Taxpayer-funded gun control?? lobyists on city payrolls ?

[chucklenut]

Yeah, the main argument I was receiving as to why a gun safety class shouldn't be required were A) it would be unconstitutional, and B) it would turn into a slippery slope.

The last few posts were trying to prove that 1) the slippery slope argument is a little over the top (yes, it really is folks, but I'm done arguing about it because I've made my point numerous times throughout my posts) and 2) that constitutional rights (and NOT just the right to bear arms) can be, and frequently are, reasonably restricted.

I wanted to get those two arguments out of the way in the hopes of having a legitimate conversation about other peoples' thoughts on the matter (not withstanding those two points), but unfortunately it appears I was unable to do so. I wasn't really trying to stir the pot as much as I ended up doing, but I guess that's what I get for bringing such matters up on a gun forum lol. You win some, you lose some.

there is no reasonable restricting of constitutional rights, thats called fascism

you still dont get it. dont compromise, compromising leads to erosion, erosion leads to abolishing

tell me why again you feel it necessary to FORCE someone to pay to take a class, even if they are first time gun owners? who is going to be in charge of this? some government agency has to be in charge and government agencies through administrative law create restrictions. many times these restrictions are only put in place as a self serving form of survival for over bloated bureaucratic groups. the ATF and the DEA are perfect examples of this. by assigning any power to a government, you give them the ability to restrict and create red tape........i dont like tape

 

[Bulldawg165]

there is no reasonable restricting of constitutional rights, thats called fascism

Yes there are reasonable restrictions and they happen all of the time. I've given several examples in my posts. Please go read them because I'm not explaining them again.

you still dont get it. dont compromise, compromising leads to erosion, erosion leads to abolishing

Again, the slippery slope argument is a bit ridiculous. I've mentioned numerous times that states have already required NRA courses to get your license to carry, and it hasn't turned into a free for all for anti-gun laws abolishing our right to bear arms. Please read my other posts.

tell me why again you feel it necessary to FORCE someone to pay to take a class, even if they are first time gun owners? who is going to be in charge of this? some government agency has to be in charge and government agencies through administrative law create restrictions.

For the THIRD time, I've already mentioned this in my previous posts. The states that require people to take a class to get their license to carry usually require an NRA class of some sort. It's not a government class. This has been discussed already.

many times these restrictions are only put in place as a self serving form of survival for over bloated bureaucratic groups. the ATF and the DEA are perfect examples of this. by assigning any power to a government, you give them the ability to restrict and create red tape........i dont like tape

I'm done responding to you because you are exhibiting a complete and utter disregard for actually reading my posts anyway.

 

[Bulldawg165]

What's really ironic here is your responses perfectly describe the freedoms that have been revoked, suppressed or restricted--by an intrusive government. You are making a lot of my argument for me. I agree with you on carrying a firearm on someone else's property against the owners wishes...that's HIS property.
But quickly:
Slander: back in the day you said what you felt and if the offended party didn't like it you settled it man to man.

This isn't true. Slander (and libel) have been against the law for quite some time. What you're basically trying to say is that if someone published a load of crap about someone else in the newspaper that the particular person had no other recourse then to talk it out "man to man"?

Corporate insiders: camel of another color--they have contracts and privacy agreements--you break a contract you're liable

You don't go to prison for breaking contracts. It's an actual criminal penalty to take part in insider trading, regardless of whether or not you have signed a privacy agreement with an organization or not. Simply breaching the privacy agreement/contract will get you sued, not put in prison.

Schools -it's called public schools where you are 'REQUIRED' by the government to make your children attend; and no they don't teach English...most public school teachers can't speak English.
Ummmm..... what? Every public school teacher I've ever known (and I didn't even grow up in a good school system, mind you) spoke English very well. Further, we had an english class for at least one semester each year.

Kids are graduating the "required" public school system that can not spell or speak the language correctly. The modern public school system is the biggest educational failure in United States history.

While there are definitely kids graduating who can barely read or write, it's generally due to either 1) A learning disability (which the schools don't usually have the funding necessary to devote the attention to the student that he/she needs and deserves), or 2) Laziness on the part of the student. You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn. On the other side of this coin are people who graduate from public schools with a very great education. While students can be limited by the quality of school district they happen to grow up in, how much you learn is still largely a matter of choice. No teacher in the world can make a lazy piece of crap learn something he doesn't want to learn.

It's been a smashing success at steering young minds away from conservative values into accepting alternate lifestyles, re-writing history and failing to teach even fundamental economics. (other than capitalism and profits are evil)

This isn't a recent development. This type of thinking has always been rampant amongst young people. You don't have to look any further than the hippies of the 60s and 70s for proof of this.

First grade is the children's first introduction to socialism. Think I'm kidding? When my oldest started school we were given a list of items that filled two grocery bags that each child was to bring to school. We did. The second day my daughter came home and informed that the teacher collected everyone's supplies would hand them out to whoever needed them. (yep..half the class didn't bring squat--we were already paying for their lunches, groceries and rent-I was not going to hand over my daughter's school supplies too)

This sucks, and I'll make no excuse for it whatsoever. Some kids have shoddy parents (I'd like to use another word to describe them but I'm sure the mods would quickly delete my post if I did). However, it's not the fault of the kids who didn't bring anything, so I can understand why this would happen. Even though there's a good chance those first graders who didn't bring anything will squander their chances, they deserve a chance nonetheless because they're too young to know better. My child will be starting school soon and I'm sure this same thing will happen to me and I'll feel just as angry about it as you do. Not much else I can say here.

The biggest religion advocating violence, polygamy, sex with minors, persecution against women and sexual mutilation gets a pass on every offense--you know which one I'm referring to but you let a Christian minister say homosexuality is a sin and all of sudden it's hate speech.

I'm not entirely sure what religion you're talking about, but that's probably because I'm atheist and don't really keep up with stuff like that when it comes up in the news. I think I have a good idea. Usually they get prosecuted when things come to light to my understanding though.

Oh, I am not outraged...I'd like to hold on the few pieces of freedom that we have for as long as possible. I guess it's a generational thing...I'm working on being an old fart...to younger folks this is just how it is and easier to accept I guess.
I'm all for holding onto our rights too. I believe people should be able to carry firearms to practically any place they choose and that firearm training should be part of the school system (which would mean that it'd be required for us to pay for it via taxes too That’s not what I was referring to in my posts, however).

I guess the main difference between you and I is the amount of restriction on gun ownership we feel a required safety course for first time buyers would actually cause. I can respect that.

 

[tv_racin_fan]

Bulldawg do you remember when the govt first decided to make it a law that you use a seatbelt? Remember that they would not stop you simply because they saw you were not wearing that belt at first? Care to explain what the law is now and why that ain't taking a ride down the slippery slope?

I know you are not old enough to remember when you didn't need a permit to carry but now that almost every state requires a permit to carry why do you not consider that a ride down the slippery slope?

Those things you mention as being reasonable restrictions on my rights all fall into the place where my rights interfere with another persons rights. Care to explain how not requiring someone else take a class interferes with my rights? They could only interfere with my rights when they do something stupid, correct? Which taking a class or passing a test wont prevent that will it? If you think it does please explain drivers being stupid on the road everyday.

Have you actually done a survey to see which states allow the NRA class to count for their required class? Have you checked that states history to see how it evolved to their current gun permit regulation?

Just to be honest I have no qualm with requireing some sort of class to purchase or own or carry firearms, the only caveat is that must be stipulated in the Constitution so that each individual state can't decide they want some onerous regulation (which by the way I would say that several states have already crossed that bridge against the US Constitution and in my opinion it is high time the people stood up and let the govt our legislatures and the Supreme Court know that we have had enough of them stepping all over our rights without regard for the Constitution). You on board to have a Constitutional Convention to get this mess sorted out?

Just think you could be living in one of them states that require you to obtain a purchase permit just to purchase a firearm, I suppose that would be ok with you so long as them first time buyers had to take some class before obtaining that purchase permit. Any clue how much a purchase permit costs and how long it is good for in the state of North Carolina? You reckon you would be grandfathered in so that you wouldn't be required to take that class and pass that test before your next purchase? If you aint required to pass a test exactly what use is the class?

 

[chucklenut]

I'm done responding to you because you are exhibiting a complete and utter disregard for actually reading my posts anyway.

you still dont get it though.

it doesnt matter what you feel or think, or what other states are doing, your ignoring the part of the 2nd amendment thats says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

 

[RamRoddoc]

Bulldawg do you remember when the govt first decided to make it a law that you use a seatbelt? Remember that they would not stop you simply because they saw you were not wearing that belt at first? Care to explain what the law is now and why that ain't taking a ride down the slippery slope?

I know you are not old enough to remember when you didn't need a permit to carry but now that almost every state requires a permit to carry why do you not consider that a ride down the slippery slope?

Those things you mention as being reasonable restrictions on my rights all fall into the place where my rights interfere with another persons rights. Care to explain how not requiring someone else take a class interferes with my rights? They could only interfere with my rights when they do something stupid, correct? Which taking a class or passing a test wont prevent that will it? If you think it does please explain drivers being stupid on the road everyday.

Have you actually done a survey to see which states allow the NRA class to count for their required class? Have you checked that states history to see how it evolved to their current gun permit regulation?

Just to be honest I have no qualm with requireing some sort of class to purchase or own or carry firearms, the only caveat is that must be stipulated in the Constitution so that each individual state can't decide they want some onerous regulation (which by the way I would say that several states have already crossed that bridge against the US Constitution and in my opinion it is high time the people stood up and let the govt our legislatures and the Supreme Court know that we have had enough of them stepping all over our rights without regard for the Constitution). You on board to have a Constitutional Convention to get this mess sorted out?

Just think you could be living in one of them states that require you to obtain a purchase permit just to purchase a firearm, I suppose that would be ok with you so long as them first time buyers had to take some class before obtaining that purchase permit. Any clue how much a purchase permit costs and how long it is good for in the state of North Carolina? You reckon you would be grandfathered in so that you wouldn't be required to take that class and pass that test before your next purchase? If you aint required to pass a test exactly what use is the class?

This post hits several of the issues with seeking restrictions to individual rights. Having worked for a large government entity I have some firsthand knowledge of the way it works.

The States that have allowed such restrictions and the buzz word being beaten to death for the benefit of sheeple is "reasonable restrictions". Perhaps if I was 16 years old "reasonable restrictions" should apply but as an adult any restriction is just that, a restriction.

tv_racin_fan points to specific examples here in our own land of the so called "slippery slope". It isn't a slope folks it's a cliff and I'm not jumping off it unless aggressively and unwilling shoved over it. Many, many other examples elsewhere, far too many, can be located if one is so inclined to go hunting.

How would we feel the next time we walk into Wal-Mart and see a great deal on ammo, step up to the counter and unfortunately the FOID card issued by the state after completing a reasonable screening, training and fee (a tax) does not allow one to purchase the ammo since the gun the FOID card issued is of another caliber weapon. Think it can't or won't happen? How could it? Or better yet how has it been done within our own borders. Take that message home and strongly consider it for those that think reasonable restrictions are ok and what is all the big fuss about.

If you seriously think those in power once the precedent has been set won't exploit that precedent then you are deluding yourself and very naive indeed.

If you really want to see what empowerment can create Google commerce clause and see how it has been used and attempted to be used and perverted to further a current government’s agenda. It’s a real eye opener.

 

[chucklenut]

This post hits several of the issues with seeking restrictions to individual rights. Having worked for a large government entity I have some firsthand knowledge of the way it works.

The States that have allowed such restrictions and the buzz word being beaten to death for the benefit of sheeple is "reasonable restrictions". Perhaps if I was 16 years old "reasonable restrictions" should apply but as an adult any restriction is just that, a restriction.

tv_racin_fan points to specific examples here in our own land of the so called "slippery slope". It isn't a slope folks it's a cliff and I'm not jumping off it unless aggressively and unwilling shoved over it. Many, many other examples elsewhere, far too many, can be located if one is so inclined to go hunting.

How would we feel the next time we walk into Wal-Mart and see a great deal on ammo, step up to the counter and unfortunately the FOID card issued by the state after completing a reasonable screening, training and fee (a tax) does not allow one to purchase the ammo since the gun the FOID card issued is of another caliber weapon. Think it can't or won't happen? How could it? Or better yet how has it been done within our own borders. Take that message home and strongly consider it for those that think reasonable restrictions are ok and what is all the big fuss about.

If you seriously think those in power once the precedent has been set won't exploit that precedent then you are deluding yourself and very naive indeed.

If you really want to see what empowerment can create Google commerce clause and see how it has been used and attempted to be used and perverted to further a current government’s agenda. It’s a real eye opener.

agree 100%

FOID card is a poll tax and unconstitutional