From: spike66 (spike66@attbi.com)
Date: Mon Feb 10 2003 - 21:05:18 MST
Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
>
>> There is the popular notion that the UN Declaration of Human Rights
>> declares a 'right to drive'.
>>
> Since in most modern city areas it is next to impossible to be gainfully
> employed and functional without driving I believe it is a mistake to
> consider driving a 'privilege'. It is a near-necessity. Necessities
> should not be limited except under severe circumstances. - samantha
Interesting point here. I hope it somehow possible to
make the following observation without igniting a huge
rancorous gun debate. Please reply with thought and
calm restraint. {8-] (Mike, Samantha, you two scare me
sometimes. {8^D)
The state of Taxifornia recently adopted a written test
that must be passed before one can purchase and register
a firearm. Granted it is ridiculously simple (A firearm
handled improperly can injure or kill someone, true or
false, etc.)
A drivers license has always required a written test.
The big difference is that legally (in the U.S.) driving
is a privelege, whereas gun ownership is a right,
guaran-damn-teed by the consti-bygod-tution.
Looks to me like Taxifornia is denying gun ownership
rights to U.S. citizens who are illiterate, the blind
(I need to think about that one), those who can read but
not English. So in what sense is it legal to require a
written test to own a gun?
spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 10 2003 - 21:08:20 MST