Driving isn't a right, but voting is. Voting is a better comparison. And, if we were to base voting rights on "responsibility and knowledge", I think millions of people wouldn't be allowed to vote.

__________________


To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller, is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbors. ~ John Stuart Mill

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks

I've seen enough lunatics behind a steering wheel to know that a driver's license does not prevent stupidity from maneuvering a car. People need to pay the consequences of their actions. Driving is not a right. Self-defense is. Both their use constitutes full control by the actor, permit or no permit. I got my arms permit from the Second Amendment, by the way.

Voting rights are based on the age and citizenship of the voter. The fact that plenty of voters have the IQ of rock sweat does not negate their right to vote.

No **** sherlock, really?

__________________


To tax the larger incomes at a higher percentage than the smaller, is to lay a tax on industry and economy; to impose a penalty on people for having worked harder and saved more than their neighbors. ~ John Stuart Mill

Gypsy Soul Memories
Scuba Diver Life
Success Freaks

Did I hear wrong, or did Sherlock require a 7 percent solution of cocaine injected into him by Dr. Watson?

What renders the Constitution meaningless is the reliance on 5 or more SCOTUS justices to "interpret" it however their political persuasions dictate at the moment.

I am glad we agree both are not in the same ballpark. The right to bear arms is explicitly stated in the Constitution which means it ought to be minimimally constrained as our other Constitutional rights are. Minimizing the constraint on our 2nd amendment rights is what the House did with the bill requiring reciprocal recognition of CCW by states.

Marriage as a "right" is a product of judicial decree. Much as gay marriage advocates might like to portray this right as absolute, the SCOTUS has never held that the states have no capability to regulate marriage nor have they dealt directly with the issue of gay marriage.

the topic is the recognition of CCW's from other states. Since it involves multiple states, it falls within the US Congress' purview.

Not at all, it would regularize the treatment of CCW among the various states.

Yep, Heller didn't speak to the issue of one state recognizing CCW issued by another state so it left it up to Congress to decide. That is how our beloved SCOTUS ought to work, minimal scope in their opinions.


The second amendment right and carrying concealed are inextricably linked. As with our other rights the appropriate course ought to be minimal constraints such as requiring one state to recognize the CCW issued by another.


Per usual you reflexively ignored what I wrote. It wasn't an invitation to a fruitless discussion since as a committed gay marriage advocate you will no doubt prejudge any reason barring it as an abrogation of the "absolute" right to marriage.

At the risk of becoming tedious, the issue at hand is the recognition by one state of a CCW permit issued by another. Heller left this up to Congress.

On one hand it will make it easier for travelers. On the other shouldn't each state's laws be honored?

I should have clarified my question, as it had nothing to do with rights nor privileges...had you looked closer, I was discussing responsibility.

It seems to me that every day that we drive or are on the road, we pass someone handling a vehicle going in excess of 50 MPH, in one direction or another, sufficient enough to maim and kill. I'd venture to guess that a ton of these vehicles are not in great operating condition, even more so for freight trucks carrying thousands of pounds on say, balding tires, or drivers without sleep.

While many more die each day at the hand of these vehicles than at the hand of fire arms, no one is clamouring to test drivers skill or the operating conditions of said vehicles. Yet, no one stops an out-of-state vehicle and forbids them entry to a state other than what is indicated on the plate.

I shudder to think the firestorm that would ensue if New Jersey up and decided that everyone else's driver's privileges were all of a sudden forbidden and needed to be revoked at it's borders? State's rights, you know?

At the moment that is how it is. But times change as should the States but that is just IMHO...

I guess what would make it work is each state come to agree on a standard that all States would accept.

I believe it wasin the debates Newt saying each state needs to be alined with Homeland Security, and given more data on what Homeland has gathered.

So why not work with the same thinking on concealed permits. I don't have or want one. But if I take a long trip I do bring a weapon. Or use to.

I guess while I pray for a safe trip that should cover not needing a weapon.

__________________
"There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation... One is by sword... The other is by debt."

John Adams 1826

What comes to mind is how many years it took for states to work together for something benevolent like child abduction...
But some states do not want concealed guns-others believe it is their right.
Personally I like the idea, but still considering other viewpoints.