Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Discussion Forums > The Club House > Driving!!!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-23-2012, 06:22 AM   #41
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Eturnsdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,211
Liked 643 Times on 398 Posts
Likes Given: 219

Default

Should you be able to keep and bear arms without passing a proficiency test first?

__________________

“Every person's life is theirs by right. An individual's life can and must belong only to to himself, not to any society or community, or he is then but a slave.”

“If you are unwilling to defend your right to your own lives, then you are merely like mice trying to argue with owls. You think their ways are wrong. They think you are dinner.”

“Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent."

“Not everyone is willing to embrace liberty; liberty requires not just effort, but risk. Some people choose to delude themselves and see their chains as protective armor.”

Eturnsdale is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 06:39 AM   #42
War and Peace
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Axxe55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Texas by God, Texas!
Posts: 24,503
Liked 16876 Times on 9779 Posts
Likes Given: 43998

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eturnsdale View Post
Should you be able to keep and bear arms without passing a proficiency test first?
yes! but many states now require one if you hunt. hunter safety courses are required in many states before you can purchase a hunting license.

i see where you are headed with this line of thinking, and it's not that i totally disagree with you. most people operate motor vehicles on a daily basis much more than they use firearms. i don't advocate people using firearms in an unsafe manner either. there are those who shouldn't operate amotor vehicle, just as i think there are those who shouldn't own a firearm either.

in a sense, the ATF 4473 form is a type of qualification criteria that is used to qualify a person in buying a firearm. would we want a criminal or someone with a mental defect buying a firearm? i don't think so. so if a person can be disqualified because they have a criminal past, can't we disqualify a person for not operating a motor vehicle in a safe manner?
__________________
Coming from the Village of the Damned.
Axxe55 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 06:58 AM   #43
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Eturnsdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,211
Liked 643 Times on 398 Posts
Likes Given: 219

Default

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

Quote:
Originally Posted by axxe55 View Post
yes! but many states now require one if you hunt. hunter safety courses are required in many states before you can purchase a hunting license.
That is another hornet's nest that I won't go into.

Quote:
i see where you are headed with this line of thinking, and it's not that i totally disagree with you. most people operate motor vehicles on a daily basis much more than they use firearms. i don't advocate people using firearms in an unsafe manner either. there are those who shouldn't operate amotor vehicle, just as i think there are those who shouldn't own a firearm either.
I would not advocate any unsafe act. But it is the mentality of the "its for our safety" that got us in this mess in the first place.

Quote:
in a sense, the ATF 4473 form is a type of qualification criteria that is used to qualify a person in buying a firearm. would we want a criminal or someone with a mental defect buying a firearm? i don't think so. so if a person can be disqualified because they have a criminal past, can't we disqualify a person for not operating a motor vehicle in a safe manner?
I would disagree. "no freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms" Under the current definition, a felon that has been released from prison still is not a free man. A person who has been adjudicated as mentally ill is not a free man. The 4473 is not a qualification, but a disqualification. Anyone who is a "free man" is not barred. My opinions on this go into much more detail, but it's almost two am, and five am will be fast upon us.

Children (persons under the age of 18) are not "free men" They are under their parent's control until they are 18, or have "divorced" their parents. As they are not free persons they are not able to exercise all of their natural rights, unless allowed to by their parents. So it would not be unconstitutional to require a proficiency test for them to exercise these rights.

Ala, a kid, sixteen years old, wants to travel, she either has to take the test, or wait until she is a "free man".

No Constitutional issues.


I was trying to lead you, as well as others, so that you would come to this conclusion yourselves. Perhaps Im not as good at teaching as I thought.
__________________

“Every person's life is theirs by right. An individual's life can and must belong only to to himself, not to any society or community, or he is then but a slave.”

“If you are unwilling to defend your right to your own lives, then you are merely like mice trying to argue with owls. You think their ways are wrong. They think you are dinner.”

“Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent."

“Not everyone is willing to embrace liberty; liberty requires not just effort, but risk. Some people choose to delude themselves and see their chains as protective armor.”


Last edited by Eturnsdale; 10-23-2012 at 07:00 AM.
Eturnsdale is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 07:17 AM   #44
War and Peace
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Axxe55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Texas by God, Texas!
Posts: 24,503
Liked 16876 Times on 9779 Posts
Likes Given: 43998

Default

Eturnsdale, your quick and intelligent and i like that! i don't fully agree with you, but i do see your point. and you make some very valid and legitimate arguments that i find hard to find fault with.

so much for a healthy debate, but it is late and too need to get some sleep also. later.

__________________
Coming from the Village of the Damned.
Axxe55 is offline  
Eturnsdale Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 07:29 AM   #45
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2
Default

Does anyone know where to find Remington model 41 target master part or. Winchester models 37 parts I pick these up for my twin boys an they both need a few small pieces

__________________
ybjoking is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 08:15 AM   #46
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mason609's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Quincy,MA
Posts: 1,274
Liked 530 Times on 313 Posts
Likes Given: 2836

Default

Eturnsdale, could you provide links to that actual decisions for Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579 and Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221? All I could find on them were websites quoting what you quoted, and no text of the actual cases.

As far as Kent goes, that was in regards to foreign travel, specifically passports. This is not a driving case.

As for Hurtado, that has nothing to do with travel. That's straight due process (you should specify).

Bennett, same thing.

3 cases that have nothing what so ever to do with driving. Too many cases that I couldn't find any text on (that wasn't a quote on a website).

I know this isn't a "driving case", but it is relevant...

A SCOTUS decision in 1878 (Reynolds v United States 98 U.S. 145) - "Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order," the chief justice wrote.

The Court turned to Reynolds time after time as it considered many questions about free exercise of religion. The decision is notable for distinguishing between the freedom of conscience, which is protected under the Constitution, and freedom of religious action, which is not.

Therefore, while the act of traveling may indeed be a right, the means by which it is done - not necessarily.

One could argue that one's "social duties" is to ensure they are not a hazard to another's life or limb while behind the wheel of a 2+ ton weapon.

__________________

Insert witty comment here......


Veritas Aequitas

Vincit Omnia Veritas

Vincere est Vivere


Last edited by Mason609; 10-23-2012 at 08:20 AM.
Mason609 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 11:43 AM   #47
Retired
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
danf_fl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: LA (Lower Alabama),FL
Posts: 9,729
Liked 2277 Times on 1362 Posts
Likes Given: 1063

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ybjoking View Post
Does anyone know where to find Remington model 41 target master part or. Winchester models 37 parts I pick these up for my twin boys an they both need a few small pieces
Please repost this in the gunsmith or the appropriate firearm section.

This will get "lost" in here.
__________________

Amendment II:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Life Member NRA
Life Member NAHC

danf_fl is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 12:51 PM   #48
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Eturnsdale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,211
Liked 643 Times on 398 Posts
Likes Given: 219

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason609 View Post
Eturnsdale, could you provide links to that actual decisions for Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579 and Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221? All I could find on them were websites quoting what you quoted, and no text of the actual cases.
In the past the only place that Ive found the full texts is at caselaw.edu and you need a paid membership. Mine has expired. But when I get back in today I will look around for you.

Quote:
As far as Kent goes, that was in regards to foreign travel, specifically passports. This is not a driving case.
You must not have read my post very well. I specifically said that case expanded the definition of the right to travel to that travel outside of the country.

Quote:
As for Hurtado, that has nothing to do with travel. That's straight due process (you should specify).

Bennett, same thing.

3 cases that have nothing what so ever to do with driving. Too many cases that I couldn't find any text on (that wasn't a quote on a website).
The other cases were included to solidify what I was saying. Look at the decisions and you should see exactly what I was saying.

I know this isn't a "driving case", but it is relevant...

Quote:
A SCOTUS decision in 1878 (Reynolds v United States 98 U.S. 145) - "Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order," the chief justice wrote.

The Court turned to Reynolds time after time as it considered many questions about free exercise of religion. The decision is notable for distinguishing between the freedom of conscience, which is protected under the Constitution, and freedom of religious action, which is not.

Therefore, while the act of traveling may indeed be a right, the means by which it is done - not necessarily.

One could argue that one's "social duties" is to ensure they are not a hazard to another's life or limb while behind the wheel of a 2+ ton weapon.

That is a very perverted opinion of the decision. But no it can not mean that unless you are willing to admit arms does not mean guns.

I will be back in a couple hours and Ill expand on this. I need more coffee.

In the interum, here is some reading along with citations.
http://www.landrights.com/The%20Charles%20Sprinkler%20File.htm
__________________

“Every person's life is theirs by right. An individual's life can and must belong only to to himself, not to any society or community, or he is then but a slave.”

“If you are unwilling to defend your right to your own lives, then you are merely like mice trying to argue with owls. You think their ways are wrong. They think you are dinner.”

“Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent."

“Not everyone is willing to embrace liberty; liberty requires not just effort, but risk. Some people choose to delude themselves and see their chains as protective armor.”


Last edited by Eturnsdale; 10-23-2012 at 01:05 PM.
Eturnsdale is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 01:11 PM   #49
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mason609's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Quincy,MA
Posts: 1,274
Liked 530 Times on 313 Posts
Likes Given: 2836

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eturnsdale View Post
In the past the only place that Ive found the full texts is at caselaw.edu and you need a paid membership. Mine has expired. But when I get back in today I will look around for you.
Ok



Quote:
You must not have read my post very well. I specifically said that case expanded the definition of the right to travel to that travel outside of the country.
Again, has nothing to do with any "right" to drive.



Quote:
The other cases were included to solidify what I was saying. Look at the decisions and you should see exactly what I was saying.
The other cases, the ones that I could actually find text on have NOTHING to do with driving. Yes, they do have to do with due process, but that is irrelevant to the point of whether driving an automobile is a "right" or not.



Quote:
That is a very perverted opinion of the decision. But no it can not mean that unless you are willing to admit arms does not mean guns.
Actually, no it's not a perverted opinion on the decision. That came directly from one of the Justices on that case (unless you are saying that his opinion is perverted, which then nullifies any court case you provide, as the same argument can be made about them).

However, no, I do not believe that the Arms mentioned in 2A specifically refers to firearms. I believe that they meant it as which ever weaponry we have available at the time. Maybe we as a society got rid of guns, and all we had were swords. However, reading many of the founders' thoughts on 2A, yes, some do actually specify firearms.

Quote:
I will be back in a couple hours and Ill expand on this. I need more coffee.
Coffee is always good.

Bottom line, if there is someone that poses a danger to society by being behind the wheel of a car, they should not be allowed behind the wheel.

Trust me, this is one debate you won't win with me. I lost a 7 year old niece to an elderly driver that couldn't see past 6 inches in front of her while wearing glasses that were a quarter inch thick.
__________________

Insert witty comment here......


Veritas Aequitas

Vincit Omnia Veritas

Vincere est Vivere

Mason609 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-23-2012, 01:15 PM   #50
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Mason609's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Quincy,MA
Posts: 1,274
Liked 530 Times on 313 Posts
Likes Given: 2836

Default

This is from the link that you provided...

"only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens"

Basically, a person that poses a danger to society by driving should not be allowed to drive.

As is this...

"but in his safe conduct"

__________________

Insert witty comment here......


Veritas Aequitas

Vincit Omnia Veritas

Vincere est Vivere

Mason609 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Texting & driving...... LONGHAIR The Club House 25 03-11-2012 10:50 PM
Driving me crazy!!! fmj AR-15 Discussion 19 03-08-2012 09:51 PM
Driving around Italy CourtJester The Club House 5 02-07-2011 04:41 AM
Some good driving... MGH The Club House 2 05-13-2010 04:44 PM