Well because of questions like that I guess we would have to use a list of pertinent psychiatric conditions wouldn’t we. And anyone with a record would be off my list. Including DUI probably especially DUI. Teaching armed combat in school is a long way from my idea of education. Sorry that’s just mad
Homosexuality and masturbation were considered mental illnesses. The only pertinent conditions would be those that render a person an imminent danger to other people.
Gun safety (which is what you wanted and was taught) =/= to armed combat.
Driving tons of metal at speed with impaired control is a crime of violence. Kids need to know that guns are just weapons of destruction best to be avoided
I also reject the idea that the Government go about legislating contrary to constitutional restrictions, because if we consent to that, we are saying the constitutional restrictions don’t really have force. We agree on this
so let’s see if Leaf can be persuaded!
As far as proper legal procedure goes, I can agree with that too. We should not circumvent the Constitution with legislation.I also reject the idea that the Government go about legislating contrary to constitutional restrictions, because if we consent to that, we are saying the constitutional restrictions don’t really have force. We agree on this
So you would be okay with the scrapping of all of the enumerated rights, or are just saying they don’t have the granting of God as their source, in your view?
On the first paragraph, I agree, though the history of the progressive movement shows that they eschew the proper approach in favor of undermining the constitution with the false idea that the constitution is an "evolving and living document ".I also reject the idea that the Government go about legislating contrary to constitutional restrictions, because if we consent to that, we are saying the constitutional restrictions don’t really have force. We agree on this
Now, the proper course is to alter the constitutional restriction as it applies to weapons. I am entirely comfortable with THAT process because the restriction concerned does not (IMHO) serve us well. The framers made a mistake in categorizing an “unfettered right” to guns as they did, (i.e. as something sacrosanct) and a mistake in protecting it via constitutional restrictions. A simple, human mistake. Some government controls over weaponry is a good idea.
No. They need to know they are tools with specific uses and that special training is needed to handle them. They are not toys. They can be dangerous, and should not be handled without an adult present. As the Eddie Eagle Program says if you see a gun: stop, don’t touch, leave the area, tell an adult.
The second. Since you asked for my personal opinion about scrapping rights, I will answer accordingly. I personally would not want to see any of the enumerated rights (including the 2nd amendment) in the Constitution totally scrapped. However I am OK with some restrictions in those rights that are of human origin.
That would be good if all children were respectful and knowledgeable about guns. But the practical fact is that they are not. So until society reaches the point where all children have that level of respect and knowledge, it is prudent to reduce the opportunity for screwing up with binding regulations on gun safety.
Gottcha. Based on our conversation, that’s what I thought.
The school I teach at presents the Eddie Eagle Program to all students each year.
I wish them success in that program.
More kids die from drowning than guns, more people die from attack by blunt objects like hammers, and the ROI you claim on cars is subjective. Aren’t you normally arguing that cars are also killing the planet?
In the U.S., about 10 people per day die from drowning, as compared with 31 homicides and 56 suicides per day.
Equally dubious statistic. But as a class, hammers and such are extremely beneficial too.
True. So is the benefit of guns kept for defense and never used.
No.
That’s the problem with statistics. You notice the qualifier “kids” was used. No research would use a vaguely defined term. This is one reason we need to link research to see if it was done by the NRA or some gun control lobby.
Okay. I guess everyone has their own opinion. If you think America is enough like Nazi Germany and yet believe we should teach combat to our “American Youth” then that is for you to reconcile.
I do believe in vigorous background checks and closing any loopholes in purchasing guns. HOWEVER, a database for the mentally ill is controversial. First, which mentally ill? They must be clearly defined as posing a danger to others or to themselves since not all mentally ill people are dangerous. Second, the mentally ill are already stigmatized too much in terms of employment and so on. Third, who will have access to this database? Finally, how many people become mentally ill AFTER they purchase weapons: are there any statistics on this?
Additionally , regardless of the type, before a constitutionally protected right is restricted, due process must take place on a case by case basis. I also think that in these cases the state should be required to provide legal counsel.