I understand that US citizens have a right to bear arms, however the people around them also have a right to personal safety. If a persons lack of knowledge, be it safety or legal, of the tool (yes, as a member of the military I view weapons as tools) puts an innocent in danger, then the responsibility falls on the individual operating that tool.
Agreed.
To use the example of a driver's license is ridiculous as you are also allowed mistakes on a firearms exam. There are allowances in place. That said if you misuse your driver's license ie. drunk driving, you lose that privelege. So maybe driving should be a "right" and there is no need for anyone to become educated on the subject and have to take tests or driving exams because if I fail and cannot drive, my right to travel freely has now been limited by a government institution?
You continue to confuse what is a "right" with what is a privilege. Rights are not granted by a government, only privileges. I will not allow you to muddy this distinction. An attempt which I find is "ridiculous".
As for the references to ammonia and gasoline, if you are purchasing these items for the uses you refer to, then there is already criminal intent (a crime in itself) and consideration of the law has already been thrown to the wind. If a person however, within their rights, purchases a gun as a method of home or personal protection, it is the responsibility of that individual to educate themselves on the proper use and potential ramifications of misusing that weapon. If they do not, then they have forfeited that right.
I don't know why you wish to add "intent for purchase" to the discussion.
You can buy a firearm, gasoline, bleach, ammonia, and any number of tools which can be misused in a dangerous manner without intent to actually use these items in a dangerous to others manner.
People still have the choice to use these items safely or to others detriment as the "need" arises.
Besides, what military doesn't purchase weapons/materials with intent to harm other individuals?
A US or Canadian citizen for that matter has a right to freedom, but if you break a law, then you have forfeited that right and you will be penalized for it.
I believe this just echoes my previous statement that you will be punished if you break the law, rather than prevented from the ability to break the law.
You may disagree, but I believe gun ownership IS a privelege.
And, in the US you would clearly be wrong, as recently reaffirmed by the US supreme court. Owning and bearing arms in the US is an individual right, NOT a privilege that suffers from the whim of an oppressive government.
I am priveleged to own firearms, by not having a criminal record and by not misusing my tools.
That is correct in Canada and British ruled territories. One of the reasons why the US is no longer a British territory is that such government decided it was a privilege and sought to remove firearms from the populace so an oppressive government could remain in power with an occupying standing army usurping individual rights and property. This led to a revolution of those so "governed", and the arms right was clearly included by the new government so as not to be infringed.
Clearly the individual in this case misused his tool and should be punished, not to exclude the other parties as the primary contributing factor.
And what facts do you base this declaration upon? Are you actually privy to the crime scene investigation data? Or, are you simply following media news show reports, focusing on the loss of a baby's life? (Who wouldn't be emotionally stirred by such events, particularly if worded in the "proper" way?) Beware of media manipulation.
As a gun owner, if you can't hit your target and your target only, you should reconsider your decision to take a shot. I learned that on my first firearms safety course. Maybe education isn't a bad idea after all.
I don't dispute that education and training to be beneficial toward the use of any powerful tool. But, that responsibility still resides within the individual in the assumption of that right.
You have, evidently, passed all the hurdles your government has placed before you before allowing you to own a gun. This badge or right of passage you now feel should be applied to all others, as it now puts you in a government approved, elite group of individuals. (Perhaps in a class above the ordinary citizen?) I suppose this plays well in Canada, as you really have no choice in the matter. If you are happy with that, then stay there and stop trying to influence US policy with opinions intended to sway the US populace.
But beware, the hurdles for your firearm ownership, can be changed at the whim of your government, making them increasingly more difficult to pass and thus "control" who is allowed to own a firearm. Even if you are allowed a firearm today, it does not mean they can't change the rules tomorrow, making your possession illegal and thus define you as a criminal. Both Canada and Australia, for example, have experienced the loss of firearm privileges, at the whim of government with no guarantee of them increasing or diminishing such privileges. (However, a government that fears it's populace will make powerful tools unavailable to them.)
This is my major dispute about your opinion that education be required >before< being "allowed" to own a firearm. As this removes the right and replaces it with a government issued and controlled privilege, which can be removed at the whim of a government body at the expense of the individual right.
You are certainly allowed your opinion. And, it is not so surpising that members of the military accept being told what to do and how to think by a superior authority, as well as what rules are to be followed.
But, I am equally allowed to rebut that opinion in an open forum among free individuals.
