General Categories > Carry Issues

Omaha oakview mall

<< < (9/17) > >>

Mudinyeri:
I don't believe either 2 E L O or I argued for gun control ... other than the good kind where you hit what you want to.  ::)

It would seem that many of you are even against the training and qualification currently required to carry concealed. 


--- Quote ---If criminals are exempt from training, why shouldn't I be?
--- End quote ---

Seriously?  Is that an argument for criminal behavior or what? 


--- Quote ---Rights have nothing to do with statistics.
--- End quote ---

News to me!  Statistics are kept on all kinds of things related to our rights.  For instance, we track things like number of guns purchased, number of CCW permits in the state and how many crimes CCW permit holders are involved in.  In fact, one of the crew arguing against me suggested that statistically CCW permit holders were more likely to hit a person more times than LEO's.  So, either statistics apply or they don't.  We can't have it both ways.

Dave, I'm sorry you're so upset.  My only purpose was to conduct a thoughtful and thought-provoking debate. 

rluening:

--- Quote ---News to me!  Statistics are kept on all kinds of things related to our rights.
--- End quote ---

Uhm... Ok. But what bearing do those statistics have on our rights? By some counts 20 percent of US adults are functionally illiterate. Should that void the First Amendment?

I don't care what a particular statistic may claim to show. Rights can not be infringed without... well... infringing on them. Just because you, I, or the government doesn't like a particular person or group of people doesn't mean we get to start stomping on their rights. Just because Grandma hasn't been to GunSite doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to drop a .38 in her purse. If she's half blind and doesn't bother putting that .38 in a holster, so be it. I'll be the first to admit it's not safe, but until she actually has a negligent discharge we can't do anything about it.

/rl

2 E L O:
DaveB, there's no mention of speed limits in the constitution.  There's no mention of wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle.  There's no mention that requires a car owner to have liability insurance.  The constitution doesn't address standards for sanitation and quality for food production.  But these laws and standards supplement the constitution for the greater good of all people.  

The Constitution is not the end-all, be-all holy grail like so many of you wish it could be...nor was it ever intended to be the comprehensive authority.  If the Constitution was our sole source of standards and laws, our country would be a disaster.

AAllen:
2ELO correct there is no mention of speed limits, liability insurance, motorcycle helmets ect. in the constitution.  Therefore there is no protected right involved on those things, and I don't see where there is much of an argument that there is an undifined right to those things.  Unless you wish to speak of the right to freely travel about (undifined right that would be considered a right), but requireing insurance or a helmet does not take that ability away from you.  Cann't afford car insurance there are many other forms of travel, including the leather personel carrier that was often freely used by those that could not afford the costs of a horse, the most convienent and fastest mode of travel at the time the Constitution was written.

Mudinyeri:
I suppose you could say some of the laws that 2 E L O mentioned put limitations on the right to the pursuit of happiness, but that might be a stretch.  ;D

However, more specifically, here are some examples of limitations of the Bill of Rights:

1. You have freedom of speech but you do not have the right to incite panic (yell fire ...) and put the lives of others in danger with your speech.

2. We have the right to freedom of religion, but Mormons are only allowed to legally have one wife.

3. We have the right to freedom of assembly but not for rioting.

4. We have the right to freedom of the press ... unless we print lies.

5. We have the right to keep and bear arms unless we are a felon or have been diagnosed with a mental/psychological disorder.

In each of these cases, our absolute rights are limited to protect the rights and lives of others.  After being pressed, I've only suggested that we, as firearms owners, could be pro-active for a change and actually self-regulate.  We, as a collective, could propose training and practice guidelines for those of us who want more advanced privileges (or rights).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page