|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 21 2015 08:25 Millitron wrote:
Does anybody else find it odd that people whine and cry about voter ID's preventing people from voting, but nobody seems to care that you have to spend hundreds of dollars and huge amounts of paperwork to carry a gun? Both voting and bearing arms are constitutional rights, but somehow it's OK to have hundreds of dollars and months of paperwork to exercise one of them.
Making showing any valid ID mandatory to vote is disenfranchising, but somehow hundreds of dollars in fees and months of paperwork to carry a gun isn't. Don't poor people have the right to bear arms? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "...shall not be infringed, unless you can't afford it in which case fuck you".
what fees? I'd agree that removing fees for getting guns (other than the cost of gun itself of course) would be better constitutionally.
Also, the paperwork isn't months, it's more like a week or two, and with good reason. So it sounds more like you're simply lying through exaggeration.
2nd amendment really needs an update; it's quite out of date, and needs some fixing.
|
On March 21 2015 08:39 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 08:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 21 2015 08:25 Millitron wrote:
Does anybody else find it odd that people whine and cry about voter ID's preventing people from voting, but nobody seems to care that you have to spend hundreds of dollars and huge amounts of paperwork to carry a gun? Both voting and bearing arms are constitutional rights, but somehow it's OK to have hundreds of dollars and months of paperwork to exercise one of them.
Making showing any valid ID mandatory to vote is disenfranchising, but somehow hundreds of dollars in fees and months of paperwork to carry a gun isn't. Don't poor people have the right to bear arms? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "...shall not be infringed, unless you can't afford it in which case fuck you". Is there some kind of Godwin's Law about all US constitution discussions leading to the 2nd Amendment? No, but I do love my guns, so I do like to talk about them.
What about boyfriends/girlfriends? Don't you love them? Honnestly I was shocked to learn same-sex marriage was only fully federally legal in Canada in 2005 and most/all benefits in 1999. Do you think it will be a political point in 2016 or it's a forgone conclusion and thus republican or democratic candidates shouldn't really make it a central talking point to avoid maybe losing moderates.
Speaking of which, any guesses on the 2016 election topics:
1 )Economy stupid
2) Immigration
3) Health care
Or do you think they're will be any wild cards like Snowden/Espionage? Or perhaps I'll make Congress functional again?
|
On March 21 2015 08:49 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 08:25 Millitron wrote:
Does anybody else find it odd that people whine and cry about voter ID's preventing people from voting, but nobody seems to care that you have to spend hundreds of dollars and huge amounts of paperwork to carry a gun? Both voting and bearing arms are constitutional rights, but somehow it's OK to have hundreds of dollars and months of paperwork to exercise one of them.
Making showing any valid ID mandatory to vote is disenfranchising, but somehow hundreds of dollars in fees and months of paperwork to carry a gun isn't. Don't poor people have the right to bear arms? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "...shall not be infringed, unless you can't afford it in which case fuck you". No, I don't find it odd, because no one has been arguing voter ID is inherently unconstitutional. More that it is unproductive, unnecessary, and political. I'm not sure what your point is, that we should be giving out guns at our DMVs? If you don't see why voter registration is easier than gun registration, I suggest trying common sense. Voting is the process of electing our government. Guns are weapons. Why should those things be completely equivocated, exactly? Our government spends money on the logistical process of elections. Do you think the federal and state government should spend money to help people register guns? Is that what you're proposing? Elections are a necessary service to maintain a representative government. It is not necessary, in the slightest, for our government to do the same with guns. I truly, fully do not care, in the tiniest bit, that it is harder to obtain a gun license than it is to register to vote. MAYBE if I could believe for a second that our government needed the security of your or anyone else's militia, then sure, let's make gun registration as much a priority as that voting thing.
You can only hurt a handful of people with a gun. Voting gives you a say in how the entire country is run. Everyone who has died in every US war from Korea to the War on Terror has died because of voting. Everyone who has died from the War on Drugs has died from voting. It's naive to suggest that running the entire country is not dangerous.
On March 21 2015 09:24 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 08:25 Millitron wrote:
Does anybody else find it odd that people whine and cry about voter ID's preventing people from voting, but nobody seems to care that you have to spend hundreds of dollars and huge amounts of paperwork to carry a gun? Both voting and bearing arms are constitutional rights, but somehow it's OK to have hundreds of dollars and months of paperwork to exercise one of them.
Making showing any valid ID mandatory to vote is disenfranchising, but somehow hundreds of dollars in fees and months of paperwork to carry a gun isn't. Don't poor people have the right to bear arms? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "...shall not be infringed, unless you can't afford it in which case fuck you". what fees? I'd agree that removing fees for getting guns (other than the cost of gun itself of course) would be better constitutionally. Also, the paperwork isn't months, it's more like a week or two, and with good reason. So it sounds more like you're simply lying through exaggeration. 2nd amendment really needs an update; it's quite out of date, and needs some fixing.
Yeah, definitely can't remove the cost of the gun, free market and all. But the paperwork IS months in some states, and many have state laws saying you need the sheriff's signature to get your license to carry, and he can refuse without providing a reason. It's called "May Issue". Theoretically you can get a carry license in those states, but in practice they're nearly always denied.
On March 21 2015 09:34 NPF wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 08:39 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 08:35 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 21 2015 08:25 Millitron wrote:
Does anybody else find it odd that people whine and cry about voter ID's preventing people from voting, but nobody seems to care that you have to spend hundreds of dollars and huge amounts of paperwork to carry a gun? Both voting and bearing arms are constitutional rights, but somehow it's OK to have hundreds of dollars and months of paperwork to exercise one of them.
Making showing any valid ID mandatory to vote is disenfranchising, but somehow hundreds of dollars in fees and months of paperwork to carry a gun isn't. Don't poor people have the right to bear arms? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "...shall not be infringed, unless you can't afford it in which case fuck you". Is there some kind of Godwin's Law about all US constitution discussions leading to the 2nd Amendment? No, but I do love my guns, so I do like to talk about them. What about boyfriends/girlfriends? Don't you love them? Honnestly I was shocked to learn same-sex marriage was only fully federally legal in Canada in 2005 and most/all benefits in 1999. Do you think it will be a political point in 2016 or it's a forgone conclusion and thus republican or democratic candidates shouldn't really make it a central talking point to avoid maybe losing moderates. Speaking of which, any guesses on the 2016 election topics: 1 )Economy stupid 2) Immigration 3) Health care Or do you think they're will be any wild cards like Snowden/Espionage? Or perhaps I'll make Congress functional again?
I think gay marriage is basically inevitable, and that's good. I'm personally against the Supreme Court's reasoning on its constitutional protection, I think it's constructionist nonsense. But I think any politician that says anything against gay marriage is doomed, regardless of how good his point is. It'll be like "I'm against gay marriage because [queue well-reasoned argument]" and the soundbyte that gets played all over the news will be "I'm against gay marriage."
|
On March 21 2015 09:24 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 08:25 Millitron wrote:
Does anybody else find it odd that people whine and cry about voter ID's preventing people from voting, but nobody seems to care that you have to spend hundreds of dollars and huge amounts of paperwork to carry a gun? Both voting and bearing arms are constitutional rights, but somehow it's OK to have hundreds of dollars and months of paperwork to exercise one of them.
Making showing any valid ID mandatory to vote is disenfranchising, but somehow hundreds of dollars in fees and months of paperwork to carry a gun isn't. Don't poor people have the right to bear arms? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "...shall not be infringed, unless you can't afford it in which case fuck you". what fees? I'd agree that removing fees for getting guns (other than the cost of gun itself of course) would be better constitutionally. Also, the paperwork isn't months, it's more like a week or two, and with good reason. So it sounds more like you're simply lying through exaggeration.
Yeah I don't know anything about any fees just for buying and carrying (maybe unique to particular states)? The only thing you would have to pay for (besides the gun) would be a permit to carry concealed. You have to go into the local PD,which is admittedly a bit of a pain but that's it. I wouldn't have a problem with them not charging, just not sure how they would pay to do it then.
A personal story from my state.
But I know for a fact that when I applied for my Washington State Concealed Pistol License, I had never fired a revolver or semiautomatic handgun of any caliber. Not once. In fact, I had never even held a loaded pistol in my hands. And I had never taken a minute of formal firearms training.
The state of Washington cared nothing about this when it came to issuing me a license to carry anything from a .22 revolver in my jacket pocket to a .50-caliber Desert Eagle in my waistband. The state also had no interest in whether or not I own a gun.
Indeed, the only requirements under the Washington law that grants me the right to obtain a concealed-carry permit are that I am 21 or older, have no history of mental illness and no criminal past. I meet all three. And there’s no requirement that I exhibit any knowledge of firearms or experience with them to buy a gun.
I then answered eight questions, seven concerning whether or not I’d been convicted of any crimes or had any other run-ins with the law and one that asked if I had “ever been confined in a mental health facility for more than fourteen days.” The answers to all were “No.”
Moments later, I presented my photo ID and $55.25 in cash for the application and fingerprinting fees and was soon ushered into a back office to be electronically fingerprinted.
Twenty-two minutes after parking my car, I was back behind the wheel. Less than one month later, as required by the law, I received my Washington State Concealed Pistol License. It is good for five years. Thanks to reciprocal agreements, it is also good in 21 other states.
Despite my best journalistic efforts at impartiality, I was amazed at how easy it was to obtain the license and nonplussed about the lack of a training requirement.
Source
Considering how skeptical people are of uninformed people voting, you would think those same people would want MORE firearm safety training (AKA hurdles) before getting a compact, deadly, ranged weapon. But it would appear some people are more concerned about uninformed people voting than they are uninformed people walking around with a hidden semi-automatic weapon.
|
There should definitely be some sort of training/testing program for gun ownership, to ensure they know what they're doing. I'll try to put that in if I ever get into congress.
|
On March 21 2015 09:59 zlefin wrote:
There should definitely be some sort of training/testing program for gun ownership, to ensure they know what they're doing. I'll try to put that in if I ever get into congress.
Lets do that for voting too. If you can't trust someone with a gun, how can you trust them with an entire country, especially one that has nuclear weapons?
|
United States41117 Posts
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) criticized "Jews in America" who, in an effort to align themselves with President Obama's stance on Israel, are "Democrats first and Jewish second," BuzzFeed reported on Friday.
King's comments were made during an interview on Friday with Boston Herald Radio about the members of Congress who refused to attend Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress on March 3.
"Well, there were some 50 or so Democrats that, that decided they would boycott the president's speech," King said. "Here's what I don't understand, I don't understand how Jews in America can be Democrats first and Jewish second and support Israel along the line of just following their President."
"It says this, they're knee-jerk supporters of the President's policy," King continued. "The President's policies throughout the Middle East have been a disaster. I would say to them, 'Name a country with which we have better relations today than we had when Barack Obama took office.' And I gave that in speeches for about six weeks until some lag stood up and said, 'I can name you two, they are Cuba and Iran.'"
Source
|
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample.
|
Rep king sounds like a politician spouting nonsense, which is pretty common. Too bad we can't just keep ridding rid of all the idiots in congress until we have some non-idiots.
|
On March 21 2015 10:03 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 09:59 zlefin wrote:
There should definitely be some sort of training/testing program for gun ownership, to ensure they know what they're doing. I'll try to put that in if I ever get into congress. Lets do that for voting too. If you can't trust someone with a gun, how can you trust them with an entire country, especially one that has nuclear weapons?
Well if people could vote themselves into office alone that might be a real problem. One voter can't do much, one person with a gun can clear out an entire stadium.
Although I wouldn't argue against better educating children and adults in general in both firearms and politics.
On March 21 2015 10:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Rep. Steve King (R-IA) criticized "Jews in America" who, in an effort to align themselves with President Obama's stance on Israel, are "Democrats first and Jewish second," BuzzFeed reported on Friday.
King's comments were made during an interview on Friday with Boston Herald Radio about the members of Congress who refused to attend Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress on March 3.
"Well, there were some 50 or so Democrats that, that decided they would boycott the president's speech," King said. "Here's what I don't understand, I don't understand how Jews in America can be Democrats first and Jewish second and support Israel along the line of just following their President."
"It says this, they're knee-jerk supporters of the President's policy," King continued. "The President's policies throughout the Middle East have been a disaster. I would say to them, 'Name a country with which we have better relations today than we had when Barack Obama took office.' And I gave that in speeches for about six weeks until some lag stood up and said, 'I can name you two, they are Cuba and Iran.'" Source
lol the anti-American rhetoric wasn't enough, now they have to go after American Jews for not being 'Jewish' enough...Obviously Steve King is the authority on Jewishness... /sigh
|
United States41117 Posts
The Justice Department is investigating the congressional expenses and business dealings of Rep. Aaron Schock, and FBI agents have begun issuing subpoenas to potential witnesses, a person familiar with the case told The Associated Press on Friday.
Investigators are focusing on Schock's House office expenses, expenditures by his re-election campaign and his personal investments aided by long-time political donors, the person said. Schock, 33, a young, media-savvy Republican, abruptly announced his resignation earlier this week after weeks of mounting media reports about his questionable expenditures and personal finances.
The government is convening a federal grand jury in Springfield, Illinois, according to the person, who was not authorized to publicly discuss the case. The person also said that FBI agents were visiting people close to the Republican congressman who were being compelled by subpoena to testify.
Schock said earlier this week that he will resign at the end of the month. His sudden announcement followed a month-long cascade of revelations about his business deals and lavish spending on everything from overseas travel to office decor in the style of "Downton Abbey." Congressional ethics investigators had begun probing Schock's conduct in the days before his announcement, but that probe is now expected to end because of federal involvement.
The questions raised have included investigations of Schock's real estate transactions, air travel and entertainment expenses — including some events that Schock documented in photographs on his Instagram account. On Monday, the AP confirmed that the Office of Congressional Ethics had reached out to Schock's associates as it apparently began an investigation.
The owner of an air charter service in Peoria confirmed on Friday that he had been contacted by an ethics investigator interested in Schock's extensive flights on planes owned by campaign donors. Harrel W. Timmons, owner of Jet Air Inc., said the investigators wanted to know about Schock's flights on a plane owned by D&B Air, another firm owned by a prominent Schock donor in Peoria.
Source
|
On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample.
So is voting effective? Does it really give you a say in your government?
If yes, why are you OK with any drunken idiot having a say in how the entire country is run?
If no, we aren't really a republic or democracy are we?
On March 21 2015 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 10:03 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 09:59 zlefin wrote:
There should definitely be some sort of training/testing program for gun ownership, to ensure they know what they're doing. I'll try to put that in if I ever get into congress. Lets do that for voting too. If you can't trust someone with a gun, how can you trust them with an entire country, especially one that has nuclear weapons? Well if people could vote themselves into office alone that might be a real problem. One voter can't do much, one person with a gun can clear out an entire stadium. Although I wouldn't argue against better educating children and adults in general in both firearms and politics.
Sure, one vote's not very dangerous. But there's tons of dumb voters out there.
I'd absolutely love a high-school course on firearms though. Kinda like a parallel to the "participation in government" classes they make seniors take.
|
On March 21 2015 10:13 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. So is voting effective? Does it really give you a say in your government? If yes, why are you OK with any drunken idiot having a say in how the entire country is run? If no, we aren't really a republic or democracy are we? Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:03 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 09:59 zlefin wrote:
There should definitely be some sort of training/testing program for gun ownership, to ensure they know what they're doing. I'll try to put that in if I ever get into congress. Lets do that for voting too. If you can't trust someone with a gun, how can you trust them with an entire country, especially one that has nuclear weapons? Well if people could vote themselves into office alone that might be a real problem. One voter can't do much, one person with a gun can clear out an entire stadium. Although I wouldn't argue against better educating children and adults in general in both firearms and politics. Sure, one vote's not very dangerous. But there's tons of dumb voters out there. I'd absolutely love a high-school course on firearms though. Kinda like a parallel to the "participation in government" classes they make seniors take.
They had archery in my PE class, I don't see why a firearms segment would be ridiculous. I would hope they did a better job with a firearms course than they do with their civics 'classes' though.
I would just quit with this voting is like owning (conceal carrying is actually what I think you are talking about mostly) a gun nonsense though.
|
On March 21 2015 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 10:13 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. So is voting effective? Does it really give you a say in your government? If yes, why are you OK with any drunken idiot having a say in how the entire country is run? If no, we aren't really a republic or democracy are we? On March 21 2015 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:03 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 09:59 zlefin wrote:
There should definitely be some sort of training/testing program for gun ownership, to ensure they know what they're doing. I'll try to put that in if I ever get into congress. Lets do that for voting too. If you can't trust someone with a gun, how can you trust them with an entire country, especially one that has nuclear weapons? Well if people could vote themselves into office alone that might be a real problem. One voter can't do much, one person with a gun can clear out an entire stadium. Although I wouldn't argue against better educating children and adults in general in both firearms and politics. Sure, one vote's not very dangerous. But there's tons of dumb voters out there. I'd absolutely love a high-school course on firearms though. Kinda like a parallel to the "participation in government" classes they make seniors take. They had archery in my PE class, I don't see why a firearms segment would be ridiculous. I would hope they did a better job with a firearms course than they do with their civics 'classes' though. I would just quit with this voting is like owning (conceal carrying is actually what I think you are talking about mostly) a gun nonsense though.
I've never said "own" (though in New York you need a concealed carry license just to own a hand gun). The 2nd Amendment says "keep and bear" though, not just "keep".
We had archery at my school too. I don't remember what he did exactly, but some kid snapped the bowstring. The bow whipped him in the face and seriously injured his eye. So needless to say we no longer have an archery program.
I think they would do better with firearms, as honestly, they're easier. There's only a handful of major rules to learn, unlike those civics classes where they have to teach how every level of government works.
|
On March 21 2015 10:31 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 10:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:13 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. So is voting effective? Does it really give you a say in your government? If yes, why are you OK with any drunken idiot having a say in how the entire country is run? If no, we aren't really a republic or democracy are we? On March 21 2015 10:11 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 21 2015 10:03 Millitron wrote:On March 21 2015 09:59 zlefin wrote:
There should definitely be some sort of training/testing program for gun ownership, to ensure they know what they're doing. I'll try to put that in if I ever get into congress. Lets do that for voting too. If you can't trust someone with a gun, how can you trust them with an entire country, especially one that has nuclear weapons? Well if people could vote themselves into office alone that might be a real problem. One voter can't do much, one person with a gun can clear out an entire stadium. Although I wouldn't argue against better educating children and adults in general in both firearms and politics. Sure, one vote's not very dangerous. But there's tons of dumb voters out there. I'd absolutely love a high-school course on firearms though. Kinda like a parallel to the "participation in government" classes they make seniors take. They had archery in my PE class, I don't see why a firearms segment would be ridiculous. I would hope they did a better job with a firearms course than they do with their civics 'classes' though. I would just quit with this voting is like owning (conceal carrying is actually what I think you are talking about mostly) a gun nonsense though. I've never said "own" (though in New York you need a concealed carry license just to own a hand gun). The 2nd Amendment says "keep and bear" though, not just "keep". We had archery at my school too. I don't remember what he did exactly, but some kid snapped the bowstring. The bow whipped him in the face and seriously injured his eye. So needless to say we no longer have an archery program. I think they would do better with firearms, as honestly, they're easier. There's only a handful of major rules to learn, unlike those civics classes where they have to teach how every level of government works.
That's only NYC not the state. I personally disagree with it but if shit like voter ID has to be shown in court to be ridiculous for people to accept it, than the same should hold for a law like NYC has.
Other than that one city (maybe others I am unaware of) you don't need a permit to own or carry.
Yeah, a firearms course wouldn't even need live guns to be sufficient, although some live fire training would be additionally helpful, but would bring liabilities most schools probably can't afford (more on inequity in education later).
|
On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample.
gun safety is pretty much common sense. people with common sense dont need training, and people without it, the training wont help.
|
On March 21 2015 10:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. gun safety is pretty much common sense. people with common sense dont need training, and people without it, the training wont help.
Smart people with common sense make silly mistakes handling weapons all the time. The biggest problem is people underestimating the likelihood of an accident. So, much of the training is emphasizing redundant safety practices that "common sense" tends to tell people are unnecessary.
Separate issue:
Gun rights advocates should also keep in mind that they are arguing both of these groups should be protected. If you support open carry I hope you wouldn't call the cops on group 1 or 2 for exercising their rights?
Group 1
+ Show Spoiler +
Group 2
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 21 2015 10:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. gun safety is pretty much common sense. people with common sense dont need training, and people without it, the training wont help.
not true. training can help people with less common sense; common sense are learned behaviors as many others are, and can be taught to a degree, they're just so numerous you can't teach them all.
And even people with common sense can benefit from basic training; training and reminders help them stick in your mind better, including helping to remember them when it matters.
Also, some people's common sense would simply be wrong about guns even if they have common sense in general.
|
On March 21 2015 11:22 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 10:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 21 2015 10:09 zlefin wrote:
Easily, because the two of those are different skillsets, it's entirely possible to have one without the other.
I'm not going to answer with more than that snark, since it's a silly point, whereas the basis for training for gun owners is very clear and ample. gun safety is pretty much common sense. people with common sense dont need training, and people without it, the training wont help. not true. training can help people with less common sense; common sense are learned behaviors as many others are, and can be taught to a degree, they're just so numerous you can't teach them all. And even people with common sense can benefit from basic training; training and reminders help them stick in your mind better, including helping to remember them when it matters. Also, some people's common sense would simply be wrong about guns even if they have common sense in general.
you basically have said nothing more than you disagree. the basic safety rules that are taught in gun safety courses are common sense.
dont point the gun at things you dont want to shoot
dont put your finger on the trigger if you arent ready to shoot
unload guns when not using them
know what you are shooting at and what you could hit
always treat a firearm as if its loaded (i.e, dont point it at your face)
these arent surgeon level principles.
|
On March 21 2015 09:40 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2015 08:49 Leporello wrote:On March 21 2015 08:25 Millitron wrote:
Does anybody else find it odd that people whine and cry about voter ID's preventing people from voting, but nobody seems to care that you have to spend hundreds of dollars and huge amounts of paperwork to carry a gun? Both voting and bearing arms are constitutional rights, but somehow it's OK to have hundreds of dollars and months of paperwork to exercise one of them.
Making showing any valid ID mandatory to vote is disenfranchising, but somehow hundreds of dollars in fees and months of paperwork to carry a gun isn't. Don't poor people have the right to bear arms? The 2nd Amendment doesn't say "...shall not be infringed, unless you can't afford it in which case fuck you". No, I don't find it odd, because no one has been arguing voter ID is inherently unconstitutional. More that it is unproductive, unnecessary, and political. I'm not sure what your point is, that we should be giving out guns at our DMVs? If you don't see why voter registration is easier than gun registration, I suggest trying common sense. Voting is the process of electing our government. Guns are weapons. Why should those things be completely equivocated, exactly? Our government spends money on the logistical process of elections. Do you think the federal and state government should spend money to help people register guns? Is that what you're proposing? Elections are a necessary service to maintain a representative government. It is not necessary, in the slightest, for our government to do the same with guns. I truly, fully do not care, in the tiniest bit, that it is harder to obtain a gun license than it is to register to vote. MAYBE if I could believe for a second that our government needed the security of your or anyone else's militia, then sure, let's make gun registration as much a priority as that voting thing. You can only hurt a handful of people with a gun. Voting gives you a say in how the entire country is run. Everyone who has died in every US war from Korea to the War on Terror has died because of voting. Everyone who has died from the War on Drugs has died from voting. It's naive to suggest that running the entire country is not dangerous.
Voting had very little to do with any of that. Those wars would have happened whoever had been elected to office. The majority of the voting public opposed the Vietnam war, and opposes a number of policies that any number of elected administrations have pursued, but nothing changes because either both parties would pursue it (e.g. support for Israel) or because people think other things outweigh some war aims (abortion, taxes, whatever). If wars were only waged after a general vote you might have a point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XHQFTRj.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NyLUuY0.jpg)
