In response to Nick’s recent post about a negligent discharge by one of the civilians openly carrying an AR 15-style rifle to protect a military recruitment center, a commenter named Paul posted the following (slightly edited), beginning with a quote from an earlier comment:

“…[L]ast I checked, fundamental rights aren’t subject to capability tests.”

What other “fundamental rights” involve the capacity to kill lots of things quickly? . . .

Right to self-determination
Right to liberty
Right to due process of law
Right to freedom of movement
Right to freedom of thought
Right to freedom of religion
Right to freedom of expression
Right to peacefully assemble
Right to freedom of association

I can understand the concern that any capability test can be abused to make sure the “wrong” people (i.e. the ones the powers-that-be don’t like) are denied access. But when you eliminate any requirement to demonstrate capability for responsible behaviour with equipment that can cause maiming or death, you wind up with armed morons like this guy and thousands more.

That’s why the handling of any other potentially lethal tools/equipment from cars, through heavy equipment, to explosives and many others require training and licensing. Sure you still get thousands killed in car accidents…but think how much higher the death toll would be if any moron could go into a dealership and come out driving a car with no training…. That’s the NRA’s utopia for gun ownership in the USA.

This is an argument that, on its face, makes a certain amount of sense. The problem is that anyone interested in limiting liberty can also make the argument against almost any other ‘right’. Where, therefore, do we draw the line? Just to look at a few of his examples:

  1. The right to freedom of thought is probably the one right that can cause the most harm in life, depending on what you’re thinking, where you are, and what actions those thoughts are driving. (The right to freedom of religion is just a species of this genus.) Put the wrong thoughts in the wrong person at the wrong moment, and you can have a massacre of innocents. The terorrist from South Carolina, his mind apparently poisoned with an ideology of racist hatred based on falsehoods may very well have been operating rationally, simply taking his false premises to their logical conclusion. We see countless examples of people doing likewise in the name of the Islamic faith, too, most notably the terrorists who attacked on September 11, 2001. Were these people insane? I guess it depends on your definition of ‘insanity’, but I find it much more likely that these sorts of terrorists are operating rationally, but going forward on false premises. (History is replete with examples of entire nations carrying bad ideas to their logical conclusion: North Korea, the Islamic State, the USSR, Nazi Germany, just to name a few.) So: yes, bad ideas do indeed lead to the deaths of thousands — nay, millions — every year.
  2. The right to freedom of expression slots in behind freedom of thought in its potential danger to society. Depending on what you’re saying, where you are, and what actions/inactions you’re favoring, a simple word of command can result in the deaths of millions.
  3. The right to vote (self-determination) – thanks to the prevalence of weapons of mass destruction, and depending on the person or referenda you supported with your vote, quite a few people can be killed in under thirty minutes. (The minimum qualifications for someone to be President and thus in charge of America’s nuclear deterrent are shockingly low – 35 years of age and a ‘natural born citizen’. The minimum qualifications to be a voter are even lower.)
  4. Right to due process of law – if you’re a police officer who (correctly) has a hunch that someone of being a pathological killer who will murder again soon, but doesn’t have probable cause for a warrant, the exercise of this right can result in many people dying.
  5. Right to liberty – this one pretty much encompasses everything, but taken strictly, it includes pretty much everything else…including buying and owning AR 15 rifles and pieces of stamped metal without prior training or government approval. Which, with the wrong mindset in the wrong person at the wrong place and time can result in injury or death. The same as the other rights mentioned above.

So the idea that any particular right can be singled out is a non-starter; all of them are prone to abuse that could result in injury, death, or other catastrophic events.

To succeed and endure, any free society requires a considerable amount of personal responsibility and character from its citizenry. Any society can be ‘safe’ in terms of crime and accidents simply by using government power to suppress the liberties of its people. We’d have a much better record on highway safety, for instance, if we required people to go through a much more rigorous driver training regimen than they do now. Germany, for instance, requires people to go through a much more extensive and expensive (average cost = $1,800, according to the Wikipedia) course of driver training than we do in the States. It would also mean poorer people would have more difficulty getting a car in the first place (which, in a country as expansive as the USA, means limiting opportunities for work.)

A safer society would be a less-free society, with its people enjoying far fewer opportunities for creativity, romantic relationships, employment, investments, freedom from official harassment, and the general pursuit of our own individual happiness. In many cases we’ve found it good to impose certain regulations on certain kinds of behavior. In some cases, we impose the regulation regardless of other costs it might impose on human freedom — hence, murder, rape, kidnapping, fraud, and the like are all illegal. Our government, however, has imposed a series of other regulations whose purpose appears to be less aimed at promoting safety, and more toward appeasing a favored political group with a political axe to grind. National and local governments in the USA have a long history of doing this, even from its inception — from the outrageousness of the Fugitive Slave Acts and Jim Crow, to petty regulations on African hair braiders.

As a result, in this country (and, I take from Paul’s spelling of “behaviour” that he not native to the USA,) the Bill of Rights were drafted to establish protections for basic rights that were considered pre-existing. One of those was the right to keep and bear arms, because the framers of the Constitution were well aware that the existence of an armed citizenry helped the colonists retain their liberty against the British Crown, and were also aware that this check might be needed in future against an American government that might become similarly oppressive and unresponsive to its people.

In other words: our society has already struck the balance of freedom vs. safety on the issue of guns. Politically, many find this undesirable–either from a sincerity based in ignorance, or simply because (like, for example, plutocrat Michael Bloomberg,) they simply don’t believe that the average person is intelligent or wise enough to manage their own affairs.

Now, you might argue that we ought to re-visit this balance, and revise it. Well, revisiting the ideas in the Constitution is always worth doing (Thomas Jefferson felt that there ought to be a revolution every generation, to make sure everyone was on board with the basic laws of the country,) but in this case, such a step should not be taken lightly. The tendency of governments has been to concentrate power–to borrow from Thucydides, governments tend “to rule wherever they can.” Once we accept legally and politically that it’s all right to eviscerate one right in the name of safety, is it a stretch to believe that eviscerating other rights will follow, the next time someone else gets offended or fearful at the free exercise of another of those rights? Perhaps we can trash one right and remain a mostly free society.

I have my doubts.

This isn’t a question based purely on matters of law, either. I have long held the belief that once a society starts to disarm its people, those people tend to become more willing to follow the demands of whomever appears to be the most threatening. Seeing what recently happened in France — the abject surrender of the humorists at Charlie Hebdo to threats of violence from people acting in the name of Islam — may be instructive here.

None of the above is to deny that everyone who purchases a firearm for personal self-defense ought to take and pass a serious course at the time of purchase. Nor should it deny that anyone who drives a car in the snow belt ought to take and pass a serious course on driving in the snow, anyone who doesn’t tow things or live in a rural area and intends to buy an SUV ought to spend a week driving a minivan to see if that might suit their needs better, or that anyone who intends to vote in an election ought to learn about the candidates, research the issues at stake dispassionately (which also implies that they ought to be literate, too.) I could go on and on with a list of ‘oughts’ that — again, in my opinion — would make the world a better, safer, more prosperous place. It’s easy to come up with ‘oughts’. The problem is when we start turning our ‘oughts’ into ‘musts’ through state action, we start limiting the freedom available to the people.

In sum: we’ve prioritized liberty over safety in this country. That liberty comes with a price, and part of that price is finding a way to deal with the people who are violently insane, irrational, dumb, or ignorant, without sacrificing the liberty we desire in the first place. Until we can find a way to make better citizens out of everyone, it means that we’re going to have to understand — and plan for — a certain amount of violence in our society, perhaps more so than other countries who do not prioritize liberty as we do.

There is no simplistic, bumper sticker solution to that problem. I wish there were.

 

DISCLAIMER: The above is an opinion piece; it is not legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship in any sense. If you need legal advice in any matter, you are strongly urged to hire and consult your own counsel. This post is entirely my own, and does not represent the positions, opinions, or strategies of my firm or clients.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

67 COMMENTS

  2. Last time I checked any idiot could walk into a dealership and buy a car. There’s no license requirement for purchase. Hell, there’s not even a legal age limit. The example (much like the commenter himself) is mentally deficient.

    • No license required for purchase, but if you want to drive it off the lot you will need one.

      • If you want to drive it off the lot you can bring-along a straw-driver. No one would bat an eye.

        Moreover, if you drove it off the lot yourself without a license there would be no one – not even the dealer – who would impose the prior restraint of requiring you to show a driver’s license.

        In fact, we never demand to see driver’s licenses from parking lot valets. Nor, do valets require us to show our driver’s license when they return our cars to us.

        Similarly, I never ask my mechanic to show me his driver’s license even when I know he will test drive my car.

        We do next-to-nothing to enforce the laws against texting-while-driving. Can you imagine a more dangerous practice that we accept as normal and unenforced? The most irresponsible drivers on the road are teenagers; the very same people addicted to instantaneous response to texts.

        It would be a fairly simple matter to install electronics in cars and cell-phones to disable the texting capability of any cell phone device within a few feet of the center of a car. Given the turn-over in cars and cell-phones, within 3 years the problem of texting while driving would be largely wrapped-up.

        Similarly, it would be a fairly simple matter to install a breathalyzer in all cars that would prevent the ignition from starting the car unless the driver were sober.

        No such “common sense” measures would be discussed seriously in a society such as ours with a commitment to liberty and individual responsibility.

        Yet, GunZZZZZ are treated as a special case – the ONE special case where there is an explicit limitation “shall not be infringed”.

        • I’ve tried to explain to lots of younger people , even my own children , or country was founded upon the principle that liberty comes with a high price even and up to our very lives . There in A # 2 .
          It was based on the premise that the citizenry ( special inclusion , participating in general aspects of citizenry ) would be educated and moral ( having a character that was generally in line with common moral law ) and responsible ( originally , land owners , both male or female , i.e. , tax payers ) . When this basic criteria broke then so to the republic , there were many debates as to how much moral decay could or would be tolerated before great loss of liberty would be seen . America has seen the experiment unfold several times already , the glaring example would be alcohol prohibition laws that began as a socially acceptable loss of liberty to protect moral society but quickly it became apparent that the loss of liberty to be immoral ( get drunk ) was worse than the vice it stimulated to control it . The balance between vice and liberty is delicate indeed . Most young people today have little to no historical background to form adequate opinions and no current tribulations created by their current deeds , save for the scourge of pharmaceuticals and the reoccurrence of the near Asia heroin epidemic .

        • Mark PA,
          That phrase you used “straw driver” really cracked me up! Got to go to a car lot, with a friend, and use it!

      • I purchased a motorcycle a couple weeks ago from a dealer. I had to show my ID for the test ride. But there was no requirement during the purchase process to show ID. You could walk onto a dealer’s lot, pick out your vehicle, pay cash, fill out the paperwork, and ride/drive off without ever showing ID.

      • Not true. But I am tired of posting and reposting the info disprovin g this mistaken belief.
        The right to travel includes using the conventional means of the day, for personal purposes.

      • Actually, no, not in CA. The dealer is only out to sell cars. They’re not cops and have no law enforcement authority, and what dealer is going to turn down a sale?

      • I’m not sure where you guys are buying your cars but I bought a new car (VW) in April, I had my own financing and the deal was made over the phone. I showed up to pay for it and drive away. I had to show my NC driver’s license, proof of insurance and give them my SSN. I was fine with everything but the SSN and when I told them I didn’t want to give it they said “we can’t sell it to you without it”. It’s a government mandate not a VW requirement.

    • Also, there is no requirement for licensure of the operator if it is used on private property (farm truck, racetrack only, etc).

  3. The anti gun liberals, progressives, leftists, Democrats, Republicans, or whatever flavor they come in, all stand for forcing the citizens to meet onerous Government mandates. Certainly, none of us would disagree, that weapons training, and lots of it, enhances safety. The issue at hand is if that training is Government mandated or not. Those of us who were raised properly got our training from our fathers. And we pass it on to our sons and daughters. And that is what I call responsible citizenship. I cannot abide ANY form of Government mandate on the exercising of our natural, civil, and Constitutionally protected rights.

  4. Back in the day the SCOTUS ruled slavery trumped the natural right to freedom because it benefited the “greater good.”
    John Marshall I think it was who wrote that ruling.

    So much evil can be found in the greater good.

  5. Anybody with even a tiny amount of critical thinking would be able to reach the conclusion that rights should not be regulated… Did your libby sense start to tingle? It’s still illegal to discharge a firearm in city limits is it not? Now see how that was still illegal even if the guy was a multiple felon and the firearm was a ma deuce? Zero regulation and yes some people might break a law but it shouldn’t be against the law to exercise a riht

  6. “any moron could go into a dealership and come out driving a car with no training”

    Sure, any moron with 40, 50 or 60 thousand dollars.

    Clearly the citizens of this country are so untrustworthy and irresponsible that any statist who can imagine any risk involving any activity has a bullet proof argument for federal intervention. We will only be free to be safe when the US criminal code can be modified at will by any federal government employee with an overactive imagination.

    Private firearms ownership has been the rule in this country for hundreds of years. There are hundreds of millions of firearms in private hands today. Gun control liars/propagandists have taken on the unenviable task of convincing the American people they are too stupid, incompetent, irresponsible and “untrained” to continue the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. No wonder they lost.

    • I’m not sure what the price of cars has to do with your argument, but you can find cars for a tiny fraction of that at a used dealer. You can find other motor vehicles that require even stricter licensing to operate legally, like a 50cc scooter, for under $1000.

  7. Anybody with even a tiny amount of critical thinking would be able to reach the conclusion that rights should not be regulated… Did your libby sense start to tingle? It’s still illegal to discharge a firearm in city limits is it not? Now see how that was still illegal even if the guy was a multiple felon and the firearm was a ma deuce? Zero regulation and yes some people might break a law but it shouldn’t be against the law to exercise a right. It can be against the law to abuse a right, ie discharging in public with no threat.

  8. Freedom of speech has been a part of most killings, particularly mass killings by governments. Why?

    The weapon is nothing without the motive to use it. Ideas motivate actions, for good and for bad. It’s the idea that spurs folks to find the weapons to use towards some goal. Be it murder, robbery, the imposition of moral codes, values, religions, conformance with an authority.

  9. Extraordinarily well written.

    And, at that, the “price” we pay for liberty of arms is relatively small given the size of our population.

    The homicide demographics are not really about lawfully owned arms; they are about prohibited-persons having acquired a gun and used it in a homicide (or other violent crime). This isn’t a failure of liberty; it’s a failure of the criminal justice system; an entirely separate topic.

    The suicide statistics are not about the cost of liberty on public safety. These statistics are almost entirely about the failure of mental hygiene in our public health services. (By public health I’m not confining “public” to the office of the Surgeon General etc. but rather to everything we do in society – public and private – to make mental health screening and services available to everyone.) Suicides do not impact on others apart from dependents and loved-ones of the suicide. Means are substitutable.

    When looked at objectively, the “price” we pay in public safety to preserve liberty is a pittance. Once we factor in the deterrent effect of armed defenders, the net cost/benefit is overwhelmingly on the side of public safety.

  10. Here go with another outsider trying too tell us what to do or how not to do something , just a Blow hard, who believes Regurgitation of Idiocy will make this world a better place and this lonely persons life much better, because he sure told them, this mind reader and Murphy proof gentleman has all the answers just listen too him as he will tell you so, just another twisted sister with his panty’s in a bunch! because Accidents happen and not being a Higher level of intelligence he doesn’t understand that he is powerless too prevent Accidents, with the IQ of a Piss Ant his ignorance makes him self totally enraged!

  11. Who said anything about limiting someones rights (in the original article referenced)?
    A self appointed security guard/private gun owner was “guarding” as he saw it. The property owner didn’t do anything at that point. After he managed to shoot off a round unintentionally and negligently, endangering himself and anyone nearby, and cause law enforcement intervention, he was asked to leave by the property owner.
    The article above is so long winded and rambling that it’s hard to get the point. My eyes glazed over and I couldn’t finish reading it all.

    • Actually, it seems that the danger his actions posed were modest.

      I’m not here as an apologist for this guy. I strongly criticize his actions, lack of training and any sense in handling his gun.

      Nevertheless, I take it that his shot was aimed at asphalt, not concrete. While not the best choice of backstop, asphalt isn’t a bad choice. The round did no damage and was unlikely to do much damage.

      I decline to give this guy the benefit of the doubt; i.e., that he only undertook to remove the round from the chamber because he could aim at a reasonably good back-stop. Perhaps he would have done so if the ground were paved in concrete.

      Mostly, he is an embarrassment to the community of safe gun handlers.

    • The right supercedes the constitution in my book. Amend away, but I’m keeping the guns.

  14. Jefferson said: Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. (I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.)

    Here is the sentence in context:

    “Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it’s evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem. Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” – Jefferson to James Madison, January 30, 1787

    • I was trying to remember how he worded that when I read your comment Thanks .
      I think Thomas Jefferson was one of the most incredible critical thinkers of his time or sense. All young people should have to study all of Jefferson’s writings an letters before driving a car , owning a firearm or voting . Well , maybe not forced to , but highly motivated to . God bless , Thanks again .

    • Man, the placement of that comma is making me twitch, and it’s in the source material, too. He’s literally saying “I prefer dangerous, liberty over peaceful slavery.” It’s so weird.

  15. One of the best articles I’ve read on this website. Johannes, you’ve done an exemplary job. Thank you.

  17. “Oughts” are a lot like ethics in that they are recommended ideals that go beyond the base requirements of “the law”
    For instance, the sign may say “70 MPH Speed Limit” but the pouring rain,slick streets or other adverse conditions mean drivers “ought” to slow down and exercise more caution, but they are not legally required to do so.

    • In Illinois, if you’re in an accident and they can’t find a specific law to charge you with, you’ll get a ticket for “driving too fast for conditions,” regardless of the conditions.

      • They won’t always do this in Colorado, but if you lose control on ice or something like that and get into an accident, then they will certainly say you were driving too fast for conditions.

  18. So if I wanted to hunt say a deer and I was on one side of your property and the deer was on the other side of your property and the line of fire put the bullet trajectory a couple feet from your child’s bedroom window, would you take liberty or safety?

    Explain how having to go to your local range or PD once every 5+ years to demonstrate you know how to safely handle a firearm takes anything away from your liberty.

    “and part of that price is finding a way to deal with the people who are violently insane, irrational, dumb, or ignorant”

    The “price” as you put it is TRUE common sense and a balance. The problem is that you are no better than the anti’s, your just on the exact opposite side with neither side being right or using common sense.

    Laws exist to protect the citizens from the “violently insane, irrational, dumb, or ignorant”

    So yes anyone who is not insane or criminally violent should be allowed to own a gun, but it they want to carry it in public they should be required to show competence.

    • Sorry John, Laws offer absolutely ZERO protection. Laws only codify an act and enumerate punishment. Paper will never be a deterrent of any kind.

    • So if I wanted to hunt say a deer and I was on one side of your property and the deer was on the other side of your property and the line of fire put the bullet trajectory a couple feet from your child’s bedroom window, would you take liberty or safety?
      That’s restricted for two reasons. 1) You’d be poaching off your neighbor’s land. 2) Pointing a weapon in the direction of another person, without justification (e.g. self defense) is a crime.

      Explain how having to go to your local range or PD once every 5+ years to demonstrate you know how to safely handle a firearm takes anything away from your liberty.
      That should be pretty obvious. Anything that requires a person to act violates his liberty to choose not to take that action. And it’s not difficult to then change “safely handle” to the point that nobody may legally own or carry a firearm. And what about the people who have to take time off from work, costing them pay they need, or who can’t get time off without getting fired? What about the people who can’t easily afford a car to travel to the local sheriff or can’t afford the fees? We abolished poll taxes in this country, because it was a means of disenfranchising the poor. Gun and carry licensing schemes are a way of disarming the poor.

      “and part of that price is finding a way to deal with the people who are violently insane, irrational, dumb, or ignorant”
      The “price” as you put it is TRUE common sense and a balance. The problem is that you are no better than the anti’s, your just on the exact opposite side with neither side being right or using common sense.
      An outlandish claim without any backing or merit. This article is full of common sense. Unfortunately common sense isn’t very common these days.

      Laws exist to protect the citizens from the “violently insane, irrational, dumb, or ignorant”
      So yes anyone who is not insane or criminally violent should be allowed to own a gun, but it they want to carry it in public they should be required to show competence.
      Required by whom? Who gets to decide competence? You? The DC police chief? Once such restrictions exist, the right ceases to be a right. All they have to do is keep increasing the training requirement and fees until nobody can qualify.

      • Well said . I was going to add a few things but I went back and read over a couple more times and I says to myself , self , he nailed it . Thanks . NUFF SAID

    • In addition to another poster’s response, I find this comment ridiculous in that the given example doesn’t constitute liberty. Shooting into/across another person’s property without permission is a violation of private property rights. It is also illegal under current law – not to mention very poor manners. Depending on the circumstances, if there is sufficient evidence, an attempted murder charge could be warranted.

      Good job trolling, though. I love your use of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Not to mention the “for the children” trademark.

    • “…and the line of fire put the bullet trajectory a couple feet from your child’s bedroom window, would you take liberty or safety?”

      There we have John’s crash-and-burn failure to understand the principle being discussed.

      No one suggests that liberty justifies unsafe behaviors. There is no end to the number of unsafe things we can do that violate no law but risk human life. Endangering people’s lives is, generally, a crime in and of itself. In my state you would be charged with “reckless endangerment.”

      Regardless of my training level, coordination or intelligence, carrying a pistol in a holster does not pose a risk to anyone. If I pull it out and start pointing it at people, we now have a safety issue.

    • Then tell me why waiting for 10 months for my CCW in California made the world or me any safer? I do have one example: Hunter Safety. I California to get a hunting license requires proof of a hunter safety course. I took when I was about 25, the closest place offered them quarterly and on weekends only. I worked in business that required weekend work. You were considered slacker or weakling if you wanted a weekend off, it was highly discouraged. Luckily the boss was into hunting and put together a hunting trip and invited me and gave me the time off to go. They issued a paper card with no backup documentation. Within a year it went missing. You cannot sign an affidavit, there is no database. So at 56 years old, if I decided I wanted to hunt, I would have to go to the nearest place that offers the course bi-monthly about 100 miles away. How does that insure our safety?

  19. “So if I wanted to hunt say a deer and I was on one side of your property and the deer was on the other side of your property and the line of fire put the bullet trajectory a couple feet from your child’s bedroom window, would you take liberty or safety?”

    To be honest, your comment is pretty nonsensical.

    A person immoral or dumb enough to do something like that isn’t going to be deterred by laws or regulations. Sure, you can have all the training requirements for gun ownership you want, but the aforementioned person will *still* get a gun and do their stupid deed regardless. Then what? Even more training requirements? Waiting periods on gun purchases? Background checks? More regulations that do nothing to prevent such scenarios?

    Do you see how such things snowball?

    Liberty and personal responsibility, otherwise you are essentially a robot or child.

    • The Constitutional right is to “keep and bear arms” and, the core purpose is self-defense. There is no Constitutional right to hunt no-matter-what. Indeed, we have State laws governing hunting; even limiting the quantity to be harvested to 0 or 1 or a few animals.

      There is no Constitutional right to discharge a weapon (other than for the core purpose of self-defense). There is a Constitutional right to train and practice consistent with public safety and peace. If my municipality concludes that my back yard is not a place suitable for target practice with public safety and peace-and-quiet, then it has police power to regulate the practice. However, as Chicago has discovered, its police power remains limited by the 2A’s implied right of the People to practice somewhere within their municipality once reasonable provision is made for safety and peace-and-quiet.

      We are here to vociferously defend the RKBA; we aren’t here to defend irresponsible uses of arms that lack a reasonable relationship to keeping and bearing for personal safety and the security of a free state.

    • Dumb doesn’t equal criminal, so yes a “dumb” person would probably not do something like that if it was illegal.
      This insistence on ANY restriction or requirement on a right is unconstitutional or make that right no longer a right is ignorant, hypocritical or just an out right lie to try and force an opinion.
      No one in there right mind would let a 5 year old carry a loaded pistol. Yet the Second Amendment makes no mention of age. Why we do this is TRUE common sense, a 5 year old isn’t mentally mature enough or mentally capable of handling the responsibility of carrying a gun.
      Yet the restriction is excepted invalidating exactly the argument made regarding restrictions or requirements. If you except the age restriction you invalidate your own argument.
      My argument however is for TRUE common sense requirements. If we all know a 5 year old isn’t mentally capable of handling a gun, then at what age are they. Is 18 or 21 some magical number that automatically means they are now mentally capable of handling a gun? I am pretty sure we all know that isn’t true in a lot of cases. So then how do we know when a person is capable. The short answer is we don’t and never will. But if your going to except the restriction on 5 year old, then you must except other common sense restrictions. If you don’t your just a hypocrite invalidating his own argument.
      As for your argument on additional regulations, if those regulations actually make sense then they should exist. No different than the first amendment and yelling fire in a crowded theater.
      My point as in my previous post is the same.
      You can’t argue an issue based on the stance that a new law, restriction or requirement is wrong or unconstitutional simply based on the “shall not be infringed” part of the amendment. Anyone with any common sense realizes that some people should not have guns, therefor there must be restrictions. I have just as much right to not be shot by some yahoo with a 2nd Amendment chip on his shoulder as he has to carry his gun for self defense. So a balance must be found and throwing up the “shall not be infringed” all the time is not finding a balance.
      The right to self defense and preservation of life does not come ate the expense of another innocent’s life.

      • I would say around the age of 7 , rats around he chicken coup or groundhogs and rabbit and squirrels . 10 is a pretty good age for bigger stuff and by 16 , ready for boot camp . No wait , that was what we call the greatest generation .

        • A couple of months ago I watched a diminutive 8 year old girl score 553 out of 600 in a 60 round match. She was shooting a full power bolt action .308 with a junior size stock. The match was at 600 yards.

          I would trust her with about anything.

      • I would say around the age of 7 , rats around the chicken coup or groundhogs and rabbit and squirrels . 10 is a pretty good age for bigger stuff and by 16 , ready for boot camp . No wait , that was what we call the greatest generation . It really depends on maturity and environment .

    • Another way of putting it , YOU CAN’T REGULATE STUPID .
      Stupid is as stupid does .
      You should never point a barrel toward any window , much less my childs , that would be STUPID .

  20. I’d wager that, over the history of the world, free speech is responsible for more deaths than any other natural right. Granted, folks used weapons to do the killing, but the free speech is what inspired/motivated them to do so.

  22. The spelling of the word, “behaviour” is a give a way marker, you’re busted.

    I as an American citizen am granted and have the Right to bear arms, a license is not needed. Automobile operation is a Privilege, not a Right. Licensing is registration and will lead to the end of the 2A sooner or later. I’m personally sick of this ridiculous license argument.

  23. Though I realize that this comment adds nothing constructive to discussion, I would like to mention my appreciation of this article. It was well-written, well-reasoned, and very much to the point. Nicely done!

  24. I do believe this is certainly among the list of so much important details personally auto ceiling. Using this program . satisfied mastering ones document. Nonetheless wish to commentary on quite a few frequent troubles, Your website style is extremely good, the actual content is definitely exceptional : Debbie. Beneficial job, many thanks

Comments are closed.