[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Jeff OTMG

It has nothing to do with that aspect of being tangible or intangible. It is the exercise of at right. If we could require a test or standard be applied to firearms ownership, which I think would be a good idea but oppose based on the difference in a 'right' and a 'privledge', it would then be required for other rights under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. You must take a test to know the position of candidates before being allowed to vote. The press must have tested knowledge of a topic before being allowed to report on the topic. (This would be great for reporters speaking about 'assault rifles', 'high powered' ammunition, and automatic firearms.) Religion has probably caused more human on human death in the history of man. License religion so that the government can protect us from violent followers of some religions. People would also have to be licensed to practice their religion and if you claim to be Christian forget about being allowed to get an abortion. I support the right of a woman to choose, but I personally find it abhorent. My belief is based on religion and I believe that the governement cannot force a religious belief on the general populous. We are born with rights. Those rights are in the Constitution. Beyond that are privledges, which can be licensed and controlled by the government and I don't want to see rights become privledges. Rights must be exercised with responsibility and I do see some advantages to licensing rights, especially when it comes to voting, but I must oppose any attempt to regulate rights.

There are rights that are regulated everyday. One that comes to mind is the right to vote. And of course that doesn't even take into account that the second amendment specifically talks about a well regulated militia. Or that legally , using your own argument, only men between a certain age and women in the Guard are part of the militia.

Originally Posted by adpimiz

I just now saw this, and I completely agree.

As someone who has lived out in the country her entire life (except when I'm away at school), it's very comforting to know that my father has firearms that could protect us if someone were to break in to our home. People are vulnerable out in the middle of nowhere. It's an easy way for a criminal to try and commit a robbery without being noticed by passerbys, and calling 911 won't do much good when we have one sheriff for our entire county on duty at a time.

This is something that people who think nobody should ever possess a gun simply don't understand. Some people are responsible for their own safety.

I do understand that. However there is a big difference from somebody living out in the sticks and has a weapon IN THE HOME, for protection, and somebody in say Dallas who feels the need to walk around downtown with a weapon just because he can.

Originally Posted by PiKA2001

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/york-newspa...154215176.html

Wow, what a bunch of idiots. What could possibly be the point of doing this? Can't get a gun in upstate NY because you're a felon? No prob dude, just check the interactive map for a gun owner in your very own neighborhood and wait till he leaves on vacation or for work and just break in and steal his guns.

Umm you do realize that anybody has access to this information right?: While the people who do make the most use of sunshine laws are members of the news media, they are available for anybody to use.