Help Me Understand So I Don't Be A Fudd

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK . I have read all 8 pages , my last post was on page #2 ,, jcwit and thirty-ought-six , both owe me a bag of popcorn :rolleyes:


we have Hunter Safety Classes here in WI, that is mandated to hunt , the DNR is waving in for first year hunters to get more people out hunting, they do have to hunt with a mentor in tell they get there hunter safety card , I wonder if we would not have less hunters if it was not mandated ? or still taught in schools ?

point is, in some cases Mandates keep people from exercising there right , maybe due to cost , or time , or just to thumb there nose at the gov. I know a few people that have not gotten there CCW because the don't want to pay $35 to exercise there right , it was$50 when I got mine and I hope it is $0 when my card expires

MANDATES BAD !


.
 
Last edited:
They also outlawed asbestos and mercury in oral thermometers. Two really bad things that would still be in use today if it wasn't for the .gov

That's right, and if we continue to think that's ok, then they'll eventually ban those scary black rifles, those unreasonably large 30 round magazines, anything semi-automatic, because of the 'military grade' rate of fire, dangerous night sniper scopes, and blah blah blah...

Just curious, Thirty-ought-six, what do you feel would be an appropriate level of training anyway?
 
Light bulbs, thermometers, hunting, obesity, batteries, spray paint, gun training, health care, gun carry, car design, safe storage, driving habits, blood alcohol content, gun free zones, 'stupidity,' sanity...

I'll reiterate;
"What aspect of a person's life don't you want some say in? Seriously; go on and tell us."

"The Chinese air picture was not trying to illustrate their government, but rather show our own country if the EPA did not exist."
Think about the logic of the situation for just a moment. A nation run by well educated engineers and businessmen, fully abreast of what carries the most cost and benefit, in the interest of maximum utility*, and they decided that state of affairs is acceptable. China is actually clamping down on emissions like never before, since the illness and cancer levels have finally gotten to the point of costing the important people money. The system works alright, just not for the human element, which is merely another resource to be managed.

"Wanna know why their air is so crappy? Because they don't have the air quality standards we do."
Actually, it is because the local industrial magnates pay off their superior bureaucrats, who then get to crow about their sector's productivity at the high-echelon planning meetings. Production is everything in a command economy. The only time accountability comes into play, is when conditions on the ground get so bad as to cause embarrassment that can be used to dethrone politicians (in which case the magnate and his superior get thrown in prison/executed by their replacements). In theory, the worst bad behavior is efficiently punished and good behavior rewarded. In practice, there is massive corruption, and the ragged edge of what is tolerable is pushed doggedly.

"I challenge you to point out just one example of where government intrusion into private industry in the USA has ultimately been more helpful than harmful"
I would argue wage, labor, and food laws were. But only because the time period they came into being in required that people were uniformly ill-informed. Today, we can readily determine which companies will sever your hand through incompetence, who pays the best, and what restaurants are to be avoided if you value your innards. In the olden days, companies went to great lengths to shield workers from such advantageous data (to the point of hiding their wages through the use of company stores and tokens). The only reason the tycoons were opposed by the government for the good of the people, was because the new oversight gave the feds a chance at a piece of the action (money, power, and influence). Now that this veil of ignorance is broken, our ostensible protectors --the government-- seek to reassert control on the tools used to dismantle it. This time, so they can control the entirety of the action.

Be wary of Greeks bearing gifts (i.e. our government is and always has been in bed with interests that seek to rule us for profit)

TCB

*Look into the Chinese system sometime; it's actually quite efficient at giving people just enough to generate the most production. It is what happens when humans cede their existence to a higher power of this world.
 
It appears something got lost a few pages ago..

I do not support training to get a license, but...if a state would be permit-less, a mandatory education program in school.

Key word...school, specifically, high school.
 
I know a few people that have not gotten there CCW because the don't want to pay $35 to exercise there right

That's dumb. Why don't they complain about the price of guns? Maybe people don't want to pay $300 for a gun to excerisse their right.
 
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Having to get a permit, which is nothing more than an exemption to a law, is not exercising a right un-infringed. It's exercising a privilege. Having to pass a background check to buy a gun is not exercising a right, it's exercising a privilege. Same for only being allowed this gun with a barrel length so long or a safety accessory... Those are clear infringements. So we come back to "the Right of the people to keep and bear arms"... Not "the privilege of the people.."

This country is bound to the Constitution and any infringement on gun ownership is unconstitutional, whether we've allowed a precedence to be set or not. It's as egregious as allowing freedom of speech, as long as what you meet a certain set of standards and what you say meets another set. Or as long as the religion you preach meets a certain standard.

It's a lot more simple than a 9 page thread would indicate.
 
Then why instead of this argument, we should be complaining about:

1. We can't own automatic weapons at all in some states, and in ones you can, pay a $200 transfer tax.

2. Cannot own a shotgun with a barrel under 18".

So and so so forth.
 
That's dumb. Why don't they complain about the price of guns? Maybe people don't want to pay $300 for a gun to excerisse their right.

A: that's how they feel about it ,

B: you can sell a gun and get your money back ,

C: what would you pay to keep posting here ?:neener:

D: still waiting for that popcorn :)




PS: $300 guns ? what year is it there , I'm selling one for $650 and looking at two for $700-$775.

.
 
Last edited:
thirty-ought-six said:
Then why instead of this argument, we should be complaining about:

1. We can't own automatic weapons at all in some states, and in ones you can, pay a $200 transfer tax.

2. Cannot own a shotgun with a barrel under 18".

So and so so forth.
Complain? We shouldn't complain, no, we should actively work to get rid of such trivial restrictions. Legislation takes time, and getting rid of legislation takes even longer.
 
OK, it's late but I'd like to make a couple comments on the original post.
The OP lives in Kansas where we have allowed unlicensed open carry for a couple years now. There has been nothing much happen since then so the legislation seems to be just another step in modifying the carry laws here. 15 years ago there was no carry allowed, concealed or otherwise, in Kansas. Citizens, with the help of the KSRA, got the laws changed and the law has been evolving since .
Also, I taught the Oklahoma CCW course and also taught the Kansas course and the state mandated portions stressed the legal stuff much more than the actual shooting and safety.
 
Also......


If the military and police have to train to use weapons, why shouldn't you? What the freak makes you so damned special?

Why should police have to face untrained civs carrying weapons?

Also, as far as imaginary rights being infringed,carry a AR-15 with a chest rig into your local McDonald's, I'd just love to see how long you would last before your "rights get infringed".

The Supreme court ruled in 2008:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:


Read:

the Second Amendment right is not unlimited
the Second Amendment right is not unlimited
the Second Amendment right is not unlimited
 
Last edited:
Copied from a article:


I also liken the Second Amendment issue to the laws regulating of the use of automobiles. I recognise that automobiles are not covered by the Constitution — they weren't even invented until more than a century later.

But suppose there had been such an amendment, not unlike the Second, that said "the right of citizens to own and operate a personal conveyance upon public roads and streets shall not be infringed?"

Would this mean that in the present day anyone has the right to operate a motor vehicle? That drivers can't be required to be trained and licensed?
That persons convicted of multiple DUIs can't be kept off the highways?
That speed limits and other traffic safety laws can't be established and enforced?
That inspection of cars can't be required?

I believe that most citizens would find such thinking totally crazy and irresponsible.

It should be noted that 17 other states have enacted laws requiring some form of background checks, and Washington state may soon follow.

In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has on several occasions ruled that the reasonable regulation of guns is not unconstitutional.


So get off your damn high horse and stop thinking that the 2nd amendment is without limits, the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise. Stop thinking that any regulation is going to turn into total confiscation, that is paranoid ignorance.


Reasonable limits.


1. People who used a gun to murder someone can't own a gun.

2. Someone who is insane beyond professional help cannot own a gun.

There, 2 reasonable limits. Giving a murderer who just got off 30 years later a gun is a reasonable limit.

Therefore, it's ignorant to state "there are no limits to the 2nd amendment".


You cannot have it both ways. Not allowing someone who got off 30 years later for shooting their parents in the head is indeed infringing their 2nd amendment right, but it is a reasonable limit.


Everything in life has a limit. You have the right to vote, but you can only vote once, you cannot go "oops I changed my mind" and submit a new ballot.

You don't hear people shouting "Hey I changed my mind, your infringing my right to vote by not letting me vote again".

You have a right to free speech, oh wait, even that comes with limits.

The 4th Amendment states you cannot be a subject to "unreasonable search and seizure".

Wait, there in reasonable search and seizure?

But there cannot be reasonable gun regulation?




READ:

Yes there is unreasonable gun control and gun regulations, but there is also reasonable gun control, such as the items I outlined above.

Someone has to draw a line somewhere. But to say "give every man a gun even if he just shot his wife in the head", is beyond stupid.
 
Last edited:
beyond stupid.

There is your entire argument summed up in two words. This is a direct result of you doing more talking and "feeling" than reading, and the obvious fact that you research little to none of what you advocate, plain and simple. I would respond in detail but what good would it do. Others have already pointed out what I would, in a much more eloquent and tolerant tone than I could muster for you at this point, to no avail.
Read over this thread again. Every argument that you just posted has already been addressed.
Given your seemingly complete lack of knowledge as to how you conduct an adult debate, I wonder why people, including myself, are even responding to your nonsensical, tediously repetitive straw man and red herring arguments.
 
Last edited:
Also......


If the military and police have to train to use weapons, why shouldn't you? What the freak makes you so damned special?

Why should police have to face untrained civs carrying weapons?

Also, as far as imaginary rights being infringed,carry a AR-15 with a chest rig into your local McDonald's, I'd just love to see how long you would last before your "rights get infringed".

The Supreme court ruled in 2008:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:


Read:

the Second Amendment right is not unlimited
the Second Amendment right is not unlimited
the Second Amendment right is not unlimited
what makes you think police and military are so highly trained? You'd be surprised to know how many cops and service members barely qualify, and how infrequently they are required to do so, and how low the standard really is. Unless you are a combat arms MOS, you might never seen an M-16 after basic training.

Police are going to face untrained civs carrying weapons anyway. We tend to call them criminals, though. Generally, when cops do have an official encounter with a lawfully armed civilian, it's quite peaceful, unless the officer is a tool and flips his lid.

My "imaginary rights" are just as real as the number of people who open carry long guns into public places. It's unusual, but in Michigan, just as in Texas, it's 100% legal. In fact, next time I go out for fast food, I might just OC my AR just to spite you. It's about half a block from the State Police outpost. Guess what you won't be reading?

You are correct about one thing, though, the 2nd Amendment is not unlimited. For example, while it's perfectly legal to roll through the McDonalds drive through in an operational tank, there are certain weapons we as citizens are not allowed to have. But, beyond those very few things (generally classified as ordnance), everything else is unrestricted.
 
Nine pages of "I don't understand life."

We institute governments to help coordinate things for the benefit of the large majority. When that begins to fail or becomes an obstacle to our freedom, we have the inalienable right to dissolve it and form another.

We don't ask for a permit to do it. Nobody does.

If it can be done peaceably, so much the better, but the real issue is that humans who have aggregated power actually have people committed to subservience in exchange for a portion of it. They are personally interested in preserving THEIR power over YOU, and work in any way to maintain it.

If they decide to do so by force, then it becomes necessary to respond in force to gain our freedom. Any study whatsoever of world history will show victories and failures in the attempts, but one thing is very certain, anybody who determines they can overpower and enslave their fellow human beings is taking on the job with help.

And when the help disappears - by adopting new decisions or assuming ambient temperature - they no longer have power.

That happens one on one in the street MORE often than a government needing to be changed wholesale. Since "good" governments are established to prevent evil, then crime is one of their main priorities, and policing the people who would prey on others a priority task.

The problem is how far do we allow the government to intrude into our daily lives to prevent crime, and how much responsibility do they have to keep it from happening?

Are we going to require training and certification in order to have citizens properly handling firearms at all times? Good luck with that, it seems to be called out as a great example of what should be, and by looking at the results, IT'S NOT THAT GREAT.

Cops shooting their finger off, beating suspects, putting street vendors in choke holds until they die, shooting someone sitting in their car who may be somewhat resistant, ad infinitum, a new report almost daily. Where is it guaranteed that training will result in 100% proper and civil results with no missteps? Because we aren't getting that.

With or without training humans make mistakes anyway. Should they get a good working knowledge of what to properly do? Sure. Do they? Start watching videos, there is no licensing or training of how to use chain saws or nail guns and the emergency rooms are full of guys every weekend who should have had some.

So do we refuse to sell them dangerous tools until they can demonstrate proficiency? May I insist on the same standard with the use of cell phones while driving? How about those who service and even modify their own cars? I work in the auto parts business and frankly the average vehicle owner isn't qualified to open the hood of their car. NO CLUE what is going on under there and yet there is no restriction to work on it whatsoever.

Should government require everyone to have only a licensed and certified technician work on their car? It would seem to be similar to plumbing, HVAC, and electrical work at home. Plenty of do it yourself guys literally burn down their house - and plenty of others competently repair and upgrade them to a better standard.

Gun repair and modification? Licensed only? If every gun was marked "No User Serviceable Parts Inside" we'd be living in a world where we were completely dependent on the maker - who would like that enshrined in law.

Same with our INALIEANABLE right to have firearms - give that to the government thru training, licensing, even prohibition of private ownership and we are stuck with whatever the government dishes out.

Look into that - the abuse of human rights is well documented in history, if 8 million dead Hebrews, or hundreds of thousands dead in Africa, or tens of thousands dead by fanatical Islamic groups, just in the last 80 years doesn't point out the futility of being unarmed, it's thru sheer ignorance or a willful denial of knowing better.

Training is what most of us agree is the appropriate and proper ethical means to acquire knowledge of what not to do or how not to misuse things we aren't familiar with. That should extend to our civil rights, too - people need to be trained in just how much we allow the government to prevent evil, so that it isn't the cause of evil itself. And insisting in a naïve view that we need to let government dictate standards is an obvious lack of training in our INALIENABLE civil rights.

Don't go too far insisting that things have to be done a certain way. The result will be putting power in the hands of people who don't want to let it go, and then it has to be wrested from them by force of arms. You will never get a permit or training from THEM to do that. You have to train yourself, and what we are hearing are those who have pursued their own training telling you that.

Fortunately, our government is still responsive - because we vote out those who attempt to consolidate power. But it's not trending in a way that promotes civilian empowerment these days, because so many insist on giving away their freedom to government for the warm fuzzy feeling someone is doing their dirty work for them.
 
Thanks Tirod; a better description of my feelings than I could have typed. Where oh where did "Personal Responsibility" go? Why do we rely on government to protect us from ourselves? My grandfather & father who BOTH taught me gun safety (and chain saw safety :) ) are doing the proverbial "grave roll".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top