Crush
Posts: 1031
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: philosophy
FR
........automobiles are not referenced in the Constitution. There's a reason for this, they weren't around. However if they had been around would they have been mentioned? After all, possession and use of a car is an important thing...especially in a country the size of the USA. Without one, you can be restricted from certain employment opportunities.
The use of a car is made contingent on passing a test. The sole purpose of this test is to ensure the operator of a car knows how to use one safely. That's all. There's no political agenda, simply the idea that if you're going to take charge of a large piece of hurtling metal it's best to know how to steer and hit the breaks.
Now guns were mentioned in the Constitution. They were around. Let's take it as read that they are as necessary to life as a car. Given that, why not require a small amount of training before allowing people to own and operate them? Let's say the same level of training as we require for car users. After all, unsafe operation of a gun is potentially just as dangerous as unsafe operation of a car. It's a historical accident that one was mentioned in the Constitution and one wasn't.
As Marc has said earlier, an individuals rights end where anothers begins. Unsafe operation of a gun can potentialy infringe another persons rights. i'm not arguing against gun ownership...just suggesting that those who do own guns are required to know how to operate them in a manner that doesn't screw other people up.
Funny...horses, wagons and related equipment was around then. Didn't need to take a test on how to "operate" a horse and get a license. People learned or died or had to replace or live without.
You aren't prohibited from traveling by the Constitution. Get a horse. Walk. Ride a bicycle. Take public transportation. But the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on your right to bear arms. You can't misuse them without consequence, any more than you can run a newspaper and run libelous statements without consequence. Free speech doesn't mean speech without consequences.
People who own firearms but don't take the time to train with them are foolish, that's a given. No different than someone who has a pet and doesn't learn how to care for it, from horse to rat. Or pick anything else. Dentures? Fail to pay attention to how to maintain them and you'll become ill or will have to replace them.
Folks I know (so yes, a restricted sample) DO take the time to go to the range and practice. Have taken classes or been taught by their parents or grandparents or both. Many get more practice in than our police officers.
So the car analogy fails, for several reasons. You CAN drive a car/dirtbike/offroader on your own property or in many places. You don't even need a license. The car needs its license to be on public roads. You need a driver's license to drive it on public roads. You don't need a "class" to take the driver's license once you are of age. (Underaged drivers in Florida are required take a "Drinking and Driving" course.)
But probably the simplest reason, as an "Occam's Razor " approach would indicate, is that owning a firearm is IN the Constitution. No mention of a method of transporation is mentioned except by exclusion...see the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
_____________________________
"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination." -- Mark Twain
|
RE: Another win for the 2nd Amendment - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread