to get married. Unless you completely ignore amendments IX and X, and think your rights must be enumerated in order for them to be considered rights according to the Constitution.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[22-rimfire]

Sans, you have your opinions on self defense which I don't subsribe to. Hope you never endanger my life.

I have a license; Drivers License, Hunting license, fishing license, professional licenses etc, but I don't need no license to allow me to do what is granted specifically in our Constitution. By the way, none of those license actually prove that I know how to do anything only that I once did.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Sans, you have your opinions on self defense which I don't subsribe to. Hope you never endanger my life.

I have a license; Drivers License, Hunting license, fishing license, professional licenses etc, but I don't need no license to allow me to do what is granted specifically in our Constitution. By the way, none of those license actually prove that I know how to do anything only that I once did.

22-rimfire, of course the licenses don't prove any of that nonsense. But you have to have them because it's a rule. And because they make money and jobs for the people in government. (That's almost as important a reason as the first reason.)

22, take a look at my signature. It will save confusion.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[asknight]

I'm sure the foundation of licensing procedures would call for basic marksmanship training... and I'm not keen on gangbangers getting marksmanship training on my tax dollar.

 

[Shadow1198]

I think people get far too focused on what a 200 year old piece of paper says, rather than simply thinking about what really makes sense. All that really matters is a common sense perspective towards human rights. The Constitution and BOR do a great job of acknowledging these rights, however I think in modern times we can simplify things considerably if we'd just set bias aside and think purely with logic. Common sense says a person should be able to effectively defend themselves if they are threatened with bodily harm or death. Common sense says that if someone does not have the ability to effectively defend themselves, then they cannot truly be considered "free" as they will always be someone's subject, victim, etc. Out of all the acknowledged human rights the world over and in the entirety of world history, that one concept is the most important as far as I'm concerned. Without it, tyrants have killed over 150 million SUBJECTS in the last 100 years alone.

The whole principal of the whole "licensing" thing is that you are basically telling certain people or groups of people that they are no longer allowed to defend themselves with the only truly effective means to do so. Basically, you are letting other human beings have control of determining whether you can exercise one of YOUR natural human rights. By doing that, plenty of law-abiding people will likely get caught up in the licensing process and denied for no good d@mn reason other than some @sshole doesn't like it, doesn't believe in guns or whatever. The Second Amendment says nothing about licensing/registration. That one succinct fact should say more than any argument combined. After having done such a great job elaborating on and acknowledging human rights, you would think the framer's of the Constitution and BOR would have included vital aspects such as registration, licensing, etc. I think people would do well to note that most of the heavy restriction and regulation in The Constitution is focused on the US Government and States, and for good reason I might add. Some may need a minute for that to sink in. There is next to no mention of any type of regulation or restriction in The Constitution when it comes to the rights of The People, and rightly so. Hmm, does everyone think they structured things like that for a reason? (rhetorical question)

I think far too many people don't realize that The Constitution and Bill of Rights don't give one single person one single right. They simply acknowledge some of the more important and common rights that EVERYONE should have in a truly FREE society.

I might also add that, while in this modern society we do have quite a few issues that I'm sure the framer's of The Constitution couldn't have envisioned (psycho's for example), people still get far too caught up in wanting the government to do everything for them. Take charge of your life, learn to defend yourself, buy a gun, hope you never have to use it, God forbid you actually do don't be a F'in pussy defend yourself or die. If more people in this society took charge of their lives and actually stood up for themselves when threatened, I still think that the number of disturbed people getting a hold of firearms would not matter. You would simply see more crazy people being killed by the sane defending themselves.

I'll end with the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

God, the framer's of The Constitution were pure genious! In this day and age it's tough to imagine that people THAT good actually lived.

 

[JWarren]

I think people get far too focused on what a 200 year old piece of paper says, rather than simply thinking about what really makes sense.

This is the logic of "Living Constitutionalists" Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.


The Constitiution is the framework of this country. If it does not suit you, there are other places with other frameworks that may be palatable to your views. (I am not directing this at any one person)




My view? Well, I would much rather see licenses for having children. It seems to me that there is more propensity for harm in bringing kids into this world that you are unwilling or unable to care for.

Figure out how to do that, and we can come back to this later.



-- John

 

[asknight]

Shadow1198,
Common sense would be a good foundation to all rules/laws. Sadly, the liberals don't have an ounce of it between all of them.

 

[fletcher]

Per the U.S. Constitution, you don't have a right to get married. Unless you completely ignore amendments IX and X, and think your rights must be enumerated in order for them to be considered rights according to the Constitution.

Hence why I included US constitution. I know states include self-defense or firearms issues in their constitutions in various ways or forms. However, the issue at hand, unless I am mistaken, is with the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution, a right which is enumerated. Good luck challenging laws/infringements up to the USSC on the grounds that all beings have a natural right to self defense. I'd be pleasantly surprised if that happened, but I seriously doubt it.

I was unaware that the 2nd Amendment hadn't been plowed under the earth like so much manure. The majority of voters, through their representatives, seemed to do a pretty good job in decimating the Second Amendment in 1917, 1934, 1968, 1986 and 1994. And that pesky piece of parchment known as the Bill of Rights didn't lift a finger to stop them. It just laid there, insensate and non-sentient, much like the majority of voters

And we're working on taking it back, and have been slowly making progress. There are two options - take it back through the system that was set in place, or revolt and kill those that dared to infringe the second amendment. I don't know about you, but I'll pick option 1 for now. That's how things work here. Any "unconstitutional" law may be passed, that's fine. However, we have an appeals process to challenge such laws, and hope that they may be overturned. We're running on Miller right now as the only relevant ruling on the 2nd, which really doesn't say much, and that's probably why these laws are still in place. We need a good ruling from Heller to set the stage and begin the long process of getting all this BS overturned.


One can blather on about philosophical interpretations of our rights, their origins, and so forth all day, but unless we want to exercise those god-given rights from inside Club Fed, we have no choice but to wait for a positive outcome with Heller and bog down our legal system with challenges. As you noted, the goverment does as they please, and will continue to do so until we either challenge the law, or challenge their authority, the latter being the less civil means.

I don't think my thoughts are very well collected here as the whole thing is an aside to the OT, but I hope you see what I'm getting at.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

This is the logic of "Living Constitutionalists" Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

The Constitiution is the framework of this country. If it does not suit you, there are other places with other frameworks that may be palatable to your views. (I am not directing this at any one person)

My view? Well, I would much rather see licenses for having children. It seems to me that there is more propensity for harm in bringing kids into this world that you are unwilling or unable to care for.

Figure out how to do that, and we can come back to this later.



-- John

That's a bunch of nostalgic poo-poo, John. Have you forgot this little diddy?

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Or what about our Declaration if Independence:

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions

If you don't love it, leave it.

The Constitution is as much a living document as the theory of social contract under reasoning and logic is. The Constitution of the United States has never been a 1:1 ratio with all of those principles.

 

[JWarren]

Peter,

Obviously, there has been adjustments to address injustices of race. I can't really think of anyone who would disagree with that.

But I reject the notion that the BOR is up for rewrite.


-- John

 

[Shadow1198]

The world is ever changing and sometimes new situations arise which warrant a re-think of old mindsets about a topic. I have great respect for our Constitution however, you can't honestly believe that it is 100% perfect and will be sufficient for limitless time into the future. I hate to tell you this but, you're dead wrong on that. As we see now, regardless of what the Constitution states, the deconstructionist @ssholes in our society trying to nitpick every little word to extrapolate "new" and "hidden" meanings are just completely bastardizing the document. I think if we were to actually sit down and list all of the infringements and down right treasonous actions taken against the American people over the last century, it would be a sobering experience. My belief is that within the next century we are going to have to take a serious look at our society and either write additional amendments or a new bill of some sort basically clarifying EVERYTHING in the Constitution as well as anything implied but not stated (right to self defense, etc etc). Basically, a new set of amendments or new bill needs to happen to close the only LOOPHOLE that matters anywhere in our society. Gunshow loophole, what? I'm talking the loophole of deconstructionism and "interpretation" of what is plainly obvious to anyone with a full deck of cards.

Basically, it no longer really matters what the Constitution says as people can just keep "playing" with the words until they get to the hidden meaning that suits them best. I don't think the Constitution or BOR needs a re-write, simply additions, amendments, additional bills offering further protection, etc. Basically people have gotten way too out of control with usurping other's rights. Something else is going to have to be done to set these bastards straight, plain and simple, because they obviously can't control themselves. Something needs to be done to leave no room whatsoever in interpreting the Constitution or BOR and coming up with creative ways to F people over. In a sense, it's sort of the reverse of Occam's Razor. The more simplistic something is, the more it can and will be exploited. While I don't think we need to over-complicate things, I think we need some sort of legally binding document of sorts that clearly and plainly states things so that our rights will no longer be "creatively" infringed. The word Rights and Interpretation are mutually exclusive.

What I meant by people getting too focused on the words of the Constitution might be a bit different than you may have understood my words. Basically, what I'm saying is there has been entirely too much discussion, too much research, too much evaluation and "attempt" to understand what the Constitution and it's amendments say. What it says is what it says, no need for thinking too hard into it. Think about all of the discussion and theorizing that has taken place over the last century, the sheer number of man hours wasted on trying to understand what it means. It's like organizing a task force of the world's greatest scholars to try and understand the meaning of a friggin Dr. Seuss book for God's sake! Throwing all that BS aside, all it takes to understand what it means is thinking with logic and common sense.

The word Rights and Interpretation are mutually exclusive. I think we really need to work to abolish this whole "interpretation" concept when it comes to the BOR, Constitution, etc. I mean think about it. You have the right to free speech according to the constitution. According to the 10th Amendment, the US government and the States have no right whatsoever to take that right from you. But wait a second, lets interpret that a bit. When is free speech really necessary? Well I'm Governor Joe Blow of the state of Texas (just making an example) and I think that you only really need free speech from 9am to 5pm Monday through Friday. Well wait a second, that's a work week, and you certainly don't need free speech at work so instead let's just say you only have free speech on the weekends. Actually, that's not specific enough. We don't want to offend other people who have the right not to listen to free speech, so instead we will say that you only have free speech in your own house or on your own property...............I could go on and on but, see how that goes. By all logic and common sense, there are a surprising number of politicians RIGHT NOW that have already infringed on our rights, should be charged with treason, and put in jail and or executed (by the State, due process and all, don't misunderstand me) depending on the severity of their usurpation. Unfortunately this society has become so liberal, it seems almost impossible that politicians, that have committed such horrible crimes against the American people, will likely never receive a punishment severe enough for their crimes.