Driving an automobile on public thoroughfares, and/or prescribing meds, are privileges granted by the state rather than innate human rights that are enumerated in, and protected by, The Constitution of The United States.I see no problem - if deemed reasonable by capable shooters.
LEOs have go thru quals, one has to qualify to get an auto license and one has to qualify to prescribe meds. So it doesn’t seem to be a big deal to me.
The Constitution may give me a right to bear arms - but that doesn’t preclude the right of the states to set certain conditions for the common good. Persons who are violent, not law abiding, mentally ill - and I’ll add those who don’t know how to safely load and discharge a weapon or are unwilling to demonstrate it should be denied that right.LEOs have to go through qualification trials as a condition of employment, and likewise, gaining employment in law enforcement is a privilege granted by the state and not an innate human right that’s protected via enumeration in The Constitution.
Incorrect, in Florida you have to fire six rounds at a seven yards target, if you miss it completely, must try again.In Florida you fire one single round, and in order to “pass”, the bullet must exit the bore and proceed down range, which in my opinion, is an unnecessary infringement, since we’ve got roughly 2,000,000 concealed firearms and weapons license holders and there’s been no negative impact on public safety due to lack of “qualification” testing.
The Constitutional clause regarding the requirement to pass a test to exercise your rights under the second amendment is right there next to the clause that says the second amendment is about hunting deer.
Need to argue this one.The Constitution may give me a right to bear arms - but that doesn’t preclude the right of the states to set certain conditions for the common good. Persons who are violent, not law abiding, mentally I’ll - and I’ll add those who don’t know how to safely load and discharge a weapon or are unwilling to demonstrate it should be denied that right.
We always talk of rights - but they come with responsibilities.
What is written is interpreted by the Supreme Court.Need to argue this one.
The Constitution says nothing about removing a right from a felon, or an unskilled person. A felon who who has paid their debt still has all rights save for voting and firearms.
Can argue should be/could be all day long but as written is as written.
I basically agree with you. However, antifa and the other scum have the same rights as you and I. To change that we need what 2/3 of states? But be careful. What if 2/3 states want our rights revoked.What is written is interpreted by the Supreme Court.
BTW, I never used the word felon - I referred to violent people like those in Antifa or have a long history of lawlessness. I rest my case.