I know you can’t find a way to believe it, but it’s true: We’re mainly in favor of fewer people getting killed. It’s that simple. Really. It isn’t hidden at all.
Now: Are you sure there are no other rights on the part of any other people that you need to take into consideration? Any at all?
“To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” — Richard Henry Lee
When I was in high school, I participated in the JROTC program. In connection therewith, I was given very good gun safety and marksmanship training. I would be very much in favor of making such training part of every standard high school curriculum.
I believe it to be a very, very good thing for everyone to be trained in the safe and proper handling and use of firearms. If this were a part of standard schooling, then every adult could be presumed to have had this training,and to be qualified to possess a firearm.
The objection to tying the right to keep and bear arms, in the manner that you advocate, to a mandatory training course, is that there is too much potential for abuse; to make this training difficult or expensive to obtain, to make the test unreasonably difficult to pass, for the purpose of selectively denying this right.
I am solidly opposed to allowing it any power that can be abused for the purpose of denying the right to keep and bear arms right to anyone; for government has very solidly and undeniably proven that it absolutely will abuse any such power.
You’re not fooling anyone anymore. You’re in favor of protecting criminals and tyrants, not honest citizens. This is the only reason why you support restrictions which only impair honest citizens form exercising their Second Amendment rights, while leaving criminals and tyrants unimpaired. Please spare me the lies. It is obvious whose side you are on.
Wow. Just wow.
The rare occurrence of dumb asses who blow a hole in their foot or accidentally shoot their slack jaw friend is your argument for stricter gun control?
I wouldn’t know as you have provided absolutely no cite for your ridiculous position.
And you’re completely full of shit! Trust me!
I’m also opposed to requiring safety training as a condition of possessing baseball bats, golf clubs, KNIVES(!), etc. I don’t like that people die from accidents and misuse of these items, but I’d rather accept that occasional occurence than have to sit through an 8-hour government safety training before getting my new set of kitchen knives.
Let’s not forget cell phones, pharmaceutical drugs and pretty much everything that could potentially be fatal.
You’re welcome to invent whatever you want to believe. You’re not welcome to have your invented beliefs accepted by others. You have no hope of that if you’re going to claim:
I’d laugh if I didn’t think you were serious.
It really is all about keeping people from being killed. Really. Your inability to comprehend that point, much less its importance, is a sign of being most appropriately engaged with soothing pats on the head.
You’re dismissing those real instances as less important than your desire to avoid safety training. :rolleyes: Yes, really.
When you have an actual thought to offer, do come back.
Please give an instance of what you consider a use of it that is not an abuse.
Right, it’s all about preventing people from being killed.
Until the training becomes expensive. And takes weeks. Then months.
Soon, thousands of dollars and months of waiting will be required to obtain a gun. Not to mention the background checks, licensing and other forms of red tape that gun control advocates will demand.
It’s de facto gun control, started as an innocuous proposal to “prevent deaths” (what a noble idea!) and quickly abused to oppress gun owners.
I refer to my previous comments about imagination. :rolleyes:
And to my previous comments about the relative importance of “gun owners’ rights” and people getting killed. :rolleyes:
I can give you a clear-cut example of what I consider an abuse: Washington, DC and the hoops they make people jump through to own a gun. They seem punitive to me.
The first time they tried to get concealed carry passed in Wisconsin it would have taken 9 weeks of training to be eligible for a permit. Then the state had 3 more months to grant the permit after the training was completed.
5 1/2 months sounds like “weeks and months” to me. Luckily saner heads prevailed. Now very little training is required (almost none) and the state has had no major issues because of it.
Going on 32 years on the job in a major metropolitan area and I’ve yet to be at a shooting scene where the decision was the crime wouldn’t have happened had more gun training been required.:rolleyes: But by all means, feel free to peddle your delusions. They are entertaining even if ridiculous.
Or, as Homer put it: “Five days? But I’m angry now!”
Ever been to one where the decision was the crime would not have happened if nobody had a gun?
Fine, now let’s stake out the other end of that, a governmental exercise of gun-regulation power that is not an abuse of it. It’s a fair question, because Bob Blaylock states his position so absolutely that one is tempted to suspect him of objecting even to denying gun ownership to convicted felons, or, for that matter, prisoners.
This, from the same thread where you had these pearls of wisdom to offer:
I refer back to my previous statement made the last time Elvis and I participated in the same thread:
Nothing good comes of engaging the crazy.
And here’s *your *soothing pat on the head.
With a hammer, or a gun-butt?
Nobody has a gun? I thought gun control was only about “reasonable” restrictions. Oh wait, I guess that’s just the first step.