Instead of threadjacking I decided to quote the below post and pose this question for discussion.
Why exactly does the average citizen buy into the driving is a privilege not a right concept? Driving. A motorized vehicle is no more than a means of personal locomotion _ transportation which should be no less or more regulated than walking, riding a horse or a bicycle. The fact that we accept the notion that our mode of transportation is or should be regulated by anything beyond our personal impact to your "property" is what perpetuates this lack of freedom.
What stops me from walking across my state or country?
When settlers came to our continent they chose a path and went forward. When people went west they took paths based on ease of travel regarding their modes of travel be it by foot, horseback or wagon. Eventually routes were formed and privileges granted for regular routes being established for stagecoach and eventually trains. But until landowners began fencing in their property limiting access except in designated areas this wasn't a problem.
Why is this no less an infringement of my right to travel than the landowner who dammed a river that passes through his property?
I believe that this initial infringement is what perpetuated the need for public access ie.roadways thereby allowing anyone to regulate how we are able to travel and where.
So why do we allow this. Is it because we are so quick to regulate our fellow man and his travel at our own safety or convenience or is it fear?
HENRY FORD had some crazy ideas but his goal was to make the auto affordable as a mode of transportation for everyone. Yet the average auto know has been regulated to the point that it is a luxury item beyond a years salary.
Add in mandatory insurance, license, registration and fuel taxes we are forced to need papers to travel across country(money instead of government permission slip).
The chains we wear and tolerate in the guise of progress, safety and regulations are just another liberty lost and slowly erodes our abilities to think and act responsibly with our lives.
Any other thoughts?
Why exactly does the average citizen buy into the driving is a privilege not a right concept? Driving. A motorized vehicle is no more than a means of personal locomotion _ transportation which should be no less or more regulated than walking, riding a horse or a bicycle. The fact that we accept the notion that our mode of transportation is or should be regulated by anything beyond our personal impact to your "property" is what perpetuates this lack of freedom.
What stops me from walking across my state or country?
When settlers came to our continent they chose a path and went forward. When people went west they took paths based on ease of travel regarding their modes of travel be it by foot, horseback or wagon. Eventually routes were formed and privileges granted for regular routes being established for stagecoach and eventually trains. But until landowners began fencing in their property limiting access except in designated areas this wasn't a problem.
Why is this no less an infringement of my right to travel than the landowner who dammed a river that passes through his property?
I believe that this initial infringement is what perpetuated the need for public access ie.roadways thereby allowing anyone to regulate how we are able to travel and where.
So why do we allow this. Is it because we are so quick to regulate our fellow man and his travel at our own safety or convenience or is it fear?
HENRY FORD had some crazy ideas but his goal was to make the auto affordable as a mode of transportation for everyone. Yet the average auto know has been regulated to the point that it is a luxury item beyond a years salary.
Add in mandatory insurance, license, registration and fuel taxes we are forced to need papers to travel across country(money instead of government permission slip).
The chains we wear and tolerate in the guise of progress, safety and regulations are just another liberty lost and slowly erodes our abilities to think and act responsibly with our lives.
Any other thoughts?
You guys have given me a lot to respond to. I feel like I’ve already hijacked the thread, so will see if I can make it concise.
That "heat" (with wink) was meant as tongue in cheek. Everyone has been very civil toward my comments. To clear the air, I realize it isn't training, but government mandated training that’s at issue.
OK, I agree. There is no provision in 2A regarding training. It's a good idea, but government cannot legislate common sense any more than they can fill the roles of parents. I would however argue that we’re already on that slippery slope. States are allowed to mandate training before issuing handgun permits. The Supreme Court recently struck down Chicago’s ban, but now Chicago is putting up all kinds of obstacles such as training and special insurance. Truth is, there should be no permits issued by any state. Why should one have to apply to take advantage of an existing right?
As I mentioned, my father taught me to shoot. I taught my son. Like the friend that first took you hunting, I had the experience to teach others as a rifle range Boy Scout camp counselor for two summers. I am completely in agreement that you have every RKBA, regardless of parental or any other influence. I also freely admit that having grown up around and carried guns for virtually my entire life, I’ve not been exposed to some of the issues raised here.
Article 1 of Indiana’s Constitution, government is “…instituted for their peace, safety, and well-being.” There are countless laws enacted to keep people safe. The very right to keep and bear arms is based upon people’s safety.
You’ll get no argument from me on that statement. I therefore see the rub regarding LEOSA.
We could liken this to driving. I expect other drivers to abide by the same rules so we are all kept safe. Without traffic regulations, there would be chaos on the streets. Driving is a privilege, not a right. So, the example is not apples to apples, but the results are similar. If we’re all going to be carrying firearms, we should have some expectation of having it done safely. Perhaps the answer then is to have firearms training in high school. Works for the Israelis. But then, would that be too much government interference with an existing right?
Not easy answers people. I'll keep an eye on these discussions. I'm sure I've got more to learn. Thanks.