parabelum wrote:Because you posed a question based upon a reducto ad absurdum argument. Thanks for the invite, but I will not follow you into rabbit hole, respectfully of course.
Yet, the question has merit. Even if we allow the example of a 5 year old to be reducto ad absurdum, how about an 8 year old? A 12 year old? A college frat boy?
In any case, the concept of reducto ad absurdum has its counterpart: reasonableness. The point was well made that free speech is a different horse; speech won't accidentally blow your head off. I guess you're against the hunter safety course requirement for kids, too.
I agree that folks should train to get better in everything they do. But, although people like these Police Chiefs, argue against constitutional carry, they are not willing to provide training. Most if not all also don't want firearm training to be provided in schools. Nobody wants the draft back, or even mandatory service for at least a Basic Training for all Americans, much like Switzerland. So, we have folks that want people to have a mandatory short training course, with a test, that not only disqualifies many with English as a Second Language, but also requires a Poll Tax of some sort, that to many is very onerous. That lady that was talked about and how she didn't know anything, as well as many others with the same lack of skills, I like to ask, "Did anyone ask to help?" Can someone without skills be provided free, to them, training? Many would jump at that chance. Everyone that trains others demand money for their services, (as they should), but it leaves out those who cannot afford the training, testing, cost of the firearm and ammunition. So, something has to go. If I don't have enough money for all the above, but I want to protect my family, gun and ammo costs are first. Modern firearms are not difficult to learn to shoot, albeit perhaps not safely. Every Police Department has a Training Section, we spend tax dollars on Planned Parenthood, perhaps we can require those complaining to fix the problem within their Cities. Provide free training to those seeking to carry, not only include safe shooting but also the Law. Or, perhaps bring back the draft, then the argument of the well regulated militia would be solved. Or, simply understand that freedom isn't free, and that as one is more free, they experience more danger to themselves and others. North Korea is probably pretty safe, as long as you don't fall afoul of the law. I like the fact that this is up for discussion, hopefully the Legislature passes HB1911 and we can move the hands to more freedom.
Unless we keep the barbarian virtues, gaining the civilized ones will be of little avail. Oversentimentality, oversoftness, washiness, and mushiness are the great dangers of this age and of this people." Teddy Roosevelt"
DEB=Daniel E Bertram
U.S. Army Retired, (Sapper). VFW Life Member.
Caliber wrote:The constitution does not discriminate by age or mental capacity either. So, using your argument, is it OK for a 5-year old child to "bear arms"? I don't think applying some reasonable restrictions on the 2nd amendment is unreasonable.
A truly reasonable restriction on RKBA would likewise be a reasonable restriction on voting, et cetera.
Caliber wrote:Well, I'm not for unlicensed carry for the following reason:
When I took my CHL class a long time ago, there was a woman in the class that could NOT handle a firearm. She struggled to load, fire, and couldn't hit the target half the time. She clearly had no business trying qualify for a CHL.
So, I can imagine that if unlicensed carry passes, there would be some people that would go buy a gun and not learn how to use it which puts themselves in danger as well as you and me. With required licensing, at least of those idiots are weeded out.
Those "idiots' have the same Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as anyone else. They "should" take the responsibility to be properly trained with firearms, but it should not be mandated by the government. No other Constitutional right, requires, proving that you know how to exercise it properly.
The constitution does not discriminate by age or mental capacity either. So, using your argument, is it OK for a 5-year old child to "bear arms"? I don't think applying some reasonable restrictions on the 2nd amendment is unreasonable.
parabelum wrote:Because you posed a question based upon a reducto ad absurdum argument. Thanks for the invite, but I will not follow you into rabbit hole, respectfully of course.
Yet, the question has merit. Even if we allow the example of a 5 year old to be reducto ad absurdum, how about an 8 year old? A 12 year old? A college frat boy?
In any case, the concept of reducto ad absurdum has its counterpart: reasonableness. The point was well made that free speech is a different horse; speech won't accidentally blow your head off. I guess you're against the hunter safety course requirement for kids, too.
There are days when I feel that people should be required to undergo some reasonable education prior to them exercising their 1st Amendment rights due to their overwhelming incomprehension of the Constitution and other founding documents.
There are people who should not be allowed to vote unless they have received reasonable and unbiased training on the facts.
However, I am not going to advocate for any infringement of either of those rights regardless of how recklessly and ignorantly people exercise them.
The left lies about everything. Truth is a liberal value, and truth is a conservative value, but it has never been a left-wing value. People on the left say whatever advances their immediate agenda. Power is their moral lodestar; therefore, truth is always subservient to it. - Dennis Prager
The answer to this "reasonable restrictions" vs. anarchy argument, is to apply the same "strict scrutiny" concept that the courts have created for the First Amendment, to the Second.
- You can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater (unless there is a fire).
- Five year olds may not carry handguns, absent supervision.
- No prior restraint (license, fee, training, etc.) required prior to publishing or speaking publicly.
- No LTC for citizens to exercise right to carry (bear) arms.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
There was a thread a while back where the suggestion made by Charles was to understand the problem that you are solving and to solve it with the least restrictive means.
So what problem does the restriction of handguns to license carry solve - exactly?
New Jersey restricts customers from pumping their own gas for "safety" reasons - but that argument has no credibility since 48 other States don't have that same restriction and there are not rampant safety problems. We often lament about the caliber of some drivers - and every one of them pumps their own gas in Texas.
In the RV world, there is a somewhat parallel situation involving air brakes. In Canada, you must take a 2 day course in order to receive a driver's license endorsement to drive an air brake equipped vehicle. In Texas, there is no such restriction unless the vehicle weighs more than 26,000lbs. I've had more than one RV forum discussion with the Canadians about how "unsafe" we are without the air brake course. Then I remind them that I can drive my vehicle on THEIR street without it. With the driver's license reciprocity between our two countries. as long as I'm legal in my home State, I'm legal in Canada and I've driven our RV there.
So whose country is really safer? The answer is that no one knows. Because of the extremely low mileage that most RVers drive per year, the insurance rates for many are actually lower than passenger vehicles - that is true for me. When you look at the fact that many of the RV drivers of vehicles like mine are older and have a terrible reputation with the professional truckers, you would expect them to be involved in a lot of accidents, but they are not. And there is a real danger. I cannot stop my RV going down a moderate sized hill with the brake pedal alone. This means that anyone who drives one has to learn - on their own and without taking a course, how to drive under those conditions. Even for the 26,000lb versions, the test is the equivalent of a CDL test and there is nothing in it about the air brakes other than as a point in the pre-flight checklist. The air brake system requires maintenance and there is nothing in even the State inspection about it. In short, it is just an accident waiting to happen - except that it hasn't and there a lot of these sided RVs on the road where it could. Somehow, all those drivers figure out the air brake environment without governmental involvement.
If safety is really the concern, the government could have a PSA campaign to encourage people to get training. Of course, the government even mentioning firearms in a positive light on radio and TV would make some people's head's explode. It sure is better than a law requiring kayakers to carry whistles.
I like the prior restraint comment a lot. It boils down, in my opinion, to the difference between democracy and a republic and where the sovereignty lies.
At the end of the day, crimes cannot be prevented: only punished. And that is the purpose of laws. It is folly to believe otherwise in the face of such evidence to the contrary.
No law can make us safe, we have to do that for ourselves - as individuals.
They come here of their own free will attempting to sway us into adopting their absurd, reality defying, anti-Constitutional, leftist ways and we, the deplorables are supposed to agree with them and acquiesce.
Never!
They remind me of the slow influx of islamist terrorists...
They come here of their own free will attempting to sway us into adopting their absurd, reality defying, anti-Constitutional, leftist ways and we, the deplorables are supposed to agree with them and acquiesce.
Never!
They remind me of the slow influx of islamist terrorists...
We must fight them tooth and nail.
I was being sarcastic. Having said that someone offered him the jobs.
OlBill wrote:Are we so short of jackasses in this state we have to import one from California?
He came from communist Cuba in 68. He also forgot to leave some portions of communism behind.
Texas LTC Instructor, NRA pistol instructor, RSO, NRA Endowment Life , TSRA, Glock enthusiast (tho I have others)
Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to add it to a fruit salad.
You will never know another me, this could be good or not so good, but it is still true.
