Eric sez:I think Brian’s SC reply about says it. I think we’re done here.”
Yeah, you’d like for me to just walk away, right? That way you ~could~ remark ‘I won,’ right?

Eric sez:You say: “If it is a right, then attaching =ANY= kind of requirement is a violation of Constitutional law. Would you be equally willing to attach a requirement to the right to speak, or publish your thoughts, practice your religion ? or not, or freely associate with others?”

[Buzzer sound] Wrong answer! Check Constitutional Law again please and get back to us.”
It’s >YOUYOU< are the one making the remark, please show where in the Second Article of Amendment, where the matter of regulation of a right is authorized?
Can do?

Eric sez: “Thanks for being so patient in getting your arguments ripped to shreds. We’ll try to be sure not to make you wait so long next time.”
Allow me to assure you that the only thing being ripped to shreds here, is you credibility.

Eric sez: “Class dismissed.”
Not even.

Brian sez: “Just like how yelling “fire” in a theater is not protected by the 1st Amendment, there are legitimate, legal, and constitutional regulations on firearms ownership and use.”
Again, Brian, you are ~most~ incorrect.
There is ~no such law~ as prohibiting the exclamatory remark ‘fire’ in a theater, as that in itself would amount to prior restraint on speech.

By the same token, there can be =NO= prior restraint allowed against any other right. The very best the law may do is punish acts which harm another’s life, liberty and/or property.
And Brian? Your thinking is skewed, terribly so, because according to you, there is such a thing a ‘pre-crime’ as in the movie ‘Minority Report.’

Brian sez: “No matter how determined you are to believe differently, that won’t change the reality of the situation.”
So, basically speaking, no matter what the truth is, you’ll be satisfied to live the lie? Is that what you’re saying? If the USSC declared tomorrow that slavery is allowed, why you would just trip over yourself to become a slave? Right?

I think Brian’s SC reply about says it. I think we’re done here.

You say: “If it is a right, then attaching =ANY= kind of requirement is a violation of Constitutional law. Would you be equally willing to attach a requirement to the right to speak, or publish your thoughts, practice your religion ? or not, or freely associate with others?”

[Buzzer sound] Wrong answer! Check Constitutional Law again please and get back to us.

Um…yes. I want your speech regulated if it harms others. I also want your religion regulated, if say, it included live human sacrifices of ten year old girls. Please do regulate the hell out of that. If you choose to “freely associate with others” at a riot in which you start burning cars…yes, let’s regulate that as well shall we?

Rights CAN be regulated. If you are going to argue against ANY regulation on firearms whatsoever you are going to lose. Plain and simple.

Thanks for being so patient in getting your arguments ripped to shreds. We’ll try to be sure not to make you wait so long next time.

Class dismissed.

Just like how yelling “fire” in a theater is not protected by the 1st Amendment, there are legitimate, legal, and constitutional regulations on firearms ownership and use.

No matter how determined you are to believe differently, that won’t change the reality of the situation.

Yes, I have a problem with that.

First, the Right to Keep and Bear arms is, well, a ‘RIGHT.’
That ~should be~ self-evident: It is =SPECIFICALLY= enumerated in the Bill of Rights
If it is a right, then attaching =ANY= kind of requirement is a violation of Constitutional law.
Would you be equally willing to attach a requirement to the right to speak, or publish your thoughts, practice your religion ? or not, or freely associate with others?

It it =ABSOLUTELY= incumbent upon all ?especially American citizens? to comprehend the idea that ALL RIGHTS ARE EQUAL.
That is, no right has greater, or lesser value, than any other. To presume otherwise is to say that all ~other~ rights might be devaluated into insignificance, by someone with an agenda.
Do you really want that?

So, you’re probably asking: Well, what about those who will not get training?
Well, what about those who DO, and STILL misuse a device?
How many people get a driver’s license, and thence commence to drive like an idiot?
My beef, as I originally voiced it here, is that so-called ‘public schools’ have resorted to enforced ignorance as a way of solving their dilemma: We don’t like it, so we won’t teach it.

Mandatory training isn’t the ‘answer.’
And anyway: Firearms education is actually such a simple thing to teach, that parents could well do it themselves. And why shouldn’t they? In fact, it might well be considered child abuse, to neglect to teach a child about an object which has significant connection to the community, as to be commonplace.
The parents of yesteryear did. In all of this, there’s a strain of thought that I wish to impart: Let the individual face the consequences of his own =willful= stupidity. In the meantime, so-called ‘public schools’ ought be sued into oblivion for NOT teaching what should be taught. Unless, of course, there are excuses being made …

We do it with automobiles and other contrivances. Why not with firearms? Is the firearm so special that it deserves to be singled out for attention? And if so, why?
What makes it so special, when just =ANYONE= can go buy gasoline in any quantity without so much as a sniff of a notice?
How many people reading this, know that a mere quart of said liquid is enough to kill several dozen people at the merest spark?
Yet, said liquid is =COMPLETELY= unregulated.

There’s a fair degree of equivocation and dissemblance on the part of those who would impose =ANY= degree of regulation regarding firearms, because there are other devices and chemicals worthy of much more attention ? not that such should ever be the case …

Finally, any thought of regulation is an imposition upon the law abiding, for it makes =THEM BEG= to exercise their rights, while the criminal doesn’t. Criminals will get their firearms almost anywhere without any notice by the people whose job it is to make the law abiding beg.

If you don’t beg, you’ll be denied. It’s as simple as that.
Before the 1968 Gun Control Act, there ~were~ no restrictions upon who could get a firearm. Care to guess what the crime rate was back then?
How about very much >less

@Jeffy: People drive in a stupid manner. Stupid people – I mean really stupid people – drive all the time. But we don’t throw our hands in the air and say “fuck it. people will be stupid. let’s not test their vision or whether they know how to properly drive”.

Oh, and I support swimming education as well. I think most here are saying one thing loud and clear and that is that education is the key. I think what Brian is saying is that it should be REQUIRED as a part of gun regulations. Anyone got a problem with that?

I like his point about complete ignorance being the anti-gunners’ “solution” to gun-related deaths.

Somehow, the brainless anti-gunners have come to argue that the best way to keep kids from getting killed with guns is to pretend that guns utterly do not exist. Great plan. And what happens when these kids inevitably do encounter guns? They don’t know how to handle them, or behave around them, or even tell if they are loaded, and tragedy results.

Maybe we should just outlaw ignorance.

Look at how many people do stupid things in all walks of life, every day. You see people driving with a cellular phone in one hand and an egg McMuffin in the other–were they taught THAT in driver’s ed? Of course not.

So even if you force people to take a mandatory gun safety class, stupid, reckless people will still do stupid reckless things with their guns.

The fact remains that gun accidents steadily decline, and have been doing so since records began to be kept on the subject. Every year, pretty much, there are fewer, and they number only in the hundreds, not the tens of thousands as some would have you believe. At the same time, many more children and seriously injured in school sports activities! More drown in swimming pools. Why not write an essay on “mandatory swimming training” — YOU’D SAVE MORE LIVES.