1245A Defender
Regular Member
imported post
besides,,, how often do you call yourself on the phone??
besides,,, how often do you call yourself on the phone??
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Can we change the law to include an IQ test for your CPL?
- Thread starter jchen012
- Start date
devildoc5
Regular Member
imported post
1245A Defender wrote:
1245A Defender wrote:
Some of us loners call ourself just so we have someone to talk to
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
edited to delete comment based on mis-reading a poster's text
edited to delete comment based on mis-reading a poster's text
amlevin
Regular Member
imported post
gogodawgs wrote:
gogodawgs wrote:
Why does it always seem that the bottom half is greater than 50%?:quirky
ak56
Campaign Veteran
imported post
amlevin wrote:
amlevin wrote:
It's because many of them are sofarbelow average.
Metal_Monkey
Regular Member
imported post
sudden valley gunner wrote:
sudden valley gunner wrote:
Gotta agree with this one. It is possible, seeing how I have spent many a moon in "Seattle night life", but I still wouldn't fire in the air. Nothing to slow the bullets down:lol:
Jayd1981
Regular Member
imported post
Wouldn't it be nice if you had to take an IQ test before you could open your mouth too? Then I wouldn't have to hear about how 95% of the guns used in crime in Mexico come form the US, or how all our problems are because of Bush, or how Obama is a Kenyan born muslim, or how banning assault rifles reduces crime. Wouldn't that be great?
However any time you put a restriction on a right, it then becomes a privilege. We all have fundemental rights that the government cannot restrict. Yes, stupid people do stupid things and it can effect others. But to restrict a fundemental right because of a few idiots is not a good enough reason to lose that right.
Wouldn't it be nice if you had to take an IQ test before you could open your mouth too? Then I wouldn't have to hear about how 95% of the guns used in crime in Mexico come form the US, or how all our problems are because of Bush, or how Obama is a Kenyan born muslim, or how banning assault rifles reduces crime. Wouldn't that be great?
However any time you put a restriction on a right, it then becomes a privilege. We all have fundemental rights that the government cannot restrict. Yes, stupid people do stupid things and it can effect others. But to restrict a fundemental right because of a few idiots is not a good enough reason to lose that right.
ShooterMcGavin
Regular Member
imported post
This thread reminds me of the quote by Benjamin Franklin.
This thread reminds me of the quote by Benjamin Franklin.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
imported post
Jayd1981 wrote:
Jayd1981 wrote:
We have few fundamental rights and how we go about exercising them is where the discussion of the 2nd Amendment come in. The 2nd Amendment is not a fundamental right IMO. Man cannot give me a fundamental right under anything, including a Constitution. Any "right" given under a man-made document is actually a privilege.
ShooterMcGavin
Regular Member
imported post
Can you explain what is a fundamental right to you, Sylvia? I do not mean to be argumentative. Your point is valid, but how far does that go? Anything can be regulated and/or taken away. Technically, life is not a right, in that case.
ETA: Sylvia, you used the word "give". I agree with you, fundamental rights are not given, and neither are rights given under the Constitution. Rights are protected under the Constitution, from being taken away.
Can you explain what is a fundamental right to you, Sylvia? I do not mean to be argumentative. Your point is valid, but how far does that go? Anything can be regulated and/or taken away. Technically, life is not a right, in that case.
ETA: Sylvia, you used the word "give". I agree with you, fundamental rights are not given, and neither are rights given under the Constitution. Rights are protected under the Constitution, from being taken away.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
imported post
ShooterMcGavin wrote:
A fundamental right is the right to preserve life and life of family over another individual or family if the situation demands such a response. Outside of that I cannot think of any other fundamental right we have.
I would like to argue that we have a fundamental right to food, shelter, health care, and happiness (whatever that means), unfortunately, I do not think we do. If I give much thought to those items and can justify why they are a fundamental right, I will obviously alter my personal stance.
A fundamental right is a persons right to preserve life by any means necessary. A fundamental right is absent morality or any other social construct that human being are hell-bent on devising to screw other human beings over.
Whether someone has an IQ of 10 or 200, they both have a fundamental right to preserve life by any means necessary.
ShooterMcGavin wrote:
Life is not a fundamental right since you do not have control over whether you are born or not.
A fundamental right is the right to preserve life and life of family over another individual or family if the situation demands such a response. Outside of that I cannot think of any other fundamental right we have.
I would like to argue that we have a fundamental right to food, shelter, health care, and happiness (whatever that means), unfortunately, I do not think we do. If I give much thought to those items and can justify why they are a fundamental right, I will obviously alter my personal stance.
A fundamental right is a persons right to preserve life by any means necessary. A fundamental right is absent morality or any other social construct that human being are hell-bent on devising to screw other human beings over.
Whether someone has an IQ of 10 or 200, they both have a fundamental right to preserve life by any means necessary.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
imported post
ShooterMcGavin wrote:
I am seriously not trying to be argumentative, but Constitutional rights are not protected. We want to believe that they are but they aren't. The United States Constitution, whether we want to believe it or not, is a living breathing document that is interpreted. Some people believe there is some fundamental purpose of the Constitution of the United States, there is not IMO.
ShooterMcGavin wrote:
I am seriously not trying to be argumentative, but Constitutional rights are not protected. We want to believe that they are but they aren't. The United States Constitution, whether we want to believe it or not, is a living breathing document that is interpreted. Some people believe there is some fundamental purpose of the Constitution of the United States, there is not IMO.
Jayd1981
Regular Member
imported post
If the right to preserve life is fundemental, then wouldn't that incorporate arms as a means? I see the bill of rights as a document enumerating our fundemental rights. It does not grant them, only acknowledges that as free men and women we have these rights.
Anyways, my point was that you do no good by restricting a right because of a few abuses, even with the best of intentions.
If the right to preserve life is fundemental, then wouldn't that incorporate arms as a means? I see the bill of rights as a document enumerating our fundemental rights. It does not grant them, only acknowledges that as free men and women we have these rights.
Anyways, my point was that you do no good by restricting a right because of a few abuses, even with the best of intentions.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
imported post
Jayd1981 wrote:
Yes, firearms are a means. Enumeration of fundamental rights is different than bestowing them. All I am saying is that a fundamental right cannot be bestowed. The Bill of Rights enumerates the means used to exercise fundamental rights.
Like I said above, I am not sure if anything outside of preservation of life and limb is a fundamental right. Freedom of speech, a fair trial, seizure, etc are not fundamental rights. if any of those items in the Bill of Rights can be used as a means to preserving life and limb than they are an actual means one can use to preserve the fundamental right to preserve life and limb. Anything outside of that is not a fundamental right.
Jayd1981 wrote:
Yes, firearms are a means. Enumeration of fundamental rights is different than bestowing them. All I am saying is that a fundamental right cannot be bestowed. The Bill of Rights enumerates the means used to exercise fundamental rights.
Like I said above, I am not sure if anything outside of preservation of life and limb is a fundamental right. Freedom of speech, a fair trial, seizure, etc are not fundamental rights. if any of those items in the Bill of Rights can be used as a means to preserving life and limb than they are an actual means one can use to preserve the fundamental right to preserve life and limb. Anything outside of that is not a fundamental right.
ShooterMcGavin
Regular Member
imported post
Sylvia Plath wrote:
Sylvia Plath wrote:
I completely agree with your statements here. What I should have said was that the Constitution was intended to protect rights. It (theConstitution)is open to interpretation and, therefore, has the ability to lose its intended purpose entirely.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
imported post
The constitution is not a living breathing document to be interpreted, this thinking is progressive/socialist/tyranny/elitist propaganda that is wrongly taught in our schools. These rights are not granted to us or given to us by the constitutions, it is a statement that these areour "unalienable" rights. Especially the 2A it even includes the words "shall not be infringed".
It is up to us on how far we let the government keep overstepping it's boundaries.
The constitution is not a living breathing document to be interpreted, this thinking is progressive/socialist/tyranny/elitist propaganda that is wrongly taught in our schools. These rights are not granted to us or given to us by the constitutions, it is a statement that these areour "unalienable" rights. Especially the 2A it even includes the words "shall not be infringed".
It is up to us on how far we let the government keep overstepping it's boundaries.
Beretta92FSLady
Regular Member
imported post
sudden valley gunner wrote:
I agree.
sudden valley gunner wrote:
I agree.
ShooterMcGavin
Regular Member
imported post
sudden valley gunner wrote:
BTW, I am not arguing against what you have said about the 2A. I believe "shall not be infringed" means EXACTLY that. I am asking about your view that the Constitution can tolerate no interpretation. You can also point out where my reasoning is askew in my example, if at all
sudden valley gunner wrote:
There are parts that need to be interpreted, though (aren't there?). The first amendment, for example... We cannot allow people to assemble and protest in the middle of the night (3am), disturbing the peace. You will reply, "disturbing the peace is illegal" and I agree. Ok, what about 1am? 11pm? 9pm? If this speach is protected by the 1stA, then it is protected because someone doesn't want to hear it. That's why we have the first amendment. It is likely thatyou will always be disturbing somebody with this speech, so a reasonable process needs to be outlined to allow for assembly and expression of free speech within guidelines (times, volume, impact to others, etc.).
BTW, I am not arguing against what you have said about the 2A. I believe "shall not be infringed" means EXACTLY that. I am asking about your view that the Constitution can tolerate no interpretation. You can also point out where my reasoning is askew in my example, if at all