Subject:
|
Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 May 1999 13:51:58 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabs.SAYNOTOSPAMmissouri.edu
|
Viewed:
|
1013 times
|
| |
|
|
Jasper Janssen wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 May 1999 21:39:38 GMT, "Christopher L. Weeks"
> <c576653@cclabs.missouri.edu> wrote:
>
> > Sorry to be the fly in the ointment, but not for me, thanks. I believe
> > that requiring training is an infringement on the RKBA and specifically
> > violates the second. If the government can require training, and they
> > want to make guns improbably difficult to bear, they could then just
> > define training such that no one would be willing to do it.
>
> Redefine the fucking Second, then. Include the amount of training and
> how selective it can be.
IF you mean that the constitution should be amended so that the right to
keep and bear arms is dependent on some very specific training, then I
agree with your method of making that change (as opposed to just passing
laws that violate the constitution). But, I disagree that such an
amendment should take place. I like the second right where it is.
> Just don't make it another driving license, for which virtually nobody
> ever fails..
Yes, that would be pointless. But, IMO, it is the most likely outcome
of such a move. On 6 April 99 Missourians barely decided not to enact a
concealed carry law, but if it had passed, it would have require
something like twelve hours of training, and really it wouldn't have
much changed (in my opinion again) peoples' abilities to bear arms
responsibly. I think this would have been analogous to a driver's license.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Whoops. Musta thought I was still in alt.peeves (where I am currently also involved in a gun-control thread that is, at last count, something on the order of 1000 messages and growing...). (...) Well, yeah. I mean, however much _anyone_ may or (...) (25 years ago, 30-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gun debate (was Re: New Web Page
|
| (...) Sorry to be the fly in the ointment, but not for me, thanks. I believe that requiring training is an infringement on the RKBA and specifically violates the second. If the government can require training, and they want to make guns improbably (...) (25 years ago, 18-May-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
