Ted Nugent discusses the 2nd Amendment

[Peikko 1,575]

Aren't we done with guns for today?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What's unreasonable about requiring someone be knowledgeable about the proper use of the firearm they wish to own?[/b]

Steven, it's not "unreasonable." What doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me is testing someone's "book knowledge" on something that's far more "practical" and "ability-oriented" such as using a gun. Maybe both would be useful, I don't know. However, I can't imagine just having a written exam.

Well, since we're speaking in general terms here, I haven't heard so far any compelling argument why some kind of exam would by unreasonable.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

Rudy Giuliani on Gun Control:

I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we’re talking about all dangerous weapons.

Source: Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Rudy_Giul...Gun_Control.htm

steven, you've fired a gun yourself. do you really think that a written test will show the appropriate level of competence here?

furthermore, just how is a written test supposed to grade intelligence and responsibility?

i disagree on the handgun and rifle owners being licensed and this test you speak of for the obvious reason that it's a slippery slope you're embarking on.

We do it for driver's license.

so?

What's unreasonable about requiring someone be knowledgeable about the proper use of the firearm they wish to own?

i can't say i've ever run into someone that was not knowledgeable about the proper use of their firearm. it's also really odd that you complain about how certain acts take away your rights but you're sure quick to abdicate them here.

what's next on the agenda btw - licensing parents as mentioned in another thread?

[eric&gen 0]

Is that old dead beat still making music?

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

I always liked parallel parking. Hill starts are fun in a manual too. Emergency stops, three point turns, reversing round a corner anyone?

nessa's driving test was way easier than the one i took 29 years ago. and nothing like a european driving test.

if i was the driving instructor i woulda flunked her

[almaty 19]

from brother steven point..i know for youngsters..12 and younger..they require a gun safety course..that is, how to handle..and walk and safety...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Rudy Giuliani on Gun Control:

I do not think the government should cut off the right to bear arms. My position for many years has been that just as a motorist must have a license, a gun owner should be required to have one as well. Anyone wanting to own a gun should have to pass a written exam that shows that they know how to use a gun, that they’re intelligent enough and responsible enough to handle a gun. Should both handgun and rifle owners be licensed...we’re talking about all dangerous weapons.

Source: Boston Globe, p. A4 Mar 21, 2000

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Rudy_Giul...Gun_Control.htm

steven, you've fired a gun yourself. do you really think that a written test will show the appropriate level of competence here?

furthermore, just how is a written test supposed to grade intelligence and responsibility?

i disagree on the handgun and rifle owners being licensed and this test you speak of for the obvious reason that it's a slippery slope you're embarking on.

We do it for driver's license.

so?

What's unreasonable about requiring someone be knowledgeable about the proper use of the firearm they wish to own?

i can't say i've ever run into someone that was not knowledgeable about the proper use of their firearm. it's also really odd that you complain about how certain acts take away your rights but you're sure quick to abdicate them here.

what's next on the agenda btw - licensing parents as mentioned in another thread?

How is requiring a license taking away the right to own a gun? And take that further out - if we are to take the 2nd Amendment literally, where do you draw the line in terms of kinds of weaponry a citizen can own for their perservation?

[DeadPoolX 9]

What's unreasonable about requiring someone be knowledgeable about the proper use of the firearm they wish to own?[/b]

Steven, it's not "unreasonable." What doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me is testing someone's "book knowledge" on something that's far more "practical" and "ability-oriented" such as using a gun. Maybe both would be useful, I don't know. However, I can't imagine just having a written exam.

Well, since we're speaking in general terms here, I haven't heard so far any compelling argument why some kind of exam would by unreasonable.

Well... to play "devil's advocate," let's see... how about the fact that the 2nd Amendment does give U.S. citizens (I'm unclear if permanent residents are in this too) the "right to bear arms." Understanding that, some might say there's absolutely no need of a license, since the U.S. law guarantees it.

The whole car analogy falls flat here, since nowhere does U.S. law guarantee anyone the right to drive. Therefore, a license is issued and controlled by the state governments. If the 2nd Amendment was done away with (and good luck getting that to happen; you'd have a second civil war on your hands if the government tried that!), then perhaps they'd be within their rights to issue licenses. As it stands right now, there's no point.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What's unreasonable about requiring someone be knowledgeable about the proper use of the firearm they wish to own?[/b]

Steven, it's not "unreasonable." What doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me is testing someone's "book knowledge" on something that's far more "practical" and "ability-oriented" such as using a gun. Maybe both would be useful, I don't know. However, I can't imagine just having a written exam.

Well, since we're speaking in general terms here, I haven't heard so far any compelling argument why some kind of exam would by unreasonable.

Well... to play "devil's advocate," let's see... how about the fact that the 2nd Amendment does give U.S. citizens (I'm unclear if permanent residents are in this too) the "right to bear arms." Understanding that, some might say there's absolutely no need of a license, since the U.S. law guarantees it.

The whole car analogy falls flat here, since nowhere does U.S. law guarantee anyone the right to drive. Therefore, a license is issued and controlled by the state governments. If the 2nd Amendment was done away with (and good luck getting that to happen; you'd have a second civil war on your hands if the government tried that!), then perhaps they'd be within their rights to issue licenses. As it stands right now, there's no point.

The 2nd Amendment gives the right to bear arms, but it doesn't say specifically what kinds of arms...which requires using some common sense and reason. Also, it doesn't distinguish between regular citizens and the mentally ill or those with a criminal past. I think it's silly to lift anything from the Constitution as if it is free of ambiguity or free from interpretation.

[DeadPoolX 9]

What's unreasonable about requiring someone be knowledgeable about the proper use of the firearm they wish to own?[/b]

Steven, it's not "unreasonable." What doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me is testing someone's "book knowledge" on something that's far more "practical" and "ability-oriented" such as using a gun. Maybe both would be useful, I don't know. However, I can't imagine just having a written exam.

Well, since we're speaking in general terms here, I haven't heard so far any compelling argument why some kind of exam would by unreasonable.

Well... to play "devil's advocate," let's see... how about the fact that the 2nd Amendment does give U.S. citizens (I'm unclear if permanent residents are in this too) the "right to bear arms." Understanding that, some might say there's absolutely no need of a license, since the U.S. law guarantees it.

The whole car analogy falls flat here, since nowhere does U.S. law guarantee anyone the right to drive. Therefore, a license is issued and controlled by the state governments. If the 2nd Amendment was done away with (and good luck getting that to happen; you'd have a second civil war on your hands if the government tried that!), then perhaps they'd be within their rights to issue licenses. As it stands right now, there's no point.

The 2nd Amendment gives the right to bear arms, but it doesn't say specifically what kinds of arms...which requires using some common sense and reason. Also, it doesn't distinguish between regular citizens and the mentally ill or those with a criminal past. I think it's silly to lift anything from the Constitution as if it is free of ambiguity or free from interpretation.

Alright, well, I think the framers probably meant firearms. Those did exist (albeit, fairly primitively) before, during and after the American Revolution. So chances are that's what they were referring to, even if they didn't directly reference them in the text. As for the mentally ill or criminals, there's a relatively easy solution to this -- perform criminal background checks and psychological examinations.

If the individual who's wishing to own a gun passes both, then they can legally have the firearm. There's still no need for all the paperwork, red tape, written/practical exams, and other ####### that goes with getting a license. I'm not entirely against the idea, but I don't see most people having the time for it all. It's difficult enough to squeeze in renewing your driver's license, let alone a firearm license (which would, presumably, have more checks and balances on it), considering our very hectic day-to-day lives.

[dalegg 143]

Well you have to be able to read to drive. There are streets signs that we hope people will read, even if they don't. The only compelling reason against a written test is that you exclude people who cannot read, and I have to believe there may actually be a few of those people in the boonies who do use their rifles for hunting.

But anyway, what would be the point? Improper gun use is often a result of an emotional response, like driving after someone and running them off the road after they cut you off. It's not like you don't know it's wrong. Or it's the result of stupidity, such as stopping at a four way stop sign for 30 minutes because you're too afraid to take your right of way. Hmm, what was that on the test about that funny red sign?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Really? I don't think the US driving test (Ok, Californian, as it's the only one I have done) demonstrates driving ability at all. You are not required to do anything other than drive forwards at the requisite speed. Not much of a test, in my opinion, particularly if you drive an automatic. At least a manual requires a little bit more ability and it's a little more tricky to use a cell phone when driving one

Yeah, which is about 15 mph in the parking lot where drivers around here acquire their license. I'm not kidding, you're not leaving the parking lot for the skills test - which takes all of 3-4 minutes. Some skill test.

[Ban Hammer 13,342]

How is requiring a license taking away the right to own a gun? And take that further out - if we are to take the 2nd Amendment literally, where do you draw the line in terms of kinds of weaponry a citizen can own for their perservation?

steven, your answer is right there in your first sentence, i bolded it for you.

[natty bumppo 297]

What's unreasonable about requiring someone be knowledgeable about the proper use of the firearm they wish to own?[/b]

Steven, it's not "unreasonable." What doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me is testing someone's "book knowledge" on something that's far more "practical" and "ability-oriented" such as using a gun. Maybe both would be useful, I don't know. However, I can't imagine just having a written exam.

Well, since we're speaking in general terms here, I haven't heard so far any compelling argument why some kind of exam would by unreasonable.

and who administers the exam? who keeps the records of people who have taken the exam ... slippery slope time ..

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well you have to be able to read to drive. There are streets signs that we hope people will read, even if they don't. The only compelling reason against a written test is that you exclude people who cannot read, and I have to believe there may actually be a few of those people in the boonies who do use their rifles for hunting.

But anyway, what would be the point? Improper gun use is often a result of an emotional response, like driving after someone and running them off the road after they cut you off. It's not like you don't know it's wrong. Or it's the result of stupidity, such as stopping at a four way stop sign for 30 minutes because you're too afraid to take your right of way. Hmm, what was that on the test about that funny red sign?

Good points. All I'm saying is that if it helps to reduce the improper use and handling of firearms, it's perfectly reasonable to require minimal knowldege of the state and federal gun laws. BTW, you can ask to have someone read you the Driver's test. It wouldn't hurt for someone buying a firearm to know where they can discharge it, where they can carry it, etc.