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

[iceberg]

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?

We know a few shooters got guns because of a failed background check. Do you at least agree with that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

We know a few shooters got guns because of a failed background check. Do you at least agree with that?

You'd have to name the shooters to whom you're referring. The kid in Florida? His background check didn't fail. It found every single bit of evidence there was to find. What failed were all the law enforcement officials who should have made pertinent evidence available to the background check system.

I'd love to have a huge investigation of THAT, so that we can discuss how to improve THAT system. Good luck getting that to ever happen, what with gun-grabbing activists practically tripping over the dead bodies to get to the microphones first and ensure that the only topic that ever gets introduced is "What guns can we grab THIS time?"

 

[Flash]

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.

If you don't want to be labeled as a batshit crazy Libtard then stop posting like one.

 

[iceberg]

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?

We know a few shooters got guns because of a failed background check. Do you at least agree with that?

You'd have to name the shooters to whom you're referring. The kid in Florida? His background check didn't fail. It found every single bit of evidence there was to find. What failed were all the law enforcement officials who should have made pertinent evidence available to the background check system.

I'd love to have a huge investigation of THAT, so that we can discuss how to improve THAT system. Good luck getting that to ever happen, what with gun-grabbing activists practically tripping over the dead bodies to get to the microphones first and ensure that the only topic that ever gets introduced is "What guns can we grab THIS time?"

Talk of grabbing guns I just walk out anymore as its a stupid never gonna happen discussion. And yes the kid in Florida. Hell both of em. Agreed it was more lack of follow up but its where I'd start.

If what we try to do doesn't address a specific problem then there's no use talking it over. It *does* become a gun grab and frustrating.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

We know a few shooters got guns because of a failed background check. Do you at least agree with that?

You'd have to name the shooters to whom you're referring. The kid in Florida? His background check didn't fail. It found every single bit of evidence there was to find. What failed were all the law enforcement officials who should have made pertinent evidence available to the background check system.

I'd love to have a huge investigation of THAT, so that we can discuss how to improve THAT system. Good luck getting that to ever happen, what with gun-grabbing activists practically tripping over the dead bodies to get to the microphones first and ensure that the only topic that ever gets introduced is "What guns can we grab THIS time?"

Talk of grabbing guns I just walk out anymore as its a stupid never gonna happen discussion. And yes the kid in Florida. Hell both of em. Agreed it was more lack of follow up but its where I'd start.

If what we try to do doesn't address a specific problem then there's no use talking it over. It *does* become a gun grab and frustrating.

The place to start is discussing what the problem actually IS, rather than screeching and pointing fingers and calling for boycotts and talking about how an inanimate object is inherently evil.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

If you don't want to be labeled as a batshit crazy Libtard then stop posting like one.

Give an example, please. Is my opinion that all liberals are not pushing gun control in order to turn the country into a socialist shithole an example of being "a batshit crazy Libtard"? Or are you, perhaps, simply ascribing some preconceived notions to me and then assuming they are true and I have said them, possibly because I didn't just blindly agree with your statement?

 

[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.

`​

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

Freedom means extending the same breaks and freedoms to all and tolerating your neighbors.

Even the weird ones.


​

 

[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.

`​

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.

I'm not gay. Been married to the same lovely lady for 20+

But just 'cause I'm married doesn't mean that I don't think things in America should be fair.

There are built-in economic breaks for married people and other legal ramifications due to the recognition of that particular legal partnership.

If We, The People, don't extend the tax breaks and social system benefits afforded two-person partnerships with marriage documentation to ALL two-person partnerships with marriage documentation, that is the textbook definition of discrimination and therefore wrong.

So yes... We, The Peeps, must.

`​

 

[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.

`​

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

I don't. But the government finally does.

And now that We recognize all 2 person marriages the same, it's fair.

My humble opinion is that trying to recognizing polygamy in the tax and social codes would be an unfair mess, but social change is afoot in America...

Anything's possible! ​

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

What about your right to defend your home with a water cooled 50-cal machine gun?

What happened to that one?

 

[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.

If it was up to the Liberals they would require political correct religious diversity training before anybody would be allowed to attend church.

 

[Pete7469]

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

I may have said this already, but I'll repeat it.

You should have to pass a gun safety class to get a High School Diploma.

It could be done in just a few hours on Graduation Day for all I care, but you should know the very basics of how to unload handguns and make weapons safe. It's a damn shame we teach 10 year olds how to put rubbers on cucumbers but we can't teach 18 year olds how to handle tools commonly found in at least 35% of the homes in the US. We teach people CPR and how to use fire extinguishers. Guns are just as important.


.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Education is the key to everything!

 

[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.

What about your right to defend your home with a water cooled 50-cal machine gun?

What happened to that one?

Gee, that’s so fresh, when you headed for the “what about nukes” gambit Joe?

 

[Pop23]

Education is the key to everything!

So educate us on what your solution solves?

 

[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.

What about your right to defend your home with a water cooled 50-cal machine gun?

What happened to that one?

Wasn't aware those were semi automatic.

 

[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.

I'm not gay. Been married to the same lovely lady for 20+

But just 'cause I'm married doesn't mean that I don't think things in America should be fair.

There are built-in economic breaks for married people and other legal ramifications due to the recognition of that particular legal partnership.

If We, The People, don't extend the tax breaks and social system benefits afforded two-person partnerships with marriage documentation to ALL two-person partnerships with marriage documentation, that is the textbook definition of discrimination and therefore wrong.

So yes... We, The Peeps, must.

`​

Anyone who thinks that getting married and building a family is somehow a splendiferous financial scheme, or a secret access to special privileges and freedom, is a retard. Let me just say that right now.

Thomas Sowell explained it best, as is so often the case with him:

"Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.


Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the life of the law is not logic but experience. Marriage laws have evolved through centuries of experience with couples of opposite sexes — and the children that result from such unions. Society asserts its stake in the decisions made by restricting the couples’ options.

Society has no such stake in the outcome of a union between two people of the same sex. Transferring all those laws to same-sex couples would make no more sense than transferring the rules of baseball to football.

Why then do gay activists want their options restricted by marriage laws, when they can make their own contracts with their own provisions and hold whatever kinds of ceremony they want to celebrate it?"

What people have come to view as all these "goodies from the government" for being married were actually never intended to be anything more than an acknowledgement of the restrictions and responsibilities that are part and parcel of marriage. But, of course, we are no longer capable of recognizing marriage for what it is and should be, which is why so few marriages manage to last a decade or longer any more.

 

[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.

`​

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

I don't. But the government finally does.

And now that We recognize all 2 person marriages the same, it's fair.

My humble opinion is that trying to recognizing polygamy in the tax and social codes would be an unfair mess, but social change is afoot in America...

Anything's possible! ​

"We" don't recognize shit.

YOU think that, and you try to force everyone else to pretend to agree with you.

Thomas Sowell again:

"What the activists are seeking is official social approval of their lifestyle. But this is the antithesis of equal rights.

If you have a right to someone else’s approval, then they do not have a right to their own opinions and values. You cannot say that what “consenting adults” do in private is nobody else’s business and then turn around and say that others are bound to put their seal of approval on it."

So if you're congratulating yourself on what a "nice, fair-minded" person you are, you should know that "we" don't agree on THAT, either. Inventing rights for one group of people while restricting the rights of other groups doesn't make you a good person.

 

[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.

What about your right to defend your home with a water cooled 50-cal machine gun?

What happened to that one?

Gee, that’s so fresh, when you headed for the “what about nukes” gambit Joe?

He hasn't QUITE violated Oppenheimer's Law yet, but he's edging up on it.