Rude and arrogant seems to be his general setting. I don't understand why some people seem to get off on such behavior. Very juvenile.Would you like me to include the myriad of sites that aren't official government sites? Just take the L; you couldn't be more wrong here. I was respectful in my approach to you as I'm new here, but you seem to be an arrogant and snarky individual, as evidenced by your response to me and another individual. It's okay to be wrong. 3 parts to the Declaration of Independence; the first being the preamble, as in, introduction.
Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.constitutioncenter.org
Again, thank you for your compliments Cur......ur......Straydog. I'm proud to be racking them up lately.How do you surmise that I'm offended by the government not being a good source of information? You made the claim so I provided the same information from other sources that aren't government. You're willfully ignoring truth because it doesn't align with your perception or interpretation. It's okay that you're not interested in a subject or topic but that doesn't negate truth. You're also purposely misconstruing what was said. I didn't see anybody, including myself, say that we aren't interested in "inalienable rights", we said that the term comes from the preamble of the Declaration of Independence; which is factually accurate. You either care about accuracy and truth or you don't. You also make quite a few assumptions without any discourse and use logical fallacies without being able to stay on topic or argue a valid point. So, be well, take care, and stay free, because regardless of what you think, I've fought for and will always fight for, EVERYBODY'S inalienable right to be autonomous and free. I'm here to learn and meet good people, not to argue with imbeciles; that's what FB is for.
Could not have said it better.I think it should and shouldn't. Allow me to explain.
First some context: I'm a constitutional originalist. I believe there should be no restrictions on ANYONE being able to buy any firearm, including machine guns out of a vending machine. Yes, that includes criminals. My basic political philosophy is "I want married homosexual couples to be able to protect their marijuana fields with machine guns". In other words, pure freedom.
"But Woodsman, you just said 'no restrictions' and you also said there should be mandatory training! Are you drunk?!"
First of all, no. Haven't had enough whiskey yet. What I mean is we as a culture should demand it of ourselves that each of us is properly trained but the government needs to stay out of it. Just this ole boy's thoughts
I think it should be mandatory, for all elementary and middle school curriculums, maybe even bring back high-school shooting teams.
* I think the problem with the argument is ones definition of training. One should have a rudimentary level of training. Anything beyond that is strictly up to one's discretion. If we as a society can establish norms that encourage proper behavior then the stigma currently associated with such issues would not exist.
Is it that time of the month? Mark 28 days from now
I had stated that no training should be required to own a firearm for home defense that stays at home and 2 of 3 examples is exactly that. I have always had a home defense weapon and I have always taught my wife how to work whatever was the weapon at the time. When my kids were old enough they were taught as well. All well and good, BUT if you possess a firearm in public I feel that a minimum training session consisting of firearms familiarity and the laws in your jurisdiction concerning use should be mandatory. I have on occasion had conversations with my grandchildren and friends of my adult children who don't carry and you would not believe how many of them think that if you catch someone trying to steal your car for example that it is legal to threaten and/or shoot them. That if someone threatens them, that it is legal to pull your weapon to warn them off. Those 2 actions in my state (NE) are not legal. I will concede that MOST of the people who choose the responsibility to carry will know their weapons and when you can and can't use them. But there is that portion of the public that will not get any training other than what they learn on FB. They are a threat to themselves and the public at large.The lone shut-in grandmother who scares off an armed burglar. A single father who takes on two jobs to make ends meet for his brood, only to come upon an armed robber on his way home in the wee hours of the morning from his second-shift job. A teen defender who manages protect his younger siblings from home invaders. These are all stories ripped directly from the headlines. Stories of people who are "untrained," yet managed to successfully utilize a firearm for their own self-defense or in-defense of their loved-ones.
The Constitutional right as relates to firearms is silent on training. But of course in that time most everyone grew up trained as a gun was as necessary as a vehicle or computer is today.
Maturity/Mental health is in the equation. Banning/restricting/altering the 2nd A (or requiring training) does not address the mental health of mass murderers or anyone else.
The only mandatory training that might promote safety/exercise of the 2nd A is compulsory education/instruction/participation in the schools.
Ultimately though, personal safety is every individuals responsibility and when that responsibility is transferred to Government to try (and fail) to keep safe those that will not do it for themselves is the pry bar that opens the door to restrictions on the rights of the rest of us.