Would you support Required Testing?

[dross]

Before imposing a restriction, shouldn't we be required to prove there is a problem to be solved and not just a problem that might exist, but that currently only exists in someone's imagination?

 

[tobi]

Back then free speech meant getting up on a stump in the public square, using a quill pen, or maybe having a printer do a run.

Today, we have typewriters, computers, the Internet (email, web sites, forums, facebook, twitter, etc.), printers of various kinds (laser, ink, thermal, etc.), wireless communications, and all sorts of "assault speetch" technology. No need for a middleman. Your speech can go directly to a worldwide audience.

And yet, in spite of all this technology with the potential to give our free speech more power and influence than ever before, we still have fairly unrestricted freedoms of speech.

Rights are not technology relative.

Your logic doesn't work.

(Oh, and btw, the framers intention did include all sorts of things the definition you cited didn't even list, like artillery pieces and explosives - both of which used to be easy to obtain - during which times things were safer. Caliber limitations and other such restrictions are a relatively recent phenomenon.)

Do you believe the general public should be allowed to have artillery pieces and explosives without restriction? What would the streets of Indy be like if explosives were available at Walmart. I know this is the extreme but there has to be a some sort of regulation for the good of society in general

 

[Bill of Rights]

People like to cite the fact that the privilege of lawfully driving on public roads is conditioned upon training and licensure, while at least in Indiana, the right of lawful carry of a handgun is only conditioned upon licensure, a requirement easily complied with by any citizen who obeys the law and has the cash to pay for the license.

They like to claim that all of the accidents and negligent acts that occur happen because of the lack of mandated training with a firearm. How many people drive negligently? How many motor vehicle collisions ("accidents") occur every day? If mandatory training prevented negligence and "accidents", why do we still see them from drivers?

The next question is that since handgun owners both lawful and otherwise are, by and large, also licensed drivers, why do we have any inkling of belief that the numbers and percentages and ratios would be any different?

For states that do have mandated training, do we see fewer negligent acts with firearms than those states that have none? If not, what logic would lead us to the conclusion that mandating training would do anything other than add another level of bureaucracy between peaceable, law-abiding citizens and the lawful exercise of their rights?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[finity]

Do you believe the general public should be allowed to have artillery pieces and explosives without restriction? What would the streets of Indy be like if explosives were available at Walmart. I know this is the extreme but there has to be a some sort of regulation for the good of society in general

Sounds an awful lot like "blood will run in the streets" or "people will be killing each other over parking spots & fender benders" or "it'll be like the wild west" or... None of which happened despite the dire warnings by those irrationally terrified of guns.

We don't have a crime problem with people who have LTCH's. We don't have a problem with "untrained" people just accidentally killing everyone around them.

Training would just be a further infringement. There is NOP evidence to show that people who carry in states that require training are any safer than those that carry in states that don't. I've posted stats elsewhere (maybe here) that showed this. There is no "need" for training.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Do you believe the general public should be allowed to have artillery pieces and explosives without restriction? What would the streets of Indy be like if explosives were available at Walmart. I know this is the extreme but there has to be a some sort of regulation for the good of society in general

If you can afford those things and choose to spend your money on things with limited utility, why should our government have the authority and power to prevent you from doing so? Before you answer, consider those 12-18 gallons of flammable liquid out in your garage or driveway and the plastic or metal can you probably have to put some of it in your lawnmower or snowblower. What restriction is there on your possession of that? What would prevent you from putting that in a closed container with a timer that would set off a spark to ignite it? Consider a welder; what restriction is there on his tanks of acetylene and oxygen? How hard would it be to put one of those oxygen tanks next to the container of gasoline such that when it exploded, the oxygen tank ruptured and accelerated the combustion?

The "need" for restriction is only in some peoples' minds.

Remember as well the words of William Penn:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human rights. It is the argument of tyrants. It is the creed of slaves."

(you can substitute "freedoms" or "liberty" for the word "rights" in that quote as well.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jeremy]

Do you believe the general public should be allowed to have artillery pieces and explosives without restriction? What would the streets of Indy be like if explosives were available at Walmart. I know this is the extreme but there has to be a some sort of regulation for the good of society in general

Actually up into the Early 20th Century one could own an Artillery piece and most of the Artillery was owned by Civilians...

Also up into the 1980's sometime I remember you could buy Explosives in Indiana with just a State issued Driver's License...

I cannot seem to recall any random Artillery duels anywhere in my History classes...
Then again I just have a Public School Education...

 

[jeremy]

You must have done better in high school than I me - This is how Wikipedia defines small arms:

Small arms is a term of art used by armed forces to denote infantryweapons an individual soldier may carry. The description is usually limited to revolvers, pistols, submachine guns, carbines, assault rifles, battle rifles, multiple barrel firearms, sniper rifles, squad automatic weapons, light machine guns, and sometimes hand grenades. Shotguns, general purpose machine guns, medium machine guns, and grenade launchers may be considered small arms or as support weapons, depending on the particular armed forces.

I couldn't find a definition of large arms. Again, I don't like the government telling me what I can do, but I really don't want to go into a Colts game with people that carry medium machine guns and gernade launchers. I don't believe this is what the authors of the constitution had in mind when they wrote we have the right to "bear arms". Maybe I am wrong and that is what they meant, but we live in a different world now. I am not sure where to draw the line but in todays world it has to be drawn someplace & again, I don't think requiring training is too unreasonable.

The Founders made no specification between Large or Small Arms. Being fairly well read Individuals I find this as a very good indication of their intent. Maybe my High School education is betraying my Logic. I mean I am a Product of the Public School System after all...

You do not believe the Founders meant Large Arms, huh...
Need to dust off your History Texts. Where did the Large Arms that were used by the Army and Navy Come from during the Revolution?!

 

[jeremy]

Because your rights to free speech, religion, free press, and to vote aren't going to accidently go off and kill someone because you don't know what the hell you're doing with you firearm other than you have the right to carry it.

I would almost venture a Wager that more People have been killed due to the First Amendment than due to Citizens owning Arms...

 

[finity]

I would almost venture a Wager that more People have been killed due to the First Amendment than due to Citizens owning Arms...

Yup.