The Democrats have ever intention of taking our guns...

[Devaclis]

I don't like where that is going, either - that's kindof extreme.

Let me restate - I feel like I can talk about light switches because I have a lot of experience with them. However, I will not enter into an argument about elecrical systems with my brother, who is an electrical engineer.

Heck, I don't know how to take apart my guns, but I know enough to know how to work and clean them.

I don't know every detail about my bikes, but I know enough to do some basic maintenance and repairs.

If you don't know ANYTHING about the topic, wouldn't you be best to stay out of it?

How do you learn about guns, cars, or electrical systems without talking to people who know a lot about them?

Do you shoot a gun and harm someone? Install an electrical system and burn your family up? Drive a car and wreck it? Communication is how we transmit ideas and knowledge. Hell, that is basically the definition of communication. It is why free speech is protected here in America.

[DavidofColorado]

Requiring certification for a firearm is a slippery slope, because it won't work and when it doesn't work the only thing to do is admit it didn't work and remove it or make it stricter. And I don't see to many gun grabbers admitting they are wrong.

We have to remember that freedom is not just something others give us: it’s something that we sometimes have to defend individually.

[Snowman]

I don't think we should take away your right to talk about guns, but I do think that people should be able to self-regulate if they don't know what the heck they are talking about.

You don't see me arguing with Dirk about astrophysics.

I’m not talk about guns, I’m talking about how the 2nd amendment should be applied to the way guns are purchased. (Or is the translation of this thread being too subverted by whatever totalitarian mindset it’s being filtered through?)

Given that I live in a nation where you have the right to own one I think that gives me more than enough information to discuss the subject and express my views and concerns.


And BTW I wouldn’t go there with those astrophysics things with Dirk ether. He’s probably one of those commy string theorists.

[jbnwc]

ok, chill guys. I didn't say we should take away Snow's RIGHT to talk about guns, but if he doesn't know anything about them, how can anything he says be taken with any creedance? (again- no offense, Snowman. I'm sure you have plenty of valid input about karting.)

[jbnwc]

How do you learn about guns, cars, or electrical systems without talking to people who know a lot about them?

Do you shoot a gun and harm someone? Install an electrical system and burn your family up? Drive a car and wreck it? Communication is how we transmit ideas and knowledge. Hell, that is basically the definition of communication. It is why free speech is protected here in America.

He said he has no interest in learning about guns.

Questions about a topic are one thing. You can learn without arguing. Blind arguments are simply for aggravating older sisters.

[Devaclis]

Werd, I call it trolling

[rforsythe]

It's one thing to know the parts of a gun, how to shoot a gun, etc. which we all agree Snowman doesn't have dick for knowledge on. However it's entirely another to know about the constitution, how gun law fits into society, and so on, and I believe that he does enough to discuss it and has every ability to do so.

[DavidofColorado]

I don't understand why he insists on disagreeing with us though. If there is a one group that he should trust its us. We have no reason to lie to you snowman.

[jbnwc]

This is all probably coming from the same side of me who doesn't like poeple who don't know 2 cents about bikes regulating bikes. They don't have to be a biker, but you gotta know at least SOMETHING about what you are talking about.

We are all free to discuss whatever we want to here, but some of us probably shouldn't because if we don't know what we are talking about, at the very least we look like idiots. Think about all the newbies that come on here and get jumped on because they are giving attitude about stuff they have no idea about.

[jbnwc]

I don't understand why he insists on disagreeing with us though. If there is a one group that he should trust its us. We have no reason to lie to you snowman.

Amen - I might not agree with you, Snow, but if someone comes to infringe on your rights, me and my AK will be there to defend them for you.

[Snowman]

I don't understand why he insists on disagreeing with us though. If there is a one group that he should trust its us. We have no reason to lie to you snowman.

Dude, let take a clear look at what we are really talking about here.

My contention is that…
1. If you purchase a gun you should have knowledge on how to safety operate, store and maintain that gun.

Do you agree or not with this statement?

2. It there a way you can show me you know how to you do this?

What issues do you have with this?

Some people with guns on here seem to over react to ANYTHING, and I do mean ANYTHING that might possibly in any imagination, restrict for any reason good, bad or indifferent the ability of anyone to walk up and buy a gun without regard of the possible concerns that those who don’t want a gun may have.

Let me repeat
I believe in your right to own a gun.
I believe in the right for me not to own a gun.
I believe that if you do own a gun you should be responsible for what that gun is capable of doing.
And I believe in my right to express my concerns with your responsible of owning that gun.

Are we clear on this now?

[Devaclis]

^^ Commie!!!!

[rforsythe]

Let's ship his ass to Antarctica!

Oh wait....

[Sortarican]

...Heck, I don't know how to take apart my guns,...

.., me and my AK will be there to defend them for you.

Holy shit, it's an AK? My grandaughter can field strip an AK.
Come on, it's the weapon of proletariat peasant revolts and third world war lords.
Any potato eater, son of uncle Ho, or 10 year old African worth their salt can break down an AK.

(Just fuckin with ya man.)

I’m not talk about guns, I’m talking about how the 2nd amendment should be applied to the way guns are purchased...

True.
If you can be shot by a gun, you should have the right to an opinion on them.

Now Superman....he can shut his pie hole. Damn illegal alien.

[DavidofColorado]

Dude, let take a clear look at what we are really talking about here.

My contention is that…
1. If you purchase a gun you should have knowledge on how to safety operate, store and maintain that gun.

Do you agree or not with this statement?

2. It there a way you can show me you know how to you do this?

What issues do you have with this?

Some people with guns on here seem to over react to ANYTHING, and I do mean ANYTHING that might possibly in any imagination, restrict for any reason good, bad or indifferent the ability of anyone to walk up and buy a gun without regard of the possible concerns that those who don’t want a gun may have.

Let me repeat
I believe in your right to own a gun.
I believe in the right for me not to own a gun.
I believe that if you do own a gun you should be responsible for what that gun is capable of doing.
And I believe in my right to express my concerns with your responsible of owning that gun.

Are we clear on this now?

Clear as mud. I disagree with the part about wagging your finger at others telling them how they should go about their business owning a gun. Its a bad idea that infringes on a persons right and it shouldn't be made into a requirement for owning a gun. Seatbelts on a bike would be a good idea according to you too right? I mean seatbelts save lives. But on a bike it will keep you from getting away from it if it falls over and you are getting drug or flipped around with it. If you ride bikes you know what I mean just like I say if you shoot a gun you would know that a state office to go into once and year or five years or even a lifetime is a bad idea for a gun owner that shoots recreationally.
But you have to loose the idea that everyone is out of control and act serious for a moment. Are you really going to fuck around and shoot someone in the foot? Your kids may just to see what happens but if tell them a head of time that is a bad idea they will not do it.

Let me know if you want to go shooting sometime. I will teach you. And I promise that nothing bad will happen to you.

[DavidofColorado]

Holy shit, it's an AK? My grandaughter can field strip an AK.
Come on, it's the weapon of proletariat peasant revolts and third world war lords.
Any potato eater, son of uncle Ho, or 10 year old African worth their salt can break down an AK.

(Just fuckin with ya man.)

Its an ak you only need to take it apart if its been shot and you need to replace the broken piece. Other than that just dunk it in a barrel of water and then a barrel of oil. It is now clean and oiled.

[dirkterrell]

I believe in your right to own a gun.
I believe in the right for me not to own a gun.

Ok.

I believe that if you do own a gun you should be responsible for what that gun is capable of doing.

This is where the debate lies. You believe that someone should have to prove their ability to use their right under the second amendment. I believe that people have that right and should be punished if they abuse that right, e.g. by being irresponsible and blowing someone's foot off.

And I believe in my right to express my concerns with your responsible of owning that gun.

Following your line of reasoning with people's 2nd amendment rights, shouldn't you have to prove that you know enough about guns to intelligently use your 1st amendment right to talk about them? Of course not.

Dirk

[Snowman]

Clear as mud. I disagree with the part about wagging your finger at others telling them how they should go about their business owning a gun. Its a bad idea that infringes on a persons right and it shouldn't be made into a requirement for owning a gun.

I can understand that sentiment, however are you sure you wouldn’t do the same.

Would you hand your loaded gun to a complete stranger? The answer is no.

The next question you have to ask is why not? This person could have a level of knowledge far superior than yours, but you can’t know this until you have some proof right?

Now look at it from a non-gun owner point of view. A complete stranger has a loaded gun. What reassurance does the non-gun owner have? The answer is none.

So whose responsibility is it? This is the question I am asking.

Seatbelts on a bike would be a good idea according to you too right? I mean seatbelts save lives. But on a bike it will keep you from getting away from it if it falls over and you are getting drug or flipped around with it. If you ride bikes you know what I mean just like I say if you shoot a gun you would know that a state office to go into once and year or five years or even a lifetime is a bad idea for a gun owner that shoots recreationally.

Thus the reason a question was asked. How else would a non-gun owner know, just as a non-rider would ask. You’re answers are incomplete. We can not have any certifications, licensing or training verification because we must defend against tyranny is an answer that requires the next question of why be asked.

But you have to loose the idea that everyone is out of control and act serious for a moment. Are you really going to fuck around and shoot someone in the foot? Your kids may just to see what happens but if tell them a head of time that is a bad idea they will not do it.

Do I?


Boy, 14, dies after accidental shooting

Accidental Shootings of Children Raising Concern

[Snowman]

This is where the debate lies. You believe that someone should have to prove their ability to use their right under the second amendment. I believe that people have that right and should be punished if they abuse that right, e.g. by being irresponsible and blowing someone's foot off.

Yes we disagree here, maybe not so much as it seems.
We both agree that a valid ID must be shown to prove age.
A background check must be done to prove someone doesn’t have criminal record.
Both of which can be construed as violations of the second amendments.

What we disagree on is simply you require no proof that the someone has any knowledge of the weapon they are purchasing, and I would like some.

Following your line of reasoning with people's 2nd amendment rights, shouldn't you have to prove that you know enough about guns to intelligently use your 1st amendment right to talk about them? Of course not.

Dirk

If the topic was just about guns, then yes you are right. But what was the title of this thread again?

[JustSomeDude]

1. If you purchase a gun you should have knowledge on how to safety operate, store and maintain that gun.

Do you agree or not with this statement?

Snow, I can't speak to others' views, but as noted earlier my argument is that people have the right to bear arms to defend against tyranny. What's the point of a certification from a government you're trying to defend yourself against?

The scary set of circumstances goes something like this: Government is out of control - I NEED A GUN NOW... ohp, I don't qualify... we'll battle tyranny another day I guess.

While you may reserve this as an "extremist" view, it is a "slippery slope" as noted by another poster here. Who defines the "certification" process?? Who decides who gets guns and who doesn't?? By placing these decisions in government's hands, you inherently limit the People's ability to defend themselves from it.

2. It there a way you can show me you know how to you do this?

What issues do you have with this?

How do I "show you" to YOUR satisfaction? Or the government's satisfaction? To do so you must implement subjective criteria based on the opinion of elected officials. Opinions that may change (to one extreme or another) as people move in and out of office. Today it's the "mentally ill", tomorrow it's those "on prescription medication", and before you know it it's "left handed black people" who aren't allowed to get guns... just because they don't "fit the criteria." Criteria which in and of themselves are subjective. For example, what defines "mentally ill"?? Those in opposition to the government?! Eesh!!!

[TFOGGuys]

More children die each year in bathtub accidents (mostly drownings) than in firearms accidents. Are you proposing the banning/licensing/federal regulation of bathing equipment? How do I know you're qualified to bathe responsibly?

source:

[dapper]

The intention of the law is put in place for the righteous, not the unrighteous. People who are convicted of a felony is unable to purchase a firearm from a dealer or possess ownership of one.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now I'm wondering how felon's feel about, "shall not be infringed" part...?

If we understanding the difference between Universal law, law in theory and man laws as they are interpreted and applied in any given instance. We will be at peace by understanding how it's best to go with the flow of life.

"Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense." A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, at 475. (1787-8 8 ) - John Adam

"If all Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They'll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government." Dec.9, 1949 - Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower

"But I will defend my house against marauding forces. Never again will an oppressor overrun my people, for now I am keeping watch." - The Bible, Zechariah 9:8

"I declare to you that woman must not depend upon the protection of man, but must be taught to protect herself, and there I take my stand." Speech in San Fransisco, July 1871 - Susan B. Anthony

"If guns are banned, then I as a criminal feel a lot safer. When a thief breaks into someone's house or property, the first thing to worry about is getting shot by the owner. But now, it seems we won't have to worry about that anymore..."
(Letter to the Editor, Florida-Times Union, February 4, 1982, in response to the Morton Grove, Illinois handgun ban.) -Clifford Johnson, inmate at Florida State Prison

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington

"In addition, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act provides protection for those in the firearms industry from lawsuits arising out of the criminal or unlawful acts of people who misuse their products." - Bob Ney

[Snowman]

Snow, I can't speak to others' views, but as noted earlier my argument is that people have the right to bear arms to defend against tyranny. What's the point of a certification from a government you're trying to defend yourself against?

The scary set of circumstances goes something like this: Government is out of control - I NEED A GUN NOW... ohp, I don't qualify... we'll battle tyranny another day I guess.?

If it ever came to that certification whatever any type of registration we currently have, would be the least of anyone’s problems.

While you may reserve this as an "extremist" view, it is a "slippery slope" as noted by another poster here. Who defines the "certification" process?? Who decides who gets guns and who doesn't?? By placing these decisions in government's hands, you inherently limit the People's ability to defend themselves from it.

How do I "show you" to YOUR satisfaction? Or the government's satisfaction? To do so you must implement subjective criteria based on the opinion of elected officials. Opinions that may change (to one extreme or another) as people move in and out of office. Today it's the "mentally ill", tomorrow it's those "on prescription medication", and before you know it it's "left handed black people" who aren't allowed to get guns... just because they don't "fit the criteria." Criteria which in and of themselves are subjective. For example, what defines "mentally ill"?? Those in opposition to the government?! Eesh!!!

YES YES YES… this is the question I have been asking from post one!

So noted JustSomeDude answer is none.
Anyone can walk in and purchase a weapon no matter their level of knowledge. Ok got it…

Ok fine, how about this..
The gun seller will take the time to explain to the gun buyer all the safety features of the weapon being purchased. Show how to store the gun safety and give away a safety locking device to make the weapon inoperable?

Would this somehow compromise the defense against tyranny?

[DavidofColorado]

If it ever came to that certification whatever any type of registration we currently have, would be the least of anyone’s problems.

YES YES YES… this is the question I have been asking from post one!

What would satisfy your lust for knowledge? How much training would be require from a person before you would be comfortable enough to be around them?