|
Posted by Kris Krieger on November 29, 2007, 1:42 am
> "Kris Krieger"> wrote
>> How is a waiting period in violation of the right to bear arms? That
>> amendment does not address the issue at all - it does not say "at the
>> drop of a hat".
>
> Where does it say *drop of the hat* in the 2nd?
SOmeone else emntioned the bit about "regulating" the militia - I
shouldn't write when I'm this tired, because now I can't recall exactly
what was said. But th epoint was that there isn't anything that rejects
something like a waiting period, as opposed to letting peole go right in
and buy aweapon immediately. That's what I meant by "drop of a hat" -
immediately. THe only worry there being if someone is in a drunken rage.
At teh saem time, I was able to go in a buy a handgun. THey did run my
license through a criminal database, but that only took about half an
hour.
> If a thug holds his foot on your throat for 3 minutes is he infringing
> on your right to life, even though you didn't die?
I don't see it in such drastic terms.
> Its not the time period Kris, its the fact.
> If I can't own something right NOW then it doesn't matter.
> Scenario:
> A guy goes into a gun store and buys a gun and is told to come back
> and pick it up in 3 days.
> 2 days later his home is broken into and he is killed.
> Was his right to bear arms infringed?
> Is the gov't culpable?
>
>
> I've been a gun owner and handgunner for most of my
>> life, but I don't think that it's necessarily a good idea for someone
>> to be able to buy a firearm in the heat of an emotional problem.
>
> Someone?
> You don't get to say what someone gets to own.
> Suppose I don't think its a good idea for you to own a gun at all,
> don't your rights come into play here?
> Why should MY right superceed your right to run your life, and own
> what you want, as you see fit?
I'm not denying anyone anything, but I am saying that safety training
would be a good thing. A lot fo people don't know the first thing about
gun safety, and frankly, when their house might be 20 feet from my house,
sorry but the possibility of having *my* head blown off by someone with
no knowledge of gun safety sort-of makes it my business, jsut as it's my
businwess if someone has a pitbull trained to be a killer, and lets it
run all over the neighborhood.
DOn't put words into my mouth and say I'm "denying" anyone anything - a
safety course is jsut that, something to help both th egun owner, and the
people who live in hte same neighborhood (since we all can';t live on 5-
10 acre parcels).
After all, why does the otehr person have a right to endanger the safety
of others because of refusing to take a safety course? The sword cuts
both ways.
>
>> Personally, I'm not necessarily even against making people take a
>> safety course before they can purchase their first firearm, because
>> too many poele have no idea of how to handle firearms safely (whcih
>> is one of the things one would learn when arms were considered
>> essential parts of a household).
>
> It has never been shown that a state sanctioned class can make
> stupidity extinct.
Again, I never said that, and it's an extremist comment that sidesteps
the rather narrow point - which is that what safety training does is
*reduce the chance* that a person will do something stupid that might
harm him/her, and/or others. It's not a gurantee, it's an improvement of
the odds. My father taught me gun safety (he was a championship
shooter), but not everyone has the benefit of that sort of knowledge. So
what is so wrong about teaching people to handle their guns safely?
> I'm sure you're familiar with that video that made the rounds a couple
> years ago showing a negro gov't agent running his mouth in a classroom
> full of young kids and then shooting himself in the leg.
> Drivers licenses do not stop people killing each other on the highways
> and gun licenses are no different.
> (read an article recently that said people that HAVE had drivers ed
> classes have more accidents than people that don't)
Apples an pranges. FIrstly, regardless of the person's rac, nobody
should cavalierly bring a gun into a schoolroom - if nothing else, you
never know when one of the kids might do something unpredictable. That
is jsut common sense.
Secondly, of course there is no such thing as eliminating stupidity - the
point is to *reduce the chance* that an untrained person, who has no idea
whatsoever of what s/he is doing, will harm others.
Sorry, but ignorance is *not* better than training. Note that I said
"ignorance" and not "stupidity" - ignorance is simply the condition of
not knowing, although it's often used to mean someone who resists
learning. THe point is that mere ignorance can be rectified, whereas
stupidity is the state of being *incapable* of learning.
>
>> And what any of that has to do with apprenticeships, I don't know.
>> I've never said anything against apprenticeships. Or do you *assume*
>> that "education" *has* to mean "kindergarten through graduate
>> school"? Hell, when I was in school, everything was a lot better
>> when they still had "tech track" programs, where kids *could* choose
>> to learn a trade, as opposed to everyone acting as though a college
>> education was The Universal End-All And Be-All for *everyone*. Doing
>> away with that created a lot of problems, and created Zero solutions.
>>
>> But even apprentices benefit greatly if they learn to read, write,
>> and do some math.
>
> I'm in agreement with those last 2 paragraphs.
>
I tend to be rather practical. What often causes peroblems is that
people latch onto pet theories (a theory being something that has at
leeast some basis, however tenuous, in fact) or mere beliefs (a beleif
being something that does not require any connection to practical
reality), and cling to them, even when they fail repeatedly in the face
of practicalities.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap