JohnRich 4
Quote>This is quite a frightening idea - government authorities giving
> mental exams to citizens to determine what rights they should
> be allowed to exercise. Don't even think about going down
> that path...
You're absolutely right. Next thing you know, they will require a test before you can drive a car or fly a plane. And that's lunacy.
I'm sure that if you really try, that you can discern the difference between an operator's competency test, and a mental fitness exam. One is objective, and the other is witchcraft. Can you guess which is which?
Hint: You jump out of airplanes, so you're obviously crazy and unconcerned with death, and therefore dangerous and unfit to drive a car or fly an airplane.
Do you really want some unknown government bureaucrat deciding to which freedoms you are entitled?
kallend 2,150
Quote>This is quite a frightening idea - government authorities giving
> mental exams to citizens to determine what rights they should be
> allowed to exercise. Don't even think about going down that path...
You're absolutely right. Next thing you know, they will require a test before you can drive a car or fly a plane. And that's lunacy.
Yes, but in a bizarre accident of history, cars and planes had not yet been invented when the Bill of Rights was written.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,120
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>I'm sure that if you really try, that you can discern the difference
>between an operator's competentcy test, and a mental fitness exam.
Of course. This should have elements of both. When flying or driving, the mental fitness part is covered during the practical portions of the test(s) as well as during FAA physicals. I knew a few students at our FBO back in NY who were just plain too loopy to fly. (Although driver's licenses are more rubber stamp than anything nowadays.)
>Hint: You jump out of airplanes, so you're obviously crazy and
> unconcerned with death, and therefore dangerous and unfit to do
> either.
Hmm! Guess tandem masters can't get FAA physicals, then.
>between an operator's competentcy test, and a mental fitness exam.
Of course. This should have elements of both. When flying or driving, the mental fitness part is covered during the practical portions of the test(s) as well as during FAA physicals. I knew a few students at our FBO back in NY who were just plain too loopy to fly. (Although driver's licenses are more rubber stamp than anything nowadays.)
>Hint: You jump out of airplanes, so you're obviously crazy and
> unconcerned with death, and therefore dangerous and unfit to do
> either.
Hmm! Guess tandem masters can't get FAA physicals, then.
rehmwa 2
QuoteHint: You jump out of airplanes, so you're obviously crazy and unconcerned with death, and therefore dangerous and unfit to drive a car or fly an airplane.
Do you really want some unknown government bureaucrat deciding to which freedoms you are entitled?
Or, in some states
"you are (for/against) abortion? Too crazy to own a gun"
"you don't recycle? That's nuts. Why, you can't have a gun."
"you don't go to church every week? No gun for you"
"you are not fully acredited with the ACLU, OSHA, and NUTJOB authority? you can't have a gun"
"You didn't pay taxes on spent shells? no shooting in you life. Not even at evil paper targets"
"you didn't pay taxes on the meat you harvested from that deer? No shooting in Minnesota for you"
bureaucrats are funny......
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
yep, you can know for sure that no one, not even a criminal would do such a thing, because that would be against the law.
No, Sir. Not for sure. Nothing in life is "sure/safe" but, I am happy to know that my unkind neightbour at the right side will NOT pull out his hand gun, as: He has NONE. Surprise, surprise!!
We have very good working laws, that's it.
dudeist skydiver # 3105
rehmwa 2
Quoteyep, you can know for sure that no one, not even a criminal would do such a thing, because that would be against the law.
No, Sir. Not for sure. Nothing in life is "sure/safe" but, I am happy to know that my unkind neightbour at the right side will NOT pull out his hand gun, as: He has NONE. Surprise, surprise!!
We have very good working laws, that's it.
Go get 'em Christel. I for one think the US should model all it's social laws after all the European countries - even those with laws that conflict. I mean, if it's european, it Has to be better. It's about time we took care of those unfortunates that just aren't as enlightened as the rest of us on the left. They'll learn, it's just education and love and understanding.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Quote>This is quite a frightening idea - government authorities giving
> mental exams to citizens to determine what rights they should be
> allowed to exercise. Don't even think about going down that path...
You're absolutely right. Next thing you know, they will require a test before you can drive a car or fly a plane. And that's lunacy.
When's the last time you got tested by DMV, Bill?
1988 for me. (If you want to count the state version of MSF, 1994 when I got my M1 endorsement)
Otherwise, it's been a matter of checkbook renewals.
BTW, to buy a handgun in this state you need a certificate. Used to be the BFSC, which was good "for life," until they replaced it with some other thing that's only good for 5 years. Both were on line with hunter safety type testing. (read DMV like)
billvon 3,120
>When's the last time you got tested by DMV, Bill?
Next week for me; testing vision. Before that, a written test in 1996. I've taken two actual driving tests - one for a NY license and one for CA.
>Both were on line with hunter safety type testing. (read DMV like)
Sounds like a good strategy.
Next week for me; testing vision. Before that, a written test in 1996. I've taken two actual driving tests - one for a NY license and one for CA.
>Both were on line with hunter safety type testing. (read DMV like)
Sounds like a good strategy.
rasmack 0
Quote... yep, you can know for sure that no one, not even a criminal would do such a thing, because that would be against the law.
Different countries dude. It makes sense over here, because there are fewer guns in cirkulation. Hell, I might buy a gun myself if I went to live in the states, but right now I live in a country where most "armed" bank robberies turn out to be carried out with toy weapons.
HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...
Charles Martin
Charles Manson
Charles Merryweather
Charles Stuart
.....Hmmmmmmmm
maybe it's not guns that kill people....
Charles Manson
Charles Merryweather
Charles Stuart
.....Hmmmmmmmm
maybe it's not guns that kill people....
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
JohnRich 4
QuoteGuess tandem masters can't get FAA physicals, then.
If you allow politically appointed psychologists to make determinations about who is fit to skydive, then indeed, some of them who are now active would be rejected.
"You drink too much."There's a difference between an objective test of knowledge and competentcy, and someone's personal opinion about whether or not you are mentally fit and deserving to exercise your freedoms.
"With your ongoing divorce, you have too much stress in your life right now."
"You have three children - you shouldn't be risking your life jumping out of airplanes."
I know that you like to poke me with a stick once in a while just for fun, and I think that's all you're doing here. I seriously hope you really don't support the idea of government shrinks determining which citizens get to exercise which rights.
billvon 3,120
>If you allow politically appointed psychologists to make
>determinations about who is fit to skydive. . . .
Uh, we DO use government appointed doctors to make those calls now. (You are aware of the Class III medical procedure, right?) I don't know of anyone who has been denied such a certificate based on their 'craziness.'
>There's a difference between an objective test of knowledge and
>competentcy, and someone's personal opinion about whether or not
>you are mentally fit and deserving to exercise your freedoms.
And there is a difference between _that_ and a doctor's objective opinion as to whether you are mentally ill.
>I seriously hope you really don't support the idea of government
>shrinks determining which citizens get to exercise which rights.
I do think just that, but you are making a much bigger deal over it than it merits. A man who has been diagnosed to have a serious mental disorder should NOT be allowed to own a gun.
As I've said about a dozen times, I think any sane, adult, law abiding citizen should be able to own a gun. Having a test where you have to demonstrate which end of the gun the bullet comes out of, and are sane enough to converse intelligently with the tester, does not abridge that (IMO.) Further, if there is any question about the person's sanity, I would have no problem at all with him being evaluated by a psychiatrist to ensure that he has no serious pathology.
>determinations about who is fit to skydive. . . .
Uh, we DO use government appointed doctors to make those calls now. (You are aware of the Class III medical procedure, right?) I don't know of anyone who has been denied such a certificate based on their 'craziness.'
>There's a difference between an objective test of knowledge and
>competentcy, and someone's personal opinion about whether or not
>you are mentally fit and deserving to exercise your freedoms.
And there is a difference between _that_ and a doctor's objective opinion as to whether you are mentally ill.
>I seriously hope you really don't support the idea of government
>shrinks determining which citizens get to exercise which rights.
I do think just that, but you are making a much bigger deal over it than it merits. A man who has been diagnosed to have a serious mental disorder should NOT be allowed to own a gun.
As I've said about a dozen times, I think any sane, adult, law abiding citizen should be able to own a gun. Having a test where you have to demonstrate which end of the gun the bullet comes out of, and are sane enough to converse intelligently with the tester, does not abridge that (IMO.) Further, if there is any question about the person's sanity, I would have no problem at all with him being evaluated by a psychiatrist to ensure that he has no serious pathology.
Quote
As I've said about a dozen times, I think any sane, adult, law abiding citizen should be able to own a gun. Having a test where you have to demonstrate which end of the gun the bullet comes out of, and are sane enough to converse intelligently with the tester, does not abridge that (IMO.)
In most proposed forms, the test certainly does abridge that right, just as South Dakoka has abridge the rights of women, esp poor women, to get an abortion. When such a test has to be done at a sheriff's station, you require some people to drive considerable distances, and perhaps during business hours only. Add a potential test with a shrink, at your expense, again during business hours. "Perfectly reasonable" way to remove that right from a substantial minority of the public.
kallend 2,150
QuoteQuote
As I've said about a dozen times, I think any sane, adult, law abiding citizen should be able to own a gun. Having a test where you have to demonstrate which end of the gun the bullet comes out of, and are sane enough to converse intelligently with the tester, does not abridge that (IMO.)
In most proposed forms, the test certainly does abridge that right, just as South Dakoka has abridge the rights of women, esp poor women, to get an abortion. When such a test has to be done at a sheriff's station, you require some people to drive considerable distances, and perhaps during business hours only. Add a potential test with a shrink, at your expense, again during business hours. "Perfectly reasonable" way to remove that right from a substantial minority of the public.
It all boils down to which right prevails - the right of the people to be free of loonies with guns in their communities, or the right of gun owners not to be inconvenienced.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,120
>In most proposed forms, the test certainly does abridge that right . . .
Then we should make sure that such tests are not overly onerous. This will end up benefitting gun owners in the end. The fewer lunatics that shoot their neighbor's kids, and the fewer idiots that accidentally shoot themselves, the less hue and cry there will be for even more pointless regulation.
Then we should make sure that such tests are not overly onerous. This will end up benefitting gun owners in the end. The fewer lunatics that shoot their neighbor's kids, and the fewer idiots that accidentally shoot themselves, the less hue and cry there will be for even more pointless regulation.
Quote
It all boils down to which right prevails - the right of the people to be free of loonies with guns in their communities, or the right of gun owners not to be inconvenienced.
I got my 2nd Amendment right here, Pal.
The number of such loonies is an insignificant number. Fear the DUIs far more.
QuoteQuoteGuess tandem masters can't get FAA physicals, then.
If you allow politically appointed psychologists to make determinations about who is fit to skydive, then indeed, some of them who are now active would be rejected."You drink too much."There's a difference between an objective test of knowledge and competentcy, and someone's personal opinion about whether or not you are mentally fit and deserving to exercise your freedoms.
"With your ongoing divorce, you have too much stress in your life right now."
"You have three children - you shouldn't be risking your life jumping out of airplanes."
I know that you like to poke me with a stick once in a while just for fun, and I think that's all you're doing here. I seriously hope you really don't support the idea of government shrinks determining which citizens get to exercise which rights.
John the sad thing is there are people who don't give a damn about any right that the do have.
I think they would all be just smiling away like the little lemmings they are... as they are told to run over the edge of the cliff.
--------------------------------------------------
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites