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

[Flash]

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.

The right to keep and bear arms is unique to other rights in the Bill of Rights. It specifically says that it shall not be infringed.

Our Founding Fathers specifically put that in. Only Liberals want to redefine the intent of our Founding Fathers. The reason being that the right to keep and bear arms is a direct threat to making this country a socialist shithole.

 

[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.

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.

no - the idea is that *WE THE PEOPLE* (i see you missed that part) need to MUTUALLY DETERMINE what these will be. not have one side so all apeshit moralistic on the other "for their own good".

right now both sides of the gun debate are dug in and not moving. this progress to you? you think the gun control crowd is doing themselves any favors by going apeshit emo-batty right now? calling for all semi-automatic weapons kills compromise.

period.

 

[hadit]

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.

`​

Why do you arbitrarily and unfairly restrict marriage to 2 people?

 

[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.

no - the idea is that *WE THE PEOPLE* (i see you missed that part) need to MUTUALLY DETERMINE what these will be. not have one side so all apeshit moralistic on the other "for their own good".

right now both sides of the gun debate are dug in and not moving. this progress to you? you think the gun control crowd is doing themselves any favors by going apeshit emo-batty right now? calling for all semi-automatic weapons kills compromise.

period.

I disagree that there are only two "sides" to the gun debate, or most any debate. That sort of binary thinking is a big part of what leads to the entrenched positions you are talking about, IMO.

Yes, calling to ban all semi-automatic weapons hurts any gun control position. It's going way too far. However, I was talking specifically about the proposal of the OP, which you referenced in the post I quoted: mandatory training.

 

[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.

The right to keep and bear arms is unique to other rights in the Bill of Rights. It specifically says that it shall not be infringed.

Our Founding Fathers specifically put that in. Only Liberals want to redefine the intent of our Founding Fathers. The reason being that the right to keep and bear arms is a direct threat to making this country a socialist shithole.

Your argument that liberals want to have gun control in order to make the country "a socialist shithole" does not help your argument.

 

[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.

`​

Why do you arbitrarily and unfairly restrict marriage to 2 people?

Strange ain’t it?

 

[Pop23]

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.

The right to keep and bear arms is unique to other rights in the Bill of Rights. It specifically says that it shall not be infringed.

Our Founding Fathers specifically put that in. Only Liberals want to redefine the intent of our Founding Fathers. The reason being that the right to keep and bear arms is a direct threat to making this country a socialist shithole.

Your argument that liberals want to have gun control in order to make the country "a socialist shithole" does not help your argument.

But true non the less

 

[Flash]

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.

The right to keep and bear arms is unique to other rights in the Bill of Rights. It specifically says that it shall not be infringed.

Our Founding Fathers specifically put that in. Only Liberals want to redefine the intent of our Founding Fathers. The reason being that the right to keep and bear arms is a direct threat to making this country a socialist shithole.

Your argument that liberals want to have gun control in order to make the country "a socialist shithole" does not help your argument.

The truth is never the friend of Liberals.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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 are correct that any mandatory training imposed by Congress would be unconstitutional. In fact, every act of Congress in regulating any type of arms is unconstitutional, yet those laws persist.

As it stands right now, States still retain the EXCLUSIVE power to regulate arms. The 2nd Amendment is a reservation of that power to the States, which is, by operation, a ban on Congressional action.

Just like Congress can make no laws abridging the freedom of speech, REGARDLESS of its nature (power left to the States), Congress cannot infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms (power left to the States).

The Clumsy-as-FUCK 14th Amendment and subsequent interpretations thereof have royally fucked up the original intent, which was to give limited power to the federal government and to allow the States to retain broad powers. But, as it stands, neither the 14th Amendment's privileges and immunities clause nor the due process clause has been interpreted to extend to the right to keep and bear arms.

In light of the CLEAR intent of the Founders when drafting the constitution and bill of rights, I honestly cannot understand why the SCOTUS has not shot down all federal gun laws. I can only conclude that ALL of them are too chicken shit to do it. They are afraid of the serious backlash.

Furthermore, there is a lack of interest by the NRA and other gun advocate organizations, or pro-gun people in general, in correcting the 80+ years of unconstitutional federal regulation of arms.

 

[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.

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.

no - the idea is that *WE THE PEOPLE* (i see you missed that part) need to MUTUALLY DETERMINE what these will be. not have one side so all apeshit moralistic on the other "for their own good".

right now both sides of the gun debate are dug in and not moving. this progress to you? you think the gun control crowd is doing themselves any favors by going apeshit emo-batty right now? calling for all semi-automatic weapons kills compromise.

period.

I disagree that there are only two "sides" to the gun debate, or most any debate. That sort of binary thinking is a big part of what leads to the entrenched positions you are talking about, IMO.

Yes, calling to ban all semi-automatic weapons hurts any gun control position. It's going way too far. However, I was talking specifically about the proposal of the OP, which you referenced in the post I quoted: mandatory training.

i disagree also - not sure if i actually said that - but my reference was the (2) extremes going at it. most of us in the middle are willing to compromise if the extremes would shut up.

i think we agree more than disagree so i'm going to hush and read more on your opinions now.

 

[Pop23]

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.

no - the idea is that *WE THE PEOPLE* (i see you missed that part) need to MUTUALLY DETERMINE what these will be. not have one side so all apeshit moralistic on the other "for their own good".

right now both sides of the gun debate are dug in and not moving. this progress to you? you think the gun control crowd is doing themselves any favors by going apeshit emo-batty right now? calling for all semi-automatic weapons kills compromise.

period.

I disagree that there are only two "sides" to the gun debate, or most any debate. That sort of binary thinking is a big part of what leads to the entrenched positions you are talking about, IMO.

Yes, calling to ban all semi-automatic weapons hurts any gun control position. It's going way too far. However, I was talking specifically about the proposal of the OP, which you referenced in the post I quoted: mandatory training.

i disagree also - not sure if i actually said that - but my reference was the (2) extremes going at it. most of us in the middle are willing to compromise if the extremes would shut up.

i think we agree more than disagree so i'm going to hush and read more on your opinions now.

I don’t negotiate my rights away.

You want to opt out of yours, go for it. Mine aren’t for sale.

 

[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.

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.

no - the idea is that *WE THE PEOPLE* (i see you missed that part) need to MUTUALLY DETERMINE what these will be. not have one side so all apeshit moralistic on the other "for their own good".

right now both sides of the gun debate are dug in and not moving. this progress to you? you think the gun control crowd is doing themselves any favors by going apeshit emo-batty right now? calling for all semi-automatic weapons kills compromise.

period.

I disagree that there are only two "sides" to the gun debate, or most any debate. That sort of binary thinking is a big part of what leads to the entrenched positions you are talking about, IMO.

Yes, calling to ban all semi-automatic weapons hurts any gun control position. It's going way too far. However, I was talking specifically about the proposal of the OP, which you referenced in the post I quoted: mandatory training.

i disagree also - not sure if i actually said that - but my reference was the (2) extremes going at it. most of us in the middle are willing to compromise if the extremes would shut up.

i think we agree more than disagree so i'm going to hush and read more on your opinions now.

I don’t negotiate my rights away.

You want to opt out of yours, go for it. Mine aren’t for sale.

great. but since it's a group decision in the end....

 

[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.

The right to keep and bear arms is unique to other rights in the Bill of Rights. It specifically says that it shall not be infringed.

Our Founding Fathers specifically put that in. Only Liberals want to redefine the intent of our Founding Fathers. The reason being that the right to keep and bear arms is a direct threat to making this country a socialist shithole.

Your argument that liberals want to have gun control in order to make the country "a socialist shithole" does not help your argument.

But true non the less

No, it clearly is not. Of course, the idea that all liberals have the same thoughts and motivations, or that all conservatives do, or [insert political ideology here], allows for a simpler sort of argument; no need to consider the actual words or motivations of an individual when one can simply assume an entire group is the same.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 are correct that any mandatory training imposed by Congress would be unconstitutional. In fact, every act of Congress in regulating any type of arms is unconstitutional, yet those laws persist.

As it stands right now, States still retain the EXCLUSIVE power to regulate arms. The 2nd Amendment is a reservation of that power to the States, which is, by operation, a ban on Congressional action.

Just like Congress can make no laws abridging the freedom of speech, REGARDLESS of its nature (power left to the States), Congress cannot infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms (power left to the States).

The Clumsy-as-FUCK 14th Amendment and subsequent interpretations thereof have royally fucked up the original intent, which was to give limited power to the federal government and to allow the States to retain broad powers. But, as it stands, neither the 14th Amendment's privileges and immunities clause nor the due process clause has been interpreted to extend to the right to keep and bear arms.

In light of the CLEAR intent of the Founders when drafting the constitution and bill of rights, I honestly cannot understand why the SCOTUS has not shot down all federal gun laws. I can only conclude that ALL of them are too chicken shit to do it. They are afraid of the serious backlash.

Furthermore, there is a lack of interest by the NRA and other gun advocate organizations, or pro-gun people in general, in correcting the 80+ years of unconstitutional federal regulation of arms.

I don't think there's a lack of interest. I think there's just an understanding that pushing for it all at once will actually make it harder to get there. Journey of miles begins with one step, and all that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

no - the idea is that *WE THE PEOPLE* (i see you missed that part) need to MUTUALLY DETERMINE what these will be. not have one side so all apeshit moralistic on the other "for their own good".

right now both sides of the gun debate are dug in and not moving. this progress to you? you think the gun control crowd is doing themselves any favors by going apeshit emo-batty right now? calling for all semi-automatic weapons kills compromise.

period.

I disagree that there are only two "sides" to the gun debate, or most any debate. That sort of binary thinking is a big part of what leads to the entrenched positions you are talking about, IMO.

Yes, calling to ban all semi-automatic weapons hurts any gun control position. It's going way too far. However, I was talking specifically about the proposal of the OP, which you referenced in the post I quoted: mandatory training.

i disagree also - not sure if i actually said that - but my reference was the (2) extremes going at it. most of us in the middle are willing to compromise if the extremes would shut up.

i think we agree more than disagree so i'm going to hush and read more on your opinions now.

I don’t negotiate my rights away.

You want to opt out of yours, go for it. Mine aren’t for sale.

great. but since it's a group decision in the end....

As a member of the "group", I'm not interested in compromising crap. If the other side wants to come to me with a REAL, verifiable problem and suggest a REAL solution to it with some actual proof that it will produce a substantial positive net result, then we can talk. But horse-trading away my Constitutional rights for nothing more than to sound conciliatory and be able to say, "Look, we made a deal!"? No. Uh uh. No way. Not a chance.

 

[Flash]

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.

The right to keep and bear arms is unique to other rights in the Bill of Rights. It specifically says that it shall not be infringed.

Our Founding Fathers specifically put that in. Only Liberals want to redefine the intent of our Founding Fathers. The reason being that the right to keep and bear arms is a direct threat to making this country a socialist shithole.

Your argument that liberals want to have gun control in order to make the country "a socialist shithole" does not help your argument.

But true non the less

No, it clearly is not. Of course, the idea that all liberals have the same thoughts and motivations, or that all conservatives do, or [insert political ideology here], allows for a simpler sort of argument; no need to consider the actual words or motivations of an individual when one can simply assume an entire group is the same.

We find all you Liberals to all be pretty much extreme Left Wing assholes.

If you were interested in public safety then you be for Americans being able to protect themselves without onerous Government interference like worthless training, background checks, gun banning, registration, etc..

If you were really interested in public safety you would be condemning these Democrat controlled shitholes where most of the crime in the US takes place.

Those two things would be a lot more productive than suggesting that the filthy ass government enact even more regulations and infringement upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Since you don't do that and since most Liberals are anti right to keep and bear arms then it leads to the suggestion that there is another agenda here. Like the agenda to remove all potential opposition to making this country a socialist shithole. It has been done in other countries in the name of public safety. We know they were lying just like we know you are lying.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

The right to keep and bear arms is unique to other rights in the Bill of Rights. It specifically says that it shall not be infringed.

Our Founding Fathers specifically put that in. Only Liberals want to redefine the intent of our Founding Fathers. The reason being that the right to keep and bear arms is a direct threat to making this country a socialist shithole.

Your argument that liberals want to have gun control in order to make the country "a socialist shithole" does not help your argument.

But true non the less

No, it clearly is not. Of course, the idea that all liberals have the same thoughts and motivations, or that all conservatives do, or [insert political ideology here], allows for a simpler sort of argument; no need to consider the actual words or motivations of an individual when one can simply assume an entire group is the same.

We find all you Liberals to all be pretty much extreme Left Wing assholes.

If you were interested in public safety then you be for Americans being able to protect themselves without onerous Government interference like worthless training, background checks, gun banning, registration, etc..

If you were really interested in public safety you would be condemning these Democrat controlled shitholes where most of the crime in the US takes place.

Those two things would be a lot more productive than suggesting that the filthy ass government enact even more regulations and infringement upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Since you don't do that and since most Liberals are anti right to keep and bear arms then it leads to the suggestion that there is another agenda here. Like the agenda to remove all potential opposition to making this country a socialist shithole. It has been done in other countries in the name of public safety. We know they were lying just like we know you are lying.

And here you are, continuing to operate by looking at individuals as simply part of a group, all with the same characteristics.

To begin with, I am not a liberal. Further, I have not been arguing for mandatory training. In fact, I've pointed out multiple times that I believe mandatory training would violate the second amendment.

Next, you are not the arbiter of what can motivate a person. Just because you believe that the gun restrictions some people call for would not help public safety does not mean those people cannot honestly believe those measures would increase public safety. They may be wrong, but they may also believe they are right.

Next, I don't think you have any idea what I do or do not advocate in relation to gun rights. I have had little, if any, communication with you outside of this thread. Unless you have gone and read over my posts over the last 9 years or so, you cannot really know what I have advocated just on this site, let alone in other forums.

What, specifically, am I lying about? I ask because, once again, you seem to be putting me into a group with liberals, who you apparently believe all have the same thoughts and motivations in regards to guns.

If you'd care to discuss this with me, as an individual, great. If you insist on putting me into your predetermined liberal box, without regard for my actual statements or opinions, there is no point to further conversation.

 

[hadit]

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.

`​

Why do you arbitrarily and unfairly restrict marriage to 2 people?

Strange ain’t it?

And it will happen. I give it maybe 30 years.

 

[iceberg]

no - the idea is that *WE THE PEOPLE* (i see you missed that part) need to MUTUALLY DETERMINE what these will be. not have one side so all apeshit moralistic on the other "for their own good".

right now both sides of the gun debate are dug in and not moving. this progress to you? you think the gun control crowd is doing themselves any favors by going apeshit emo-batty right now? calling for all semi-automatic weapons kills compromise.

period.

I disagree that there are only two "sides" to the gun debate, or most any debate. That sort of binary thinking is a big part of what leads to the entrenched positions you are talking about, IMO.

Yes, calling to ban all semi-automatic weapons hurts any gun control position. It's going way too far. However, I was talking specifically about the proposal of the OP, which you referenced in the post I quoted: mandatory training.

i disagree also - not sure if i actually said that - but my reference was the (2) extremes going at it. most of us in the middle are willing to compromise if the extremes would shut up.

i think we agree more than disagree so i'm going to hush and read more on your opinions now.

I don’t negotiate my rights away.

You want to opt out of yours, go for it. Mine aren’t for sale.

great. but since it's a group decision in the end....

As a member of the "group", I'm not interested in compromising crap. If the other side wants to come to me with a REAL, verifiable problem and suggest a REAL solution to it with some actual proof that it will produce a substantial positive net result, then we can talk. But horse-trading away my Constitutional rights for nothing more than to sound conciliatory and be able to say, "Look, we made a deal!"? No. Uh uh. No way. Not a chance.

I fully realize the hardline stance and agree with most. A compromise to me is fixing a proven background system and ensuring those passing gun laws are properly trained the topic not pandering to their base in confused gun jargon that is flat wrong.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I disagree that there are only two "sides" to the gun debate, or most any debate. That sort of binary thinking is a big part of what leads to the entrenched positions you are talking about, IMO.

Yes, calling to ban all semi-automatic weapons hurts any gun control position. It's going way too far. However, I was talking specifically about the proposal of the OP, which you referenced in the post I quoted: mandatory training.

i disagree also - not sure if i actually said that - but my reference was the (2) extremes going at it. most of us in the middle are willing to compromise if the extremes would shut up.

i think we agree more than disagree so i'm going to hush and read more on your opinions now.

I don’t negotiate my rights away.

You want to opt out of yours, go for it. Mine aren’t for sale.

great. but since it's a group decision in the end....

As a member of the "group", I'm not interested in compromising crap. If the other side wants to come to me with a REAL, verifiable problem and suggest a REAL solution to it with some actual proof that it will produce a substantial positive net result, then we can talk. But horse-trading away my Constitutional rights for nothing more than to sound conciliatory and be able to say, "Look, we made a deal!"? No. Uh uh. No way. Not a chance.

I fully realize the hardline stance and agree with most. A compromise to me is fixing a proven background system and ensuring those passing gun laws are properly trained the topic not pandering to their base in confused gun jargon that is flat wrong.

Yeah, that's a compromise to me, too, and I believe I already expressed my opinion of compromises.

If it's now "hardline" to insist that changes to the law actually be necessary and demonstrably beneficial, then I don't see where we have any grounds even for discussion, because how can there be discussion with people who find facts and evidence to be unreasonable?