- Jul 19, 2006
- Live Free or Die
Woof. Talk about hyperbolic BS. Where to start?Let's just cut the self delusional, hyperbolic BS and try to be honest with yourself. These may all be Rights but like everything else in the world they are not identical. Saying they are the same is the same as saying men and women are the same, they are equal in some ways and different in others. I know it requires more thought but give it a try.
The simple fact is that firearms ownership require more responsibility than free speech. And it's pretty hard to accidentally say something that immediately results in physical harm or death to a bystander.
The attitude that firearms ownership doesn't inherently require an understanding of the necessary responsibility is what leads to an NDs. And there are lots of gun owners out there that don't get it, those are the ones calling it an AD and saying it just happens sometimes, BS it doesn't just happen.
And if you want historical context, I find it highly unlikely that the authors of the BoR, who lived in a time where firearms ownership, knowledge, and use was universal could even imagine a time when a second generation basement dweller who's only knowledge of firearms came from Call of Duty would ever exist. And communities were small, so the local gunsmith would likely know who the village idiot was and not sell him a gun, all without the gov making a law.
I think I made it clear I wasn't looking for Gov. to put in a requirement, Gov. F's up everything. Just that I could understand where that position would come from intellectually and it makes for a harder fact based argument.
And it is a fact that we do restrict Rights. A training requirement would a restriction on a right, but we restrict Freedom of Religion in that if your religion preaches death to homosexuals, you still can't do that. And we restrict Freedom of Speech with the classic you can't yell fire in a theater. And I don't have a problem requiring an ID to vote, another restriction. So the argument that it's a Right and can't be restricted falls flat in the face of the facts. So you best have a better argument that that, and these BS NDs make that more difficult.
If you're going to fight the anti-gun agenda you need to have arguments that just might work on them and the undecided, and that means facts and understanding where they are coming from, and countering with an argument that works for you and against them. Just shouting "RIGHTS"is preaching to the choir, it hasn't worked so far and it's not going to magically start working.
1. You can absolutely have a religion that preaches death to homosexuals. You just can't act on it. See: Westview Baptist Church.
2. You can absolutely yell "Fire" in a theater. This is the ultimate in stupid arguments. What, exactly, would you yell in a theater if a fire burst out? Rape? Speech with the result of intentionally harming others is not protected, but they don't muzzle everyone in the theater on the chance that someone will falsely yell "Fire."
3. Literacy tests for voting (which are the equivalents of mandatory training) were expressly prohibited as an example of an unconstitutional restriction on a right. Proving your identity is no such restriction.
4. No one said "rights cannot be restricted," but nice strawman, anyway. What I said (I'm not speaking for anyone but me) was mandatory training is not required for any other right to be exercised, so when you said "...I find it hard to argue my side...", that is the argument. No other right requires training to exercise it. A limitation on the exercise of a right is not the same as a incorporating a pre-condition to exercise that right