Quote from: TheButterZone on January 12, 2013, 02:29:27 AM

Quote from: pyra-proxy on January 12, 2013, 01:34:31 AM

Quote from: Holliday on January 12, 2013, 01:20:30 AM

Quote from: pyra-proxy on January 12, 2013, 01:06:05 AM

No limits but....

Morale of the story - Weopon rights should be natural but revocable due to action/misdeed and require competency validation to act upon this right.

Very strange post. You say no limits, then go on to list quite a few limits. You mention "rights" and then talk about privileges.

It's not a "right" if I have to take a class for permission.

I was saying it's your right if you can prove competence with handling them... it's a right in that so long as you are competent and can prove that then you can own/use them... no one stopping anyone from proving their competence.

Except in those "gun control utopias" like Chicago, NYC, DC, where blood runs through the streets and the common man is banned from proving their competence.

And this is where what I said does not match your example, I said no one should be banned from proving their competence (and to clarify further to enable the sale/purchase of firearms), those cities violate what I proposed here and look what happened to them. What I offer is allowing all to own/use them, but restrict acquisition based upon proven competence including mass allowance of concealed weapons, my restrictions only restrict a person buying/selling them if the purchaser cannot certify with simple gun safety practices which are reflective of the type of weapon purchased