Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Man opens fire at a clinic.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="SecondhandSnake" data-source="post: 16577275" data-attributes="member: 116684"><p>This is one of those politician speeches that sounds nice on the surface, but when you get down to the details, there's some major issues with it.</p><p></p><p>The driver's license analogy is a bad one for what you're suggesting. You need a driver's license to operate on public roads. You can drive and operate whatever you want on your own property. If you want to concealed carry out in the public, there's <em>already</em> a licensing process as you suggest. And even if you were to effect this, look at how many unlicensed drivers are running around and killing/injuring people. It doesn't stop them at all.</p><p></p><p>Now let's go point by point.</p><p></p><p>1.) I've taken these so called courses. They're not going to do anything if they're mandated. It was over 40 hours of "don't look down the barrel and don't point it at people, you idiot." The test was more of the same. it didn't really do anything. All it did was take money out of my pocket and waste my time, essentially just a barrier to entry to the poor.</p><p></p><p>2.) To what end is this going to help anything? It's not even going to stop NDs.</p><p></p><p>3.) Do you want the government determining what suitable mental health is? It's purely subjective. If your political beliefs don't align with theirs, should you be classified as mentally ill and denied the right to a firearm? And the drug test, we don't even drug test for other government services.</p><p></p><p>4.) Rigorous background check...you mean like NICS which already exists and is mandated?</p><p></p><p>5.) Goodbye, fourth amendment rights. Canada has this. It also mandates that firearms and ammunition must be stored in separate safes, anchored to the structure, in separate rooms. You know, making the point of home defense completely and totally impossible.</p><p></p><p>Basically all those things make ownership more onerous and infringe upon your rights, without demonstrating any means of really being effective. But they make it look like you're doing something- the politician's specialty.</p><p></p><p>I'm surprised you didn't include red flag laws, which in theory might be more effective, but also completely throw out due process, which is kind of the core of your rights and the criminal justice system.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="SecondhandSnake, post: 16577275, member: 116684"] This is one of those politician speeches that sounds nice on the surface, but when you get down to the details, there's some major issues with it. The driver's license analogy is a bad one for what you're suggesting. You need a driver's license to operate on public roads. You can drive and operate whatever you want on your own property. If you want to concealed carry out in the public, there's [i]already[/i] a licensing process as you suggest. And even if you were to effect this, look at how many unlicensed drivers are running around and killing/injuring people. It doesn't stop them at all. Now let's go point by point. 1.) I've taken these so called courses. They're not going to do anything if they're mandated. It was over 40 hours of "don't look down the barrel and don't point it at people, you idiot." The test was more of the same. it didn't really do anything. All it did was take money out of my pocket and waste my time, essentially just a barrier to entry to the poor. 2.) To what end is this going to help anything? It's not even going to stop NDs. 3.) Do you want the government determining what suitable mental health is? It's purely subjective. If your political beliefs don't align with theirs, should you be classified as mentally ill and denied the right to a firearm? And the drug test, we don't even drug test for other government services. 4.) Rigorous background check...you mean like NICS which already exists and is mandated? 5.) Goodbye, fourth amendment rights. Canada has this. It also mandates that firearms and ammunition must be stored in separate safes, anchored to the structure, in separate rooms. You know, making the point of home defense completely and totally impossible. Basically all those things make ownership more onerous and infringe upon your rights, without demonstrating any means of really being effective. But they make it look like you're doing something- the politician's specialty. I'm surprised you didn't include red flag laws, which in theory might be more effective, but also completely throw out due process, which is kind of the core of your rights and the criminal justice system. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
SVTPerformance's Chain of Restaurants
Road Side Pub
Man opens fire at a clinic.
Top