My kid is learning to drive and I was surprised he doesn’t need insurance. But the reason is I’m still the “driver” while he is operating the car. Im responsible for issues, my insurance pays any claim, and of course I can’t have a couple beers despite not being behind the wheel. We have an example
Why can’t we model responsible Gun ownership after cars and driving?
Because the right to keep and bear arms is an individual constitutional right. It would be like modeling your right to join and raise your kid in a religion off of licensing requirements for being a doctor. (And hey, religion will fuck kids up for the rest of their lives, even if they manage to escape.)
Ok, then free speech. Also in the Bill of Rights as an individual right the government can’t infringe.
Yet there are limits, there are consequences, non-government entities do not need to abide. The classic example is you can’t yell “FIRE!” In a crowded theater. Your right to free speech ends when it endangers someone else.
Similarly, your right to bear arms should be limited when it endangers someone. If you bring a weapon to a bar, a crowded space, carry in a city, brandish it during road rage, or when someone rings the doorbell, or if someone is able to access your weapon or you keep your ammo in the same place as your weapon, or you let someone use it without training, or you do something stupid when people are around, or you hunt by. Blasting away at every rustling bush, or you hunt where your bullet can co e down where there are people, then you are endangering people. You not respecting the tool and its capabilities shows that you are not fit to carry. There are consequences, and they need to happen before you actually hurt or kill someone
So, restrict rights before they can potentially be used in a way that might cause injury to someone, correct?
So, it would be reasonable to have a political literacy test before allowing someone to vote, since their voting patterns have the potential to cause real harms, correct? Or to ensure that you aren’t allowed to read about Nazi ideology, so you can’t copy it?
or you keep your ammo in the same place as your weapon,
…Isn’t that the entire point of having a firearm if you intend to use it to defend your life? I literally have a gun beside my door that I put in my pocket before I get the mail because we have aggressive bears in my area that are too comfortable with people. I’ve had bears on my front porch, I had one that tried to come in through a window screen.
Consequences can not happen before; consequences are something that happen after the fact. You can’t redefine consequence as something that happens to you in order to prevent you from doing a thing that you might not have done in the first place. What you’re proposing would be like preemptively jailing someone because they fit the patterns of someone that might be more likely to commit a crime at some point in the future.
or you keep your ammo in the same place as your weapon,
…Isn’t that the entire point of having a firearm if you intend to use it to defend your life?
Sure, that’s the big contradiction n trying to keep a firearm for self-defense. If it’s readily accessible, odds are more likely someone will be shot on accident or a moment of emotion, than that you’ll defend yourself. If it’s locked up, with the ammo elsewhere, you’re following best practices to keep your family and friends, and yourself safe, but then can’t use it to defend yourself
My kid is learning to drive and I was surprised he doesn’t need insurance. But the reason is I’m still the “driver” while he is operating the car. Im responsible for issues, my insurance pays any claim, and of course I can’t have a couple beers despite not being behind the wheel. We have an example
Why can’t we model responsible Gun ownership after cars and driving?
Because the right to keep and bear arms is an individual constitutional right. It would be like modeling your right to join and raise your kid in a religion off of licensing requirements for being a doctor. (And hey, religion will fuck kids up for the rest of their lives, even if they manage to escape.)
Ok, then free speech. Also in the Bill of Rights as an individual right the government can’t infringe.
Yet there are limits, there are consequences, non-government entities do not need to abide. The classic example is you can’t yell “FIRE!” In a crowded theater. Your right to free speech ends when it endangers someone else.
Similarly, your right to bear arms should be limited when it endangers someone. If you bring a weapon to a bar, a crowded space, carry in a city, brandish it during road rage, or when someone rings the doorbell, or if someone is able to access your weapon or you keep your ammo in the same place as your weapon, or you let someone use it without training, or you do something stupid when people are around, or you hunt by. Blasting away at every rustling bush, or you hunt where your bullet can co e down where there are people, then you are endangering people. You not respecting the tool and its capabilities shows that you are not fit to carry. There are consequences, and they need to happen before you actually hurt or kill someone
So, restrict rights before they can potentially be used in a way that might cause injury to someone, correct?
So, it would be reasonable to have a political literacy test before allowing someone to vote, since their voting patterns have the potential to cause real harms, correct? Or to ensure that you aren’t allowed to read about Nazi ideology, so you can’t copy it?
…Isn’t that the entire point of having a firearm if you intend to use it to defend your life? I literally have a gun beside my door that I put in my pocket before I get the mail because we have aggressive bears in my area that are too comfortable with people. I’ve had bears on my front porch, I had one that tried to come in through a window screen.
Consequences can not happen before; consequences are something that happen after the fact. You can’t redefine consequence as something that happens to you in order to prevent you from doing a thing that you might not have done in the first place. What you’re proposing would be like preemptively jailing someone because they fit the patterns of someone that might be more likely to commit a crime at some point in the future.
Sure, that’s the big contradiction n trying to keep a firearm for self-defense. If it’s readily accessible, odds are more likely someone will be shot on accident or a moment of emotion, than that you’ll defend yourself. If it’s locked up, with the ammo elsewhere, you’re following best practices to keep your family and friends, and yourself safe, but then can’t use it to defend yourself