Should there be mandatory training before you can purchase a firearm?

[jon_berzerk]

[Q

Ok... Have no idea where you came up with that nugget. I think anyone owning a gun should have some basic safety training and preferably range time. A woman with a gun who doesn't know how to use it will, in your scenario, get raped and her rapist will wind up with her gun which he can use to victimize someone else.

That is ridiculous.

The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution. There are no qualifications to it like background checks or training. In fact it says that the right shall not be infringed. If the filthy ass government starts putting qualifications to it then it is really not a right, is it? It becomes a privilege dolled out by the filthy ass government that sets the requirements for the training. The same filthy ass government like under that Obama asshole declared that veterans were potential terrorist and that social security recipients and people receiving veteran treatment recipients should have their guns confiscated.

Since you confused about this would you like for me to give you some examples of how the filthy ass government has abused the right to keep and bear arms in the name of "reasonable gun control". Please say yes because I have several really good examples of the oppression the filthy ass government put on Constitutional rights. I'll be glad to educate you since you seem confused.

In addition to that can you imagined how fucked up a government mandated firearms training program would be and how costly? The filthy ass government fucks up everything it touches and a firearms training program would be a dozy. Especially when the asshole Democrats got in power and had control over the program. No White Republican voting males would be allowed to take the course, would they?

Ok, so since there is no mention of mental defect in the 2nd Amendment, psychopaths and imbeciles should be allowed to buy guns. There is no mention of criminals in the 2nd amendment, so felons should be allowed to have guns. No mention of citizenship status, so illegals should be allowed to have guns. No mention of religion, so Islamist terrorists should be allowed to have guns. No mention of age, so toddlers and Alzheimer's patients should be able to have guns. No mention of sobriety, so drunks and drug addicts should be allowed to have guns. No background checks, no safety requirements, no restriction against automatic weapons, no restrictions on ammo types including "cop killer" bullets. Since it says arms and not limited to guns, I guess that means RPGs, bombs, mines, and NBC weapons are all fine and dandy too.

1. Look up the legal concept of diminished capacity.

2. Felons surrender their rights when they commit a felony.

Now that I’ve addressed your moronic questions, please explain why you want a gang banger or a rapist to get extra fire arm training?

But there aren't any mention of exceptions such as diminished capacity in the 2nd Amendment. Even cretins such as yourself can get a gun.

But there aren't any mention of exceptions such as diminished capacity in the 2nd Amendment.


oh actually there is

the 14th amendment

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

felons gone through a due process losing their rights

 

[SmokeALib]

That is ridiculous.

The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution. There are no qualifications to it like background checks or training. In fact it says that the right shall not be infringed. If the filthy ass government starts putting qualifications to it then it is really not a right, is it? It becomes a privilege dolled out by the filthy ass government that sets the requirements for the training. The same filthy ass government like under that Obama asshole declared that veterans were potential terrorist and that social security recipients and people receiving veteran treatment recipients should have their guns confiscated.

Since you confused about this would you like for me to give you some examples of how the filthy ass government has abused the right to keep and bear arms in the name of "reasonable gun control". Please say yes because I have several really good examples of the oppression the filthy ass government put on Constitutional rights. I'll be glad to educate you since you seem confused.

In addition to that can you imagined how fucked up a government mandated firearms training program would be and how costly? The filthy ass government fucks up everything it touches and a firearms training program would be a dozy. Especially when the asshole Democrats got in power and had control over the program. No White Republican voting males would be allowed to take the course, would they?

Ok, so since there is no mention of mental defect in the 2nd Amendment, psychopaths and imbeciles should be allowed to buy guns. There is no mention of criminals in the 2nd amendment, so felons should be allowed to have guns. No mention of citizenship status, so illegals should be allowed to have guns. No mention of religion, so Islamist terrorists should be allowed to have guns. No mention of age, so toddlers and Alzheimer's patients should be able to have guns. No mention of sobriety, so drunks and drug addicts should be allowed to have guns. No background checks, no safety requirements, no restriction against automatic weapons, no restrictions on ammo types including "cop killer" bullets. Since it says arms and not limited to guns, I guess that means RPGs, bombs, mines, and NBC weapons are all fine and dandy too.

1. Look up the legal concept of diminished capacity.

2. Felons surrender their rights when they commit a felony.

Now that I’ve addressed your moronic questions, please explain why you want a gang banger or a rapist to get extra fire arm training?

But there aren't any mention of exceptions such as diminished capacity in the 2nd Amendment. Even cretins such as yourself can get a gun.

And rapists. That’s exactly why our daughters need to carry a gun.

But you hate that, right?

No, I'm all for it. Have her take a safety course and get practice at the range. Have her get a concealed carry permit. Then she will know what to do if such a dire scenario ever plays out.

Who says she can't practice on her own? The government? If "the government" declares that she can safely conceal a weapon, everything is hunky dory?
Kiss my ass.

 

[Pop23]

That is ridiculous.

The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution. There are no qualifications to it like background checks or training. In fact it says that the right shall not be infringed. If the filthy ass government starts putting qualifications to it then it is really not a right, is it? It becomes a privilege dolled out by the filthy ass government that sets the requirements for the training. The same filthy ass government like under that Obama asshole declared that veterans were potential terrorist and that social security recipients and people receiving veteran treatment recipients should have their guns confiscated.

Since you confused about this would you like for me to give you some examples of how the filthy ass government has abused the right to keep and bear arms in the name of "reasonable gun control". Please say yes because I have several really good examples of the oppression the filthy ass government put on Constitutional rights. I'll be glad to educate you since you seem confused.

In addition to that can you imagined how fucked up a government mandated firearms training program would be and how costly? The filthy ass government fucks up everything it touches and a firearms training program would be a dozy. Especially when the asshole Democrats got in power and had control over the program. No White Republican voting males would be allowed to take the course, would they?

Ok, so since there is no mention of mental defect in the 2nd Amendment, psychopaths and imbeciles should be allowed to buy guns. There is no mention of criminals in the 2nd amendment, so felons should be allowed to have guns. No mention of citizenship status, so illegals should be allowed to have guns. No mention of religion, so Islamist terrorists should be allowed to have guns. No mention of age, so toddlers and Alzheimer's patients should be able to have guns. No mention of sobriety, so drunks and drug addicts should be allowed to have guns. No background checks, no safety requirements, no restriction against automatic weapons, no restrictions on ammo types including "cop killer" bullets. Since it says arms and not limited to guns, I guess that means RPGs, bombs, mines, and NBC weapons are all fine and dandy too.

1. Look up the legal concept of diminished capacity.

2. Felons surrender their rights when they commit a felony.

Now that I’ve addressed your moronic questions, please explain why you want a gang banger or a rapist to get extra fire arm training?

But there aren't any mention of exceptions such as diminished capacity in the 2nd Amendment. Even cretins such as yourself can get a gun.

And rapists. That’s exactly why our daughters need to carry a gun.

But you hate that, right?

No, I'm all for it. Have her take a safety course and get practice at the range. Have her get a concealed carry permit. Then she will know what to do if such a dire scenario ever plays out.

Seeing that there is roughly 1 accidental shooting per day out of 300,000,000 plus people in the United States, the motion to make it mandatory fails.

 

[AVG-JOE]

That and more still doesn't mean that putting assault weapons behind a license that requires training and a background check isn't a good idea.

Just sayin'...

I think literacy tests are a good idea to ensure voters can understand what they're choosing. However, just because it's a good idea doesn't make it proper and constitutional.

And really, the only limitation that we really want in marriage is that one be male, the other female. What could possibly be wrong with that restriction?

There are advantages built in to the American tax and social systems that favor persons who can document a partnership with another individual commonly referred to as 'marriage'.

We, The Peeps MUST extend those advantages the same to ALL 2-person partnerships with proper documentation or to none of them. Anything else is blatant discrimination by the government and therefore unconstitutional.

Gay marriage is here to stay, Pop. So is interracial marriage. So are Civil Rights for the disenfranchised and minorities.

Things change.

Deal or be miserable - your choice.

`​

 

[Flash]

[QU

No, I'm all for it. Have her take a safety course and get practice at the range. Have her get a concealed carry permit. Then she will know what to do if such a dire scenario ever plays out.

You are really confused about this.

Any person in the Unites States can take a safety course and there are plenty of ranges. We don't need the filthy ass government mandating training.

We don't don't need the filthy ass government infringing upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms by having the keeping and and bearing of arms licensed, do we? If a Constitutional right is subject to government permission then it is really not a right, is it?

You don't understand our Bill of Rights, do you?

 

[Pop23]

That and more still doesn't mean that putting assault weapons behind a license that requires training and a background check isn't a good idea.

Just sayin'...

I think literacy tests are a good idea to ensure voters can understand what they're choosing. However, just because it's a good idea doesn't make it proper and constitutional.

And really, the only limitation that we really want in marriage is that one be male, the other female. What could possibly be wrong with that restriction?

There are advantages built in to the American tax and social systems that favor persons who can document a partnership with another individual commonly referred to as 'marriage'.

We, The Peeps MUST extend those advantages the same to ALL 2-person partnerships with proper documentation or to none of them. Anything else is blatant discrimination by the government and therefore unconstitutional.

Gay marriage is here to stay, Pop. So is interracial marriage. So are Civil Rights for the disenfranchised and minorities.

Things change.

Deal or be miserable - your choice.

`​

But it’s only just a small little restriction Joe. Nobody says you can’t still get married after all.

 

[iceberg]

should we have mandatory training before exercising your right to free speech?
should we have mandatory training before exercising your right to vote?
should that training validate your citizenship before allowing you to vote?

can't pick and choose which rights you want exceptions for and which you don't. *we the people* will need to figure out our own compromises together. forcing the issue either way is simply not going to end well at all so the ban gun talk needs to just stop. until the left can identify what about an AR needs to be banned, then you flunked your *mandatory gun training* and must go back before you can mouth off on the topic again. until the left can remove their emotions from the topic we're going nowhere on it.

 

[iceberg]

That and more still doesn't mean that putting assault weapons behind a license that requires training and a background check isn't a good idea.

Just sayin'...

I think literacy tests are a good idea to ensure voters can understand what they're choosing. However, just because it's a good idea doesn't make it proper and constitutional.

And really, the only limitation that we really want in marriage is that one be male, the other female. What could possibly be wrong with that restriction?

There are advantages built in to the American tax and social systems that favor persons who can document a partnership with another individual commonly referred to as 'marriage'.

We, The Peeps MUST extend those advantages the same to ALL 2-person partnerships with proper documentation or to none of them. Anything else is blatant discrimination by the government and therefore unconstitutional.

Gay marriage is here to stay, Pop. So is interracial marriage. So are Civil Rights for the disenfranchised and minorities.

Things change.

Deal or be miserable - your choice.

​

most people i know that object to it are the ones who make it religious, not government. i, and most people, don't give a rats unholy turd what you shove up your anatomy. your life, enjoy it. should the gov recognize that as a civil union? sure. why not. marriage? now that's a religious area not for the gov to decide. if you want a gay marriage religion then do what every other self respecting religion has done in time and steal one you like and change a few things, give it a name and go to the church of the holy boner for all i care. but asking people to change their religious views isn't going to happen anymore than you'll have luck telling sparky to stop being gay and that's where people tend to get into arguments.

some things never change.

 

[Likkmee]

There are no qualifications in the Constitution to the individual right to keep and bear arms.

It says so right in the Bill of Rights. It says that because it is necessary for the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Stupid Moon Bats have a hard time understanding what the words "shall not be infringed" means. They think it means that the right can be infringed, the stupid shithheads.

If you have tests and background checks administered by the filthy ass corrupt government before you get a right then it is really not a right, is it?

By your own reasoning, A blind person should be allowed to get a drivers license. Would you want a blind person to own a gun?

Y'all keep asking for trouble.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Ok, so since there is no mention of mental defect in the 2nd Amendment, psychopaths and imbeciles should be allowed to buy guns. There is no mention of criminals in the 2nd amendment, so felons should be allowed to have guns. No mention of citizenship status, so illegals should be allowed to have guns. No mention of religion, so Islamist terrorists should be allowed to have guns. No mention of age, so toddlers and Alzheimer's patients should be able to have guns. No mention of sobriety, so drunks and drug addicts should be allowed to have guns. No background checks, no safety requirements, no restriction against automatic weapons, no restrictions on ammo types including "cop killer" bullets. Since it says arms and not limited to guns, I guess that means RPGs, bombs, mines, and NBC weapons are all fine and dandy too.

1. Look up the legal concept of diminished capacity.

2. Felons surrender their rights when they commit a felony.

Now that I’ve addressed your moronic questions, please explain why you want a gang banger or a rapist to get extra fire arm training?

But there aren't any mention of exceptions such as diminished capacity in the 2nd Amendment. Even cretins such as yourself can get a gun.

And rapists. That’s exactly why our daughters need to carry a gun.

But you hate that, right?

No, I'm all for it. Have her take a safety course and get practice at the range. Have her get a concealed carry permit. Then she will know what to do if such a dire scenario ever plays out.

Seeing that there is roughly 1 accidental shooting per day out of 300,000,000 plus people in the United States, the motion to make it mandatory fails.

true since there is an average of 16 deaths per day from texting while driving

 

[Pop23]

That and more still doesn't mean that putting assault weapons behind a license that requires training and a background check isn't a good idea.

Just sayin'...

I think literacy tests are a good idea to ensure voters can understand what they're choosing. However, just because it's a good idea doesn't make it proper and constitutional.

And really, the only limitation that we really want in marriage is that one be male, the other female. What could possibly be wrong with that restriction?

There are advantages built in to the American tax and social systems that favor persons who can document a partnership with another individual commonly referred to as 'marriage'.

We, The Peeps MUST extend those advantages the same to ALL 2-person partnerships with proper documentation or to none of them. Anything else is blatant discrimination by the government and therefore unconstitutional.

Gay marriage is here to stay, Pop. So is interracial marriage. So are Civil Rights for the disenfranchised and minorities.

Things change.

Deal or be miserable - your choice.

​

most people i know that object to it are the ones who make it religious, not government. i, and most people, don't give a rats unholy turd what you shove up your anatomy. your life, enjoy it. should the gov recognize that as a civil union? sure. why not. marriage? now that's a religious area not for the gov to decide. if you want a gay marriage religion then do what every other self respecting religion has done in time and steal one you like and change a few things, give it a name and go to the church of the holy boner for all i care. but asking people to change their religious views isn't going to happen anymore than you'll have luck telling sparky to stop being gay and that's where people tend to get into arguments.

some things never change.

It's not about Marriage, you get that, Right? It's about restricting rights and what happens once you make restricting them even an option without due process.

 

[iceberg]

That and more still doesn't mean that putting assault weapons behind a license that requires training and a background check isn't a good idea.

Just sayin'...

I think literacy tests are a good idea to ensure voters can understand what they're choosing. However, just because it's a good idea doesn't make it proper and constitutional.

And really, the only limitation that we really want in marriage is that one be male, the other female. What could possibly be wrong with that restriction?

There are advantages built in to the American tax and social systems that favor persons who can document a partnership with another individual commonly referred to as 'marriage'.

We, The Peeps MUST extend those advantages the same to ALL 2-person partnerships with proper documentation or to none of them. Anything else is blatant discrimination by the government and therefore unconstitutional.

Gay marriage is here to stay, Pop. So is interracial marriage. So are Civil Rights for the disenfranchised and minorities.

Things change.

Deal or be miserable - your choice.

​

most people i know that object to it are the ones who make it religious, not government. i, and most people, don't give a rats unholy turd what you shove up your anatomy. your life, enjoy it. should the gov recognize that as a civil union? sure. why not. marriage? now that's a religious area not for the gov to decide. if you want a gay marriage religion then do what every other self respecting religion has done in time and steal one you like and change a few things, give it a name and go to the church of the holy boner for all i care. but asking people to change their religious views isn't going to happen anymore than you'll have luck telling sparky to stop being gay and that's where people tend to get into arguments.

some things never change.

It's not about Marriage, you get that, Right? It's about restricting rights and what happens once you make restricting them even an option without due process.

i totally get that. so don't call it marriage and piss off the religious people. call it civil union and lets ensure the gov treats them the same regardless.

marriage = religious term. you want it, then form a religion. don't try to make another religion change for you.
civil union - gov term. means you get the same rights as a hetero couple and problem solved. the gov is something we as a society *can* change.

 

[Montrovant]

should we have mandatory training before exercising your right to free speech?
should we have mandatory training before exercising your right to vote?
should that training validate your citizenship before allowing you to vote?

can't pick and choose which rights you want exceptions for and which you don't. *we the people* will need to figure out our own compromises together. forcing the issue either way is simply not going to end well at all so the ban gun talk needs to just stop. until the left can identify what about an AR needs to be banned, then you flunked your *mandatory gun training* and must go back before you can mouth off on the topic again. until the left can remove their emotions from the topic we're going nowhere on it.

Actually, I think there are already exceptions to all of our rights. Can't yell fire in a crowded theater, can't assemble in the middle of a highway, can't libel or slander someone in a news article, police can enter your home without a warrant with probable cause, etc. etc. And the exceptions are different, because the rights are different.

The idea that any exception or restriction on a right must be the same for every right is already untrue. The question is whether this particular exception (mandatory training) would be Constitutional. I'm guessing the answer is no.

 

[2aguy]

should we have mandatory training before exercising your right to free speech?
should we have mandatory training before exercising your right to vote?
should that training validate your citizenship before allowing you to vote?

can't pick and choose which rights you want exceptions for and which you don't. *we the people* will need to figure out our own compromises together. forcing the issue either way is simply not going to end well at all so the ban gun talk needs to just stop. until the left can identify what about an AR needs to be banned, then you flunked your *mandatory gun training* and must go back before you can mouth off on the topic again. until the left can remove their emotions from the topic we're going nowhere on it.

Actually, I think there are already exceptions to all of our rights. Can't yell fire in a crowded theater, can't assemble in the middle of a highway, can't libel or slander someone in a news article, police can enter your home without a warrant with probable cause, etc. etc. And the exceptions are different, because the rights are different.

The idea that any exception or restriction on a right must be the same for every right is already untrue. The question is whether this particular exception (mandatory training) would be Constitutional. I'm guessing the answer is no.

You aren't stopped from speaking in a theater and are not breaking the law until you yell fire....the actual concept would be charging a fee and requiring training before you are allowed to speak, at all, in a theater....

You can't charge a fee for the exercise of a Right, you can't require a test for the exercise of a Right....these concepts have already been settled by both Constitutional Amendment and Supreme Court rulings.

 

[2aguy]

should we have mandatory training before exercising your right to free speech?
should we have mandatory training before exercising your right to vote?
should that training validate your citizenship before allowing you to vote?

can't pick and choose which rights you want exceptions for and which you don't. *we the people* will need to figure out our own compromises together. forcing the issue either way is simply not going to end well at all so the ban gun talk needs to just stop. until the left can identify what about an AR needs to be banned, then you flunked your *mandatory gun training* and must go back before you can mouth off on the topic again. until the left can remove their emotions from the topic we're going nowhere on it.

Actually, I think there are already exceptions to all of our rights. Can't yell fire in a crowded theater, can't assemble in the middle of a highway, can't libel or slander someone in a news article, police can enter your home without a warrant with probable cause, etc. etc. And the exceptions are different, because the rights are different.

The idea that any exception or restriction on a right must be the same for every right is already untrue. The question is whether this particular exception (mandatory training) would be Constitutional. I'm guessing the answer is no.

In regard to the Fire in a theater scenario..

Countering Gun Control Advocates' "No Right is Absolute" Argument - The Truth About Guns



---

Big Bill is correct when he insists that the First Amendment doesn’t protect someone shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded movie house — if doing so causes harm. But you can shout FIRE! if there’s a fire.

By the same token, Uncle Sam can’t stop someone from entering a theater because the government has reason to believes the parton might shout FIRE! in a crowded movie house, creating panic and harm. This is no small point . .

The First Amendment prohibits prior suppression of free speech.

Nothing prohibits the government from holding citizens accountable for the effects of their free speech — save the difficulty proving that a speaker directly, knowingly and maliciously caused harm by his or her speech. Unless it’s something like creating panic or physical harm by falsely and maliciously shouting FIRE! in a crowded movie house.

The First and Second Amendment forbid the government from prohibiting the keeping and bear arms or the exercise of free speech. They don’t stop the government from punishing citizens whose firearms or speech causes harm AFTER THE FACT.

Our Founding Fathers knew that laws that attempt to stop unwanted activities before they occur are both ineffective and dangerous. Inherently tyrannical.

What would the FFs have made of FBI background checks for gun purchases, ammunitionmagazine limitations, “assault weapons” bans, carry permits, bullet taxes and the like? A constitutional abomination and a direct affront to freedom. Like . . .

Banning the word “FIRE” in case someone might use it in a crowded theater (that wasn’t on fire).

So, in fact, the right to keep and bear arms is absolute, as is the right to free speech.

 

[Montrovant]

should we have mandatory training before exercising your right to free speech?
should we have mandatory training before exercising your right to vote?
should that training validate your citizenship before allowing you to vote?

can't pick and choose which rights you want exceptions for and which you don't. *we the people* will need to figure out our own compromises together. forcing the issue either way is simply not going to end well at all so the ban gun talk needs to just stop. until the left can identify what about an AR needs to be banned, then you flunked your *mandatory gun training* and must go back before you can mouth off on the topic again. until the left can remove their emotions from the topic we're going nowhere on it.

Actually, I think there are already exceptions to all of our rights. Can't yell fire in a crowded theater, can't assemble in the middle of a highway, can't libel or slander someone in a news article, police can enter your home without a warrant with probable cause, etc. etc. And the exceptions are different, because the rights are different.

The idea that any exception or restriction on a right must be the same for every right is already untrue. The question is whether this particular exception (mandatory training) would be Constitutional. I'm guessing the answer is no.

In regard to the Fire in a theater scenario..

Countering Gun Control Advocates' "No Right is Absolute" Argument - The Truth About Guns



---

Big Bill is correct when he insists that the First Amendment doesn’t protect someone shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded movie house — if doing so causes harm. But you can shout FIRE! if there’s a fire.

By the same token, Uncle Sam can’t stop someone from entering a theater because the government has reason to believes the parton might shout FIRE! in a crowded movie house, creating panic and harm. This is no small point . .

The First Amendment prohibits prior suppression of free speech.

Nothing prohibits the government from holding citizens accountable for the effects of their free speech — save the difficulty proving that a speaker directly, knowingly and maliciously caused harm by his or her speech. Unless it’s something like creating panic or physical harm by falsely and maliciously shouting FIRE! in a crowded movie house.

The First and Second Amendment forbid the government from prohibiting the keeping and bear arms or the exercise of free speech. They don’t stop the government from punishing citizens whose firearms or speech causes harm AFTER THE FACT.

Our Founding Fathers knew that laws that attempt to stop unwanted activities before they occur are both ineffective and dangerous. Inherently tyrannical.

What would the FFs have made of FBI background checks for gun purchases, ammunitionmagazine limitations, “assault weapons” bans, carry permits, bullet taxes and the like? A constitutional abomination and a direct affront to freedom. Like . . .

Banning the word “FIRE” in case someone might use it in a crowded theater (that wasn’t on fire).

So, in fact, the right to keep and bear arms is absolute, as is the right to free speech.

Except that the right to keep and bear arms is clearly not absolute. Perhaps it should be, but it is not. Some people are prohibited from keeping arms (felons, the blind in some states, drug addicts), and there are legal hurdles to pass before one can legally purchase arms, like background checks.

There are also differences which make prohibiting speech rather than punishing after the fact much more difficult than prohibiting firearm ownership: a person can open their mouth and speak at any time.

I don't know how the courts would feel about the prohibition vs. punishment argument. It makes prohibition almost inherently about material items rather than personal actions.

 

[Montrovant]

should we have mandatory training before exercising your right to free speech?
should we have mandatory training before exercising your right to vote?
should that training validate your citizenship before allowing you to vote?

can't pick and choose which rights you want exceptions for and which you don't. *we the people* will need to figure out our own compromises together. forcing the issue either way is simply not going to end well at all so the ban gun talk needs to just stop. until the left can identify what about an AR needs to be banned, then you flunked your *mandatory gun training* and must go back before you can mouth off on the topic again. until the left can remove their emotions from the topic we're going nowhere on it.

Actually, I think there are already exceptions to all of our rights. Can't yell fire in a crowded theater, can't assemble in the middle of a highway, can't libel or slander someone in a news article, police can enter your home without a warrant with probable cause, etc. etc. And the exceptions are different, because the rights are different.

The idea that any exception or restriction on a right must be the same for every right is already untrue. The question is whether this particular exception (mandatory training) would be Constitutional. I'm guessing the answer is no.

You aren't stopped from speaking in a theater and are not breaking the law until you yell fire....the actual concept would be charging a fee and requiring training before you are allowed to speak, at all, in a theater....

You can't charge a fee for the exercise of a Right, you can't require a test for the exercise of a Right....these concepts have already been settled by both Constitutional Amendment and Supreme Court rulings.

It's different when the right involves a material item rather than an action, as it is much more difficult to stop someone from engaging in an action before the fact.

If the mandatory training were provided through government funding, that could get around the charging a fee issue. However, I think the USSC would probably rule that a training requirement violates the second amendment because it creates an undue burden for exercising the right to keep and bear arms.

My point was just that no right can be exercised completely freely. Whether the restrictions involve prohibition or punishment, no right is without some sort of restriction.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That and more still doesn't mean that putting assault weapons behind a license that requires training and a background check isn't a good idea.

Just sayin'...

I think literacy tests are a good idea to ensure voters can understand what they're choosing. However, just because it's a good idea doesn't make it proper and constitutional.

And really, the only limitation that we really want in marriage is that one be male, the other female. What could possibly be wrong with that restriction?

There are advantages built in to the American tax and social systems that favor persons who can document a partnership with another individual commonly referred to as 'marriage'.

We, The Peeps MUST extend those advantages the same to ALL 2-person partnerships with proper documentation or to none of them. Anything else is blatant discrimination by the government and therefore unconstitutional.

Gay marriage is here to stay, Pop. So is interracial marriage. So are Civil Rights for the disenfranchised and minorities.

Things change.

Deal or be miserable - your choice.

`​

We "must"? Why "must" we? Just because you and your boyfriend think it would make your life spiffy doesn't create any obligation on MY part.

 

[Cecilie1200]

1. Look up the legal concept of diminished capacity.

2. Felons surrender their rights when they commit a felony.

Now that I’ve addressed your moronic questions, please explain why you want a gang banger or a rapist to get extra fire arm training?

But there aren't any mention of exceptions such as diminished capacity in the 2nd Amendment. Even cretins such as yourself can get a gun.

And rapists. That’s exactly why our daughters need to carry a gun.

But you hate that, right?

No, I'm all for it. Have her take a safety course and get practice at the range. Have her get a concealed carry permit. Then she will know what to do if such a dire scenario ever plays out.

Seeing that there is roughly 1 accidental shooting per day out of 300,000,000 plus people in the United States, the motion to make it mandatory fails.

true since there is an average of 16 deaths per day from texting while driving

Never mind guns and cars. Maybe what we need is mandatory training before people are allowed to buy cell phones.

 

[Pop23]

But there aren't any mention of exceptions such as diminished capacity in the 2nd Amendment. Even cretins such as yourself can get a gun.

And rapists. That’s exactly why our daughters need to carry a gun.

But you hate that, right?

No, I'm all for it. Have her take a safety course and get practice at the range. Have her get a concealed carry permit. Then she will know what to do if such a dire scenario ever plays out.

Seeing that there is roughly 1 accidental shooting per day out of 300,000,000 plus people in the United States, the motion to make it mandatory fails.

true since there is an average of 16 deaths per day from texting while driving

Never mind guns and cars. Maybe what we need is mandatory training before people are allowed to buy cell phones.

THAT IS ACTUALLY A REALLY GOOD POINT.

And lawn mowers, bath tubs and on and on!

Who will have time to work when we have so much training to do?

Employee to Boss: “I can’t come in today, I have my government mandated Toaster training today”