funhusker Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: That isn't possible....but, it would be funny to see how bad some people would do that think they are experts in everything. Ha! I agree it isn't possible. On the same grounds that "mandatory" training for guns would be impossible. Maybe not ideal, but the way it is. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 3 hours ago, funhusker said: Ha! I agree it isn't possible. On the same grounds that "mandatory" training for guns would be impossible. Maybe not ideal, but the way it is. Maybe? We all have to take a driving test. Link to comment
funhusker Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 15 minutes ago, Moiraine said: Maybe? We all have to take a driving test. Driving isn't a constitutional right. I was playing devil's advocate with this conversation. If we can't make people pass a test to vote, we can't make people pass a test to own a gun. 1 Link to comment
HS_Coach_C Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, funhusker said: Driving isn't a constitutional right. I was playing devil's advocate with this conversation. If we can't make people pass a test to vote, we can't make people pass a test to own a gun. Perhaps, but if they can put restrictions on who can vote (age limit, no felons) then they could possibly put reasonable restrictions on gun ownership (I know they already have the same ones, but why can't other restrictions be added) I'm just spit-balling, but would competency tests for voting or gun ownership be unreasonable compared to age limits? Testing would obviously take more time and money than just checking someone's age. I know a lot of 17 year olds who are far more mature than some 30 year olds I know, but we base everything off of some arbitrary age. Edited March 28, 2018 by HS_Coach_C 1 Link to comment
funhusker Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 These last several posts are all spit balling I guess I'm not 100% sure, but I thought "literacy" tests to vote were already deemed unconstitutional. I honestly think a good starting point would create a system easier for states and other agencies to report things to the national system. I read an article from late last year that said that a substantial number of people really wouldn't pass the national system if it weren't for the failure of agencies reporting. I don't mean to imply that local law enforcement aren't doing their due diligence, but apparently in some cases there literally isn't a protocol for them to get their info to the next level up. This should be a problem that both sides would be eager to solve: Rep. to show they are actually doing something, and Dems to show progress for their voters. Hell, maybe it would start a wave of momentum of cooperation (wishful thinking, I know...) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-fbi-gun-background-check-system-missing-records-20171110-story.html Link to comment
Landlord Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 2 hours ago, funhusker said: Driving isn't a constitutional right. I was playing devil's advocate with this conversation. If we can't make people pass a test to vote, we can't make people pass a test to own a gun. Yes we can. The language of the Constitution is intentionally very vague to allow for interpretations. The 'right' to vote is dependent on plenty of factors, and the 'right' to own a firearm can (and per the opinions of many, should) also be dependent on certain reasonable factors. It already is to a certain extent. Making sure that people must be/do x, y or z does not infringe upon a right. Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted March 28, 2018 Share Posted March 28, 2018 1 hour ago, Landlord said: Yes we can. The language of the Constitution is intentionally very vague to allow for interpretations. The 'right' to vote is dependent on plenty of factors, and the 'right' to own a firearm can (and per the opinions of many, should) also be dependent on certain reasonable factors. It already is to a certain extent. Making sure that people must be/do x, y or z does not infringe upon a right. Constitutional originalists would disagree with you on this. I myself agree with you. I think it's lunacy to suggest a document written hundreds of years ago can adequately guide any and all judicial decisions in 2018. As far as the voting rights analogy goes, we'd have to ask ourselves: Are we OK with prohibiting a subset of people from the right to vote if they don't know jack diddly about politics or how the government works, or do we want an open and welcoming voting system where even the most ignorant people can vote? I'd ay there are pluses and minuses to both sides, but obviously it's been said in this thread implementing that type of test would be very hard to get through the courts. Same thing applies to guns, IMO. Do we want a more regulated system where people have to prove proficiency in gun safety and lack of red flags before they get a gun or a system where everyone can get their hands on a gun with relative ease? It's interesting to think about. I lean for more heavily in favor of reasonable gun regulation than that of regulating voting, myself. But I find the number of barriers to an actual unencumbered right to vote (restrictions on age, felons, inequitable access to polling stations for people of different demographics, voter ID laws, gerrymandering, lack of voter roll and electronic voting system security) INCREDIBLY concerning. Link to comment
funhusker Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 Let me be clear, I agree 100% with what Dudeguyy said. But I know many people that are the opposite: they would be okay if voting cost $100 a ballot as long as they were gaurunteed the right to buy a gun. Just trying to think as they do. Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 On 3/26/2018 at 9:53 PM, BigRedBuster said: And? Because the cop still engaged the shooter, which prevented possibly more kids being shot, which caused him to turn the gun on himself earlier than he had probably planned. So in the end, the cop still did his job........ Not directed at you BRB, directed at folks who like to make their headlines sound like the cop didn't matter that day. 3 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 10 hours ago, BIGREDIOWAN said: And? Because the cop still engaged the shooter, which prevented possibly more kids being shot, which caused him to turn the gun on himself earlier than he had probably planned. So in the end, the cop still did his job........ Not directed at you BRB, directed at folks who like to make their headlines sound like the cop didn't matter that day. That’s not the way I took the article. I always find it important to be clear as to what happened in these situations. Link to comment
funhusker Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 I took the article as reporting that the Maryland school shooting was no different than most. A person sneaks a gun in with a target in mind. In this case, the girl. The other student shot was hit by the bullet passing through the girl, correct? There doesn't appear to be any evidence that this boy intended on killing a lot of people. But that doesn't mean I don't appreciate the SRO being there to make sure that wouldn't happen if that actually was his intent. 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 (edited) What a piece of crap...."in the spirit of the Holy Week". Facing boycott, Laura Ingraham apologizes for taunting Parkland teen over college rejections Edited March 29, 2018 by BigRedBuster 1 Link to comment
funhusker Posted March 29, 2018 Share Posted March 29, 2018 25 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: What a piece of crap...."in the spirit of the Holy Week". Facing boycott, Laura Ingraham apologizes for taunting Parkland teen over college rejections No kidding. If you really respected Holy Week, you'd understand that it isn't okay to be knowingly rude the other 51 weeks. 3 Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted March 30, 2018 Share Posted March 30, 2018 Why does the Fox news clip not play on here? Link to comment
Recommended Posts