+1
I even have a problem with the background check, it "infringes" and the government can lower the bar of what constitutes a felony.
So then would it be ok with you if say an Islamic extremist who had prior convictions for violent crimes but was let out early for good behavior to own a fully automatic weapon? If you really want to remove all "infringements" like background checks, this is what you will have; violent, mentally unstable people in possession of dangerous weapons.
Now my comments. I do believe that before people go practicing their rights enumerated in the B.O.R. they do need to know what it's all about and how to use them. Yes people in America should understand what the 1st Amendment is all about and perhaps know the language of the land before spouting off. I also believe people need to understand firearm safety, how to use their firearm and how to care for it before being permitted to carry it. Think of all the NDs that could be prevented if everyone who wanted to purchase a firearm had to go through a basic safety class that would teach them about their chosen firearm.
Yes we have rights and freedoms, but we also have people take a test before they can get a drivers license to try and make sure they are at least competent on the road. In Germany you have to go through almost a year of school to get licensed to drive on the Autobahn. You have to go through years of training before you can get a pilots license.
I believe the point is you don't want to just put very dangerous machines in just anyone's hands, but to make sure that the person that has that machine is capable and competent. With every RIGHT comes a RESPONSIBILITY. Not everyone who wants to exercise a right understands and can uphold the responsibility. Perhaps now I'll go read the letter.
****
Now that I have read the letter I fully agree with him. The interesting thing I see in this is that he states that people "should have to prove they know how to use a firearm as well as their moral responsibility" and commenters automatically assume that he means that the Government must handle everything. What if it was like it was only a few decades ago where children were taught firearm safety in grade school and the high schools had shooting teams along with the swim team and football team. When they completed high school along with their diploma they got a certificate of completion for a firearms course. Then the person could take that to prove their training in order to purchase a firearm or receive a CPL. How about a firearm safety course, similar to the hunter safety course that was either free or very low cost. The government doesn't have to manage the training. In fact I would hate to see the government manage it as they tend to screw training up. But if each person got competent training in firearm safety, use and responsibility it would certainly reduce the number of NDs out there.
I think people are spending too much energy focusing on the word "moral" rather than the word "responsibility." Yes we have a right to free speech, but there is a responsibility that goes along with that like not shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire or shouting "what's the hold up" in line at the bank when things are slow. There is a responsibility to the press to report the truth equally and unbiased (something that the MSM fails to do now.) The same thing applies to the right to keep and bear arms. We have a responsibility to understand how our firearms work, how to care for them so they work properly, to understand the laws surrounding the use of firearms and an understanding on when and where it's appropriate to use it. The goal is to ensure that the people who have access to firearms aren't going to use them to rob banks, shoot up neighborhoods, threaten people on the highway or accidentally shoot themselves in the hoohoo in Lowe's.
That's my $0.10 worth.