calicamper
Expedition Leader
Love the selective editing like the post I responded to which talks about tests. LOL IT HAS everything to do with it.
Do you feel the need to be upset when you encounter an armed camper in the woods?
- Thread starter plainjaneFJC
- Start date
Love the selective editing like the post I responded to which talks about tests. LOL IT HAS everything to do with it.
While I agree with you in principle, there is a bit of a practical difference between the 2nd amendment and the others. You can't directly kill somebody with an accidental word or irresponsible reporting. Being uneducated, ignorant or stupid typically doesn't infringe upon other peoples' right to life and liberty. Being an idiot with a gun does. You won't find someone more pro-gun than me--16 years and counting in the Marines, grew up hunting, licensed to carry, etc. I have seen first hand what irresponsible people with guns can do. While the bill of rights states constitutional rights, the declaration of independence (and other documents) state "unalienable rights." IMO, these basic human rights trump our constitutional rights. Therefore, it MIGHT be permissible to look at helping protect peoples basic human rights by ensuring that the rights of "responsible" citizens to keep and bear arms are not infringed. How to accomplish that without government overreach is not something simple, but it might be worth taking a look.
I think you're comparing apples to oranges because exercising liberties outlined in the Bill of Rights applies to everyone, not just citizens. Besides, the citizenship test can be passed by anyone with an 8th grade education and a day's prep... it's more symbolic than anything.
While reasonable discussion can occur regarding when one person's rights infringe on another, you are confusing constitutional rights and unalienable. They are basically the same, with constitutional rights basically being codified protection of that higher law.
As others have already responded, you fail to recognize the dichotomy. And your bet has already been accomplished by myself. Not MY fault that 80% of your college class were idiots. I went to college in the 1980’s, maybe we had different classes/degrees where there was no emphasis on safe spaces and 18th Century European Lesbian studies? As far as NOT having to do anything to be a US citizen, unless YOU personally have spent more than 30 years in the US military and deployed to Afghanistan more than seven times and Iraq twice ----- YOU have not done as much as I have to “earn” my citizenship.
Agreed, life can be complicated. But we don’t need to overcomplicate it. Life in the US is getting too complicated thanks to effete men and weak leaders (politicians).
Thanks for your service in the USMC. Words on their own don’t kill, but they CAN precipitate it. World history is replete with examples of political leaders who used their words to incite hatred, start wars, and lead their people to commit genocide. An example of this is what Hitler’s Socialist Party did with words aimed at the Jews that lived in Germany. The Nazis taught their young that the Jews were a “problem” during lessons at school. Anti-semitism was the overwhelming topic in every school curriculum. Indeed, the propaganda picture books published by Der Stürmer, the organ responsible for the dissemination of many of the anti-semitic publications during the Hitler years, demonstrate that anti-semitism was taught before children "were six or seven or eight." So, in order to enact societal safety from "words" in America, wouldn't it make sense to have all speech and writings restricted? How about if each American that wanted to practice a religion had to take a test and get a license? Look at what religion has brought the world the last 1000 years. Freedom of religion is a right, and there's no test/license requirement..... yet we have Islamic terror foisted upon us. If only we had the ability to register every Catholic, Methodist, Buddhist, Muslim..... are you seeing the slippery slope yet?
You mentioned that maybe we could protect basic human rights while not infringing on citizen's 2A rights. There is one reason, and only one reason, that the bill of Rights only mentions the phrase "Shall not be infringed" to any of the rights. Care to guess why?
I Leak Oil
Expedition Leader
Sorry but history proves otherwise. The Nazis slaughtered millions with their superior oration skills and written propaganda, the whole time, suppressing the ability of others to speak and write as they wish. The misuse of the spoken or written word has far more potential for destruction than an evil AR15 in the hands of someone who isn't on the Fed's radar.
You can't be open to accepting of qualifications to one right without accepting qualifications to all rights. Slippery slope with difficult issues.
Agreed. A good case study is the Rwanda genocide, instigated mostly by inflammatory radio propaganda. 500,000+ killed, and barely a gun to be seen.
K2ZJ
Explorer
Yeah, words never hurt anyone!
List of suicides which have been attributed to bullying.
Why can't you yell fire in a crowded theater again?
List of suicides which have been attributed to bullying.
Why can't you yell fire in a crowded theater again?
calicamper
Expedition Leader
Why would a symbolic test require studying for? By the way the point of the surprise test was to show whats known about the test. Roughly 90% of US citizens would fail it. I bet if all gun owners were given a home inspection and proficiency test today that at least 70% would fail it.
Keep focused because I see people arguing as if guns make them American, or having marched in the Armed Forces makes them more American than others who in their eye is lesser. Those are different issues our society has today that dont help the argument about who should have guns and when they should carry.
lol, what difference does it make if you have to study for it? Are you saying that because you have to study for it, it can't be symbolic? I don't want to derail the thread, but your insistence on the relevance of this test is odd.
92% of the people who take the citizenship test pass on the first try. Nearly all of those few that fail do so because they don't know English well and haven't memorized the study guide enough. Because of its ease (questions like, who is the president? and when was the Constitution written?) and the fact that the questions are pieces of trivia of no lasting value (as opposed to questions promoting a life of engaged citizenship), it's a largely symbolic act meant mainly to help create a sense of accomplishment and belonging to the adopted country... a goal the test basically fails miserably at. Implying that a new immigrant citizen is more American than a natural born citizen because they passed this test isn't just laughable, it's crazytime thinking.
Anyways, my original point is that the Constitution generally applies to everyone (even illegals) and nobody has to (or should have to) take tests to qualify them for exercising their constitutional rights.
I said "directly kill someone with words. I phrased it that way on purpose to avoid the discussion of the second and third order effects of irresponsible/unethical speech or press. Looking at this from an individual level as it is an individual right.
First, as I said above, you will not find a more staunch second amendment supporter.
Second, I cannot personally affect someone's right to life or liberty by proposing that the world is flat, that Hitler was a saint, or that 9/11 and the moon landings were hoaxes.
However, if I don't know how to safely operate a weapon or have a clue about when I should employ it, I could very easily end someone's life. That fact is the key difference.
First, as I said above, you will not find a more staunch second amendment supporter.
Second, I cannot personally affect someone's right to life or liberty by proposing that the world is flat, that Hitler was a saint, or that 9/11 and the moon landings were hoaxes.
However, if I don't know how to safely operate a weapon or have a clue about when I should employ it, I could very easily end someone's life. That fact is the key difference.
In some instances yes, but I would hardly call freedom of the press an Unalienable right... The constitution is an attempt to ensure the higher unalienable rights are not infringed within a civil structure--that does not equate to all of the parts of the constitution being on the same level as the unalienable rights.
As stated already, I fully understand that words can precipitate harm, but the words themselves do not directly infringe upon others' rights.
Like I said, it isn't an easy nut to crack, but it does bear some discussion. By my estimation, irresponsible (but un-criminal) firearm use was pretty rare during the colonial period. If the founding fathers only knew how many idiots there would be....
I Leak Oil
Expedition Leader
I don't disagree with somenone needing to be trained properly, but this issue is fraught with all the same arguments against required voter ID. Who pays for the ID? Who pays for the red tape? What if you can't afford it? What if you can't travel to the training? What if you can't read/understand the forms to fill them out? Again, you can't advocate regulating one without being open to regulating all.
And it's not the gun that directly kills, it's the bullet. Just as it's not the word that directly kills. The root cause behind both is really the person. Owning a gun doesn't directly infringe upon anyone's rights either. It's against the law to kill someone no matter what method is used.
And it's not the gun that directly kills, it's the bullet. Just as it's not the word that directly kills. The root cause behind both is really the person. Owning a gun doesn't directly infringe upon anyone's rights either. It's against the law to kill someone no matter what method is used.