Jump to content
SJG

Projected Impact of Dem Win on G&A

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, USRifle30Cal said:

This is not on par with what is being discussed, I would respectfully submit, you say the above very tongue in cheek.

The point I am trying to make is these are all very specifically enumerated and carefully worded rights our constitution.  It's a very slippery slope to start legislating around them, to put restrictions in place of what someone thinks is "right".

Let's try this:

Quote

I think the suggestion is that mandating some training, aligned in a manner that does not create a hurdle to the right to keep in bear arms vote, is better for all in the long run.

Most of us here would agree that it's better for all in the long run if PM had not been voted into office.  But would the left agree?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, JC_68Westy said:

Mandated, absolutely not. This is more of a personal responsibility issue here. Should people get training? Yes. Where you go off the rails, in my opinion is "mandated" and "free". I already addressed mandated, as for "Free" training. Who pays for it? Are you saying that people are going to volunteer there time to provide something the government mandated? I don't think so.

To quote Ben Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Two things, you got the quotation correct - but it is used incorrectly time and time again there is an interesting read on it, see below:

"The exact quotation, which is from a letter that Franklin is believed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, reads, those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

SIEGEL: And what was the context of this remark?

WITTES: He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it.

SIEGEL: So far from being a pro-privacy quotation, if anything, it's a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation.

WITTES: It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.

:)

What I am saying is that there can be a methodology for providing training free of charge as part of the right to keep and bear arms.  It could be as simple as the local PD providing a mandated 4 hour training session bi-monthly etc. free to new gun owners of the muni they live in -  Why complicate things?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, YankeeSC said:

The point I am trying to make is these are all very specifically enumerated and carefully worded rights our constitution.  It's a very slippery slope to start legislating around them, to put restrictions in place of what someone thinks is "right".

10000000%  No disagreement there - notice I always state it should not be an impediment, a hurdle etc.

However, you would I am sure would agree, that we must carefully ensure that there is no limitation of peoples rights as enumerated in the BOR.  But, at the same time, we can look to expand and preserve those rights with enhancements that might lead to something that is good for the whole.

Assume, we can mandate training and as part of that training, you can now obtain a CWP - nationwide, or in your state, which I now you can ! :)

SC has the CWP class that must be passed in order to carry in state, within the rules as set forth and laws that have been promulgated.  Are you suggesting that SC for example should be like VT, and be Constitutional Carry?  

Now, there is a difference between ownership and carry, I know, but I do think that training can and should be offered free and be part of the ownership process.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, USRifle30Cal said:

Two things, you got the quotation correct - but it is used incorrectly time and time again there is an interesting read on it, see below:

"The exact quotation, which is from a letter that Franklin is believed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania General Assembly, reads, those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

 

SIEGEL: And what was the context of this remark?

WITTES: He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it.

SIEGEL: So far from being a pro-privacy quotation, if anything, it's a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation.

WITTES: It is a quotation that defends the authority of a legislature to govern in the interests of collective security. It means, in context, not quite the opposite of what it's almost always quoted as saying but much closer to the opposite than to the thing that people think it means.

:)

What I am saying is that there can be a methodology for providing training free of charge as part of the right to keep and bear arms.  It could be as simple as the local PD providing a mandated 4 hour training session bi-monthly etc. free to new gun owners of the muni they live in -  Why complicate things?

 

 

So you are saying that my use of Franklin's quote is incorrect, but somebody else's interpretation on it is more correct than mine? I disagree with you on this. How do you know that the person you are quoting is correct?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Old Glock guy said:

Don't give them ideas.  From what I understand, the Brits have now banned most knives, because people started using them more for violence after guns were banned. 

Gun ownership has been more or less obliterated in merry old England over time, and yet, interestingly...London's murder rate has gone way up. Just a couple of years ago - for the first time EVER - it even surpassed NYC's! The increase was driven overwhelmingly by the number of gangbangers fatally stabbing competing gangbangers. The lesson: never focus on the TOOL! They should have been focused on programs to put more money into their gang units, start community programs to pull kids out of gang life, increase prosecutions to put more gang leaders in jail, etc. It's the criminal intent/criminal enterprise that needs to be controlled, not the gun, the knife, etc.

Look at Australia, which liberals tout for their mandatory gun buyback (a.k.a. confiscation!) many years back. Do you honestly believe there haven't been any mass murders down under since that happened? If you did, you'd be WRONG. They have had a number of ghoulish mass murders... interestingly, many of them by arson. So, how can you stop people from buying gasoline and matches? You can't. Nor should you try. It's a fool's errand.

BTW, though most of you already know this, that chart that @Sniper shared above refers to ALL rifles - including traditional bolt action rifles, etc. AR-15's and other semi-auto rifles (wrongly termed "assault" rifles) are only one portion of the rifles owned in this country - so that number of murders can't even be attributed to semi-auto rifles. The exaggerated focus on "controlling" "assault" rifles is so illogical, it's actually absurd. Anyone making those arguments IMO has either: 1) zero familiarity with real-world crime data, or 2) is so locked into other aspects of the issue (fear? politics?), they have their heads stuck in the sand and have literally lost their ability to harness logic and reason

  • Like 2
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grapeshot said:

Part of it is up to us as experienced, responsible gun owners to help train the next generation of shooters,  but I, for one, would feel safer at a public range if I knew that everyone had gone through at least some basic safety instruction. 

Do you feel that exact same way when you get in your car and drive down the road? Knowing all the other drivers have had some basic safety instruction, and that has eliminated car accidents?

Bottom line, you can't teach common sense and logic with a basic gun class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

2) is so locked into other aspects of the issue (fear? politics?), they have their heads stuck in the sand and have literally lost their ability to harness logic and reason.

I believe their head is actually somewhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mrs. Peel said:

The exaggerated focus on "controlling" "assault" rifles is so illogical, it's actually absurd. Anyone making those arguments IMO has either: 1) zero familiarity with real-world crime data, or 2) is so locked into other aspects of the issue (fear? politics?), they have their heads stuck in the sand and have literally lost their ability to harness logic and reason

Politicians and the media make these arguments because they know it is not really about safety, it is about generating fear to gain control.

Regular citizens will make these arguments because they have been brainwashed into fear by the politicians and the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JC_68Westy said:

So you are saying that my use of Franklin's quote is incorrect, but somebody else's interpretation on it is more correct than mine? I disagree with you on this. How do you know that the person you are quoting is correct?

....interpretations....   :)

 

that's the point..isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the idea of training. Wholeheartedly.  But not mandated.  Mandating creates the potential to be a barrier to entry.  Even if you trust the government not to do that now (I don’t), you have to acknowledge the potential is there and they could.  I don’t believe there is any way to do mandated training without the potential for abuse. 
 

At best I would recommend incentivizing training.  A discount off homeowners insurance (similar to an alarm system). 
 

I could maybe buy the argument for mandated training for CCW since that is out in public (more similar to DL) but even then I’d prefer incentive based training. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Grapeshot said:

So, you would be willing to hand your cars keys to a 16 year old kid with no training or experience whatsoever, and say "go for it"?

You think giving them to a 17 year old with driver's training is much better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Grapeshot said:

Answer your own question. You have a choice: Give your keys to a kid with no experience or Driver's Ed, or to the same kid who's gone through a Driver's Ed program.  Who do you think is safer? And who would you rather be on the road with?

Neither..

But the point was, giving someone basic instruction with a dangerous piece of equipment, absolutely DOESN'T guarantee they will operate it safely. Car, gun, kitchen knife, DeWalt cordless drill, it's all the same.

It's the actual user, separate from instruction, that determines the outcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Grapeshot said:

Answer your own question. You have a choice: Give your keys to a kid with no experience or Driver's Ed, or to the same kid who's gone through a Driver's Ed program.  Who do you think is safer? And who would you rather be on the road with?

The kid with no training. They won’t be able to start it or shift it out of park. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, El Jefe said:

Heck let's just have guns sold in the supermarket.

You better move quick, Walmart is taking them off the shelf:

106769554-1604003292065-gettyimages-1168

106563725-1591203689553gettyimages-13057

Walmart has removed guns and ammunition from sales floors in stores where those items had been displayed because of isolated incidents of “civil unrest” in some areas around the U.S. — but the retail giant will continue selling the items.

“We have seen some isolated civil unrest and as we have done on several occasions over the last few years, we have moved our firearms and ammunition off the sales floor as a precaution for the safety of our associates and customers,” Walmart said in a statement.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/29/walmart-pulls-guns-ammo-off-sales-floors-because-of-civil-unrest.html

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sniper said:

But the point was, giving someone basic instruction with a dangerous piece of equipment, absolutely DOESN'T guarantee they will operate it safely. Car, gun, kitchen knife, DeWalt cordless drill, it's all the same.

You're right - there are no guarantees. But the probability of them being safer is higher. Life is not black and white - it's all shades of grey. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, YankeeSC said:

We should then apply the same logic to other constitutional rights, like voting and free speech.  I've heard some people say some scary shit and vote for some scary politicians with scary ideas.  It would be for the safety of our republic.

you forgot that a vote can be much much more dangerous than a gun.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, USRifle30Cal said:

LOL - FYI - no palms here........this morning

All a dusting of snow in nj means is that murphy will deploy the entire DOT maintenance crew and contractors to spread enough salt for a 1/4 inch dusting to make state roads look like the Bonneville Salt Flats. So get ready to wash under your vehicles to prevent the salt from eating away at your undercarriage(s) and brake lines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that many here agree that training is good, but some object to the mandatory part. 

Now without raffling anyone's feathers, the constitution doesn't say that personal ownership without training is granted. It mentions Militia, which one could argue that in a Militia training is implied as part of what makes a Militia, a militia. 

So without trying to belittle the constitution most of what people are saying here is an interpretation of a very general notion, so sticking to the most general interpretation doesn't make it necessarily the right one.

As to the whole "right" concept. If we have to get a permit and pay for the gun and permit is it really a right?

Voting is a right and it is free, if you are trying to equate gun ownership to voting, should that be free as well?

I would argue that in a capitalistic society anything you have to pay for is not a right, it is a privilege : ) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, FXDX said:

All a dusting of snow in nj means is that murphy will deploy the entire DOT maintenance crew and contractors to spread enough salt for a 1/4 inch dusting to make state roads look like the Bonneville Salt Flats. So get ready to wash under your vehicles to prevent the salt from eating away at your undercarriage(s) and brake lines

How do u really feel...???  :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...