Recruiting forum off topic thread (no politics, covid, or hot button issues)

[Weezer]

Tragic but not seeing anything absurd.

It's absurd he wasn't charged with killing that little girl. I'm all for the right to bear arms, but that right doesn't allow you to kill indiscriminately. He should be in jail.

 

[Weezer]

If the government was really serious about accidental firearm mishaps, they'd offer free training for anyone that wanted it. They would want to promote firearms safety. Sadly their solution is take them away. They've demonized guns for so long real solutions are never on the table. And, as you've said, the bigger problem is inner city, illegal guns, gang violence.

It's not up to the government to make sure citizens know how to properly handle their weapons. We're in agreement that the government shouldn't be trying to usurp the right to bear arms, but you're promoting another kind of government overreach. Having rights doesn't make you devoid of consequences.

 

[therickbol]

It's not up to the government to make sure citizens know how to properly handle their weapons. We're in agreement that the government shouldn't be trying to usurp the right to bear arms, but you're promoting another kind of government overreach. Having rights doesn't make you devoid of consequences.

You do not think a government's responsibility to ensure safety to its citizens could include mandatory safety training to all gun owners? I am big on limiting government over-reaching and maintaining freedoms. But I do not see how that corresponds to this. The government requires that you demonstrate the ability to operate a motor vehicle safely before allowing you do drive (which puts other citizens safety in jeopardy). Not seeing how this suggestion would be any different. It absolutely is up to the government to make sure that citizens know how to properly handle a weapon. They certify people before they can become a doctor because it is a public safety issue. Operating motor vehicles, as I already mentioned. That are countless things that the government does that is done as a public safety measure. And it is not always an over-reach.

 

[UTMVol76]

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

-John Adams

 

[Weezer]

You do not think a government's responsibility to ensure safety to its citizens could include mandatory safety training to all gun owners? I am big on limiting government over-reaching and maintaining freedoms. But I do not see how that corresponds to this. The government requires that you demonstrate the ability to operate a motor vehicle safely before allowing you do drive (which puts other citizens safety in jeopardy). Not seeing how this suggestion would be any different. It absolutely is up to the government to make sure that citizens know how to properly handle a weapon. They certify people before they can become a doctor because it is a public safety issue. Operating motor vehicles, as I already mentioned. That are countless things that the government does that is done as a public safety measure. And it is not always an over-reach.

Does the government offer free driving lessons? What was being promoted was free government training. It's up to the user to know how to use it safely. And if you hit and kill someone with your car, that's vehicular manslaughter.

 

[therickbol]

Does the government offer free driving lessons? What was being promoted was free government training. It's up to the user to know how to use it safely. And if you hit and kill someone with your car, that's vehicular manslaughter.

Do you think it would be a net-positive or net-negative if the government required citizens with a driver's license to attend free driver training courses? Or would that invasion of your freedom outweigh the decrease in the number of vehicle-related injuries and deaths in the United States?

 

[Weezer]

Do you think it would be a net-positive or net-negative if the government required citizens with a driver's license to attend free driver training courses? Or would that invasion of your freedom outweigh the decrease in the number of vehicle-related injuries and deaths in the United States?

That would mean an increase in taxes. We don't need government to be our parent.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

You do not think a government's responsibility to ensure safety to its citizens could include mandatory safety training to all gun owners? I am big on limiting government over-reaching and maintaining freedoms. But I do not see how that corresponds to this. The government requires that you demonstrate the ability to operate a motor vehicle safely before allowing you do drive (which puts other citizens safety in jeopardy). Not seeing how this suggestion would be any different. It absolutely is up to the government to make sure that citizens know how to properly handle a weapon. They certify people before they can become a doctor because it is a public safety issue. Operating motor vehicles, as I already mentioned. That are countless things that the government does that is done as a public safety measure. And it is not always an over-reach.

Right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution. There is no right to drive in the Constitution.

That is the main difference.

 

[therickbol]

That would mean an increase in taxes. We don't need government to be our parent.

They have plenty of money. They need to use what they have in a MUCH more efficient way. They do NOT need more tax money. Your analogy is just too oversimplified (we do not need the government to be our parent). Man I wish that was true. Would be great. The entire reason that government exists is because people left to our own devices WILL violate the rights of other people. Most of the times that would be intentional. People will also do it out of negligence. The entire premise behind a government is that it provides public safety that would not exist in a state of nature. If that at times means the government should provide an avenue to decrease the human negligence that causes public safety issues then that is not a bad thing. There is not amount of structure or oversight that will remove purposeful or accidental deaths. But that doesn't mean you do not establish ways to reduce them. The problem is not the principle of the government doing those things. The problem is the ACTUAL PEOPLE who are given the authority to institute such things. Like you mentioned earlier with taxes. Too many people in government for the wrong reasons. Too much greed and abuse of power within the people in government positions.

 

[therickbol]

Right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution. There is no right to drive in the Constitution.

That is the main difference.

Explain to me how that pertains to the discussion about the government providing training to people who own guns? There is no discussion about taking any persons guns away. The 2nd amendment is 27 words. The implied powers of the Constitution go much further than the words written in 1787. Which is on purpose. The Framers knew they couldn't predict the future. How about them women and minorities that do not get to vote...you know based on the words in the Constitution?

 

[therickbol]

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

-John Adams

It is an unfortunate cause and effect of human nature. All governments are inadequate to govern immoral people. However, the fact that people are immoral is the exact reason that government must exist.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

Explain to me how that pertains to the discussion about the government providing training to people who own guns? There is no discussion about taking any persons guns away. The 2nd amendment is 27 words. The implied powers of the Constitution go much further than the words written in 1787. Which is on purpose. The Framers knew they couldn't predict the future. How about them women and minorities that do not get to vote...you know based on the words in the Constitution?

Wait, are we talking about the government offering gun safety training or requiring gun safety training in order to own a gun?

I'd also be interested to see where the Constituton ever denied voting rights to women or minorities.

 

[UTMVol76]

It is an unfortunate cause and effect of human nature. All governments are inadequate to govern immoral people. However, the fact that people are immoral is the exact reason that government must exist.

Correct. Also a reason the term A More Perfect was used instead of the word Perfect. The latter is unattainable. But our form of government requires not only a moral people, but a wise, educate, and engaged populace. When that ceases to be, maybe we have to change forms of government.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

It is an unfortunate cause and effect of human nature. All governments are inadequate to govern immoral people. However, the fact that people are immoral is the exact reason that government must exist.

"People are imperfect so we need a government (made up of people, mind you) to write rules for everybody."

I've always found that argument for government to be funny.

 

[therickbol]

"People are imperfect so we need a government (made up of people, mind you) to write rules for everybody."

I've always found that argument for government to be funny.

Writings of people like John Locke and Thomas Hobbes write about State of Nature quite a bit. Allowing humans to exist in society without protection of individuals right by some universal authority is an awful existence. Finding a universal authority to do a good job of providing what is needed is the issue.

 

[therickbol]

Correct. Also a reason the term A More Perfect was used instead of the word Perfect. The latter is unattainable. But our form of government requires not only a moral people, but a wise, educate, and engaged populace. When that ceases to be, maybe we have to change forms of government.

"A more perfect union" was a reference to the Articles of Confederation which was an abject failure of a government for the colonies. But yes, perfect is not an option.

 

[InVOLuntary]

It's not up to the government to make sure citizens know how to properly handle their weapons. We're in agreement that the government shouldn't be trying to usurp the right to bear arms, but you're promoting another kind of government overreach. Having rights doesn't make you devoid of consequences.

Where have I done that?

 

[InVOLuntary]

It's absurd he wasn't charged with killing that little girl. I'm all for the right to bear arms, but that right doesn't allow you to kill indiscriminately. He should be in jail.

It was an accident. Should we jail anyone responsible for a fatal car crash?

 

[Ulysees E. McGill]

Should serve as fair warning to all young folks, not to put dumb **** out on internet.

I think most level headed people, esp those to whom would be most impacted by slurs. Wouldnt care about this.

She was a dumb kid. Firing her is absolutely wrong precedent.

Make her give a public apology. Move on.

Why should she apologize? She did nothing wrong. I hate this stupid

 

[bigl3327]

Absolutely not, if it's mandated by the government. It's up to the individual to obtain the training they deem necessary. We don't require training for the consumption of alcohol which kills many more people via DUI than accidental shootings of this kind.

I'm 100% behind training. The better trained you are, the less likely something like this will happen but it shouldn't be government mandated. A silly 8hr course isn't sufficient training to prepare someone for what happens in a situation where one is assaulted. Truth is, no one knows hiw they'd react. Cops spend 100's of hours training and they still make mistakes. Female cop that shot the guy, I think in Minnesota, that thought she had her taser.

I'm not talking about accidental shooting. You're correct that there's no permit needed to drink alcohol, but I'll never equate carrying a loaded gun to drinking a beer. That female cop in Minnesota claiming she accidentally pulled her forearm is bs. I've carried on duty and off duty for over 2 decades. I've also discussed this with many current and former military and law enforcement individuals. There is no way that a seasoned veteran who wears a duty belt everyday, mistakenly grabs their sidearm instead of their taser AND fires it. Also, the majority of police officers in the US haven't gone through 100's of hours of REQUIRED firearm training. That's a discussion for another day (let's just say law enforcement needs much more funding and training in various capacities.). While I also agree that an 8hr training class is insufficient, it's 8 more hours of education than someone would have otherwise. It also provides some basic knowledge of the personal responsibility of carrying and potentially using your firearm. I saw a guy at the grocery store the other day with 2 pistols and 4 knives on his belt. I live in a very low crime area. He had some dinky $10 velcro holsters. To each his own I suppose.

 

[Jackcrevol]

Why should she apologize? She did nothing wrong. I hate this stupid

play the game brutha.

either plicit, or, miss it (the job).

 

[InVOLuntary]

I'm not talking about accidental shooting. You're correct that there's no permit needed to drink alcohol, but I'll never equate carrying a loaded gun to drinking a beer. That female cop in Minnesota claiming she accidentally pulled her forearm is bs. I've carried on duty and off duty for over 2 decades. I've also discussed this with many current and former military and law enforcement individuals. There is no way that a seasoned veteran who wears a duty belt everyday, mistakenly grabs their sidearm instead of their taser AND fires it. Also, the majority of police officers in the US haven't gone through 100's of hours of REQUIRED firearm training. That's a discussion for another day (let's just say law enforcement needs much more funding and training in various capacities.). While I also agree that an 8hr training class is insufficient, it's 8 more hours of education than someone would have otherwise. It also provides some basic knowledge of the personal responsibility of carrying and potentially using your firearm. I saw a guy at the grocery store the other day with 2 pistols and 4 knives on his belt. I live in a very low crime area. He had some dinky $10 velcro holsters. To each his own I suppose.

Well the training is what would prevent accidental shootings. I don't think any training is going to prevent intentional shootings. Everyone knows that you shouldn't shoot anyone without just cause. This wasn't an intentional shooting. The shot fired wasn't meant for the little girl, it was meant for a thug that robbed him.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on the Wisconsin cop. If you don't believe she mistook her taser for her handgun, then you'd have to believe she intentionally shot him. I've watched the video and if she did that then she was in the wrong profession because she was an academy award winning level actress.

How many people did the guy kill at the grocery store the other day? (I think it's stupid to open carry by the way.)

 

[Weezer]

It was an accident. Should we jail anyone responsible for a fatal car crash?

If they acted recklessly, yes. You don't get to fire off a gun willy nilly and avoid the consequences. HE KILLED A LITTLE GIRL. Let that sink in. If it were your little girl, would you be like, "It's okay, man. It was an accident."?

 

[InVOLuntary]

If they acted recklessly, yes. You don't get to fire off a gun willy nilly and avoid the consequences. HE KILLED A LITTLE GIRL. Let that sink in. If it were your little girl, would you be like, "It's okay, man. It was an accident."?

You're assuming he acted recklessly. The article is written with a slant of anti 2nd amendment as most media is. It was an accident. He didn't intentionally shoot the little girl. A grand jury heard the facts and didn't charge him.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It was an accident. Should we jail anyone responsible for a fatal car crash?

Well, we do that when they were criminally negligent, such as a DUI, etc... But that doesn't mean we should cease allowing alcohol or driving just because people abuse or misuse them.