So would there be a significant difference if there was an inherent limit via say a simple test of the right to bear arms. If (and yes I realize its a huge if) the right too bear arms was amended to require such a test?
Could work, with parental consent I suppose. We have a school cadet program in some private schools over here where target shooting was included. They'd be a giant bun fight over what firearm types/brands etc would be on the curriculum though.
I didn't label your "ideas" worthless. I merely said that your argument for those ideas are worthless because you're the only one arguing them for, against, or any which way. After a long while of hearing them, your soapbox advocation of those idea(s) are simply a worthless one-sided argument you're having (with yourself, I assume). Kinda like advocating pissing into a strong wind. Edit to add: I see you skipped over the requal post I made. If all of those rights are equal, do you have to re-qualify every few years to have the right to speak freely? Or to go to church? Peaceful protesting?
If you read my original response you'll note I suggested requal wouldn't be necessary if the person in question had some (tiny) amount of range time up their sleeve in the interim. As far as the right to free speech or religion goes? Could you license them in some way shape of form? Answer - probably yes. Should you license them? Let someone who thinks that idea has merit argue the case. For the rest... again wrong. Other people (not you) have raised specific questions/issues/problems and I have responded with answers as best I can as per any debate. For example when TOG stated his point that 'there are limits inherent to the right to vote and thus does not compare to a requirement to gain a license for the exercise of same.' He has a valid point. But I can counter that there are limits inherent to the right to bare arms in place in the US already in terms of certain types and locations etc where they can be carried, just as there are limits on free speech as established by the Supreme Court (very wide limits but limits non-the-less). So I would argue that with regards my proposition re: licensing it's a matter of degree not type i.e its a form of limitation. Acknowledging that there is another side to the argument is not debating with oneself, its just recognizing there is an alternate viewpoint - try it some time.
There is no inherent limit to said right, as it has been exercised for centuries without any such test. Adding such a limit would not make it inherent,. regardless of how it was added. Setting a legal age to exercise a right is not the issuance of a license to exercise that right or a demonstration of competence of same. Forcing a prospective voter to prove he can read and understand the issues he is about to vote on, is.
I could argue that just because it hasn't been done before doesn't mean it can't be done now. Instead I'll note that setting a legal age on the right to vote still imposes a barrier in the way of someone who may earnestly wishing to exercise that right. In the case I raised anyone can jump that barrier by passing a simple test. In the the example you raise no-one can expedite access to that right no matter how earnestly they may desire to do so. Only the passing of time can resolve the issue. Also I never suggested that preventing someone who lacked the ability to read/write should was a good idea. Anyone can be taught the basic roles of the Presidency, Congress and Senate etc without the ability to read and write, just as they can be taught to use a firearm with those skills. Finally what is your opinion of the various State legislation's that bar people convicted of a serious crime from voting?
But you -can't- soundly argue that adding a restriction to the exercise of a right that's not been part of that right for 400 years makes said restriction inherent to said right. Your 18th birthday is not a test. Proving you can read and understand the issues on the ballot is a test. You seek an analogue to he latter, not the former. In the US, the exercise of rights shall not be subject to a demonstration of competence to do so. You also ignore the fact that as rights to not emanate from the state and thus the state has no standing to issue, much less require, a license for the exercise of same. Any and all rights can be removed through due process, and as such, said impairment is perfectly constitutional.
As I have noted previously the voters can do anything they wish with rights granted to them under their Constitution via a lawfully enacted/democratically valid referendum. Any right can be amended, deleted or added to a bill of rights or similar founding document at the will of the people. I would argue therefore that they can do just that if a lawful majority approves it via due process (fat chance of course in the example under discussion). Proving you can read and understand the issues on the ballot is a test. You seek an analogue to he latter, not the former. In the US, the exercise of rights shall not be subject to a demonstration of competence to do so. Again I would suggest that is because of the way the rights presently ensconced in the Bill of Rights are worded and have been interpreted historically by the Courts. That is not in itself an argument that prevents them from being reinterpreted at some hypothetical future date were any right right to be re-worded in such a way that it permitted (more likely required) re-interpretation. So a demonstration of competence could be included. (As an aside and given the quality of this generation of elected leadership I would probably argue there was a more pressing need for some form of constitutionally required demonstration of competence on their part prior to taking office than I would for the issue under discussion.) No they emanate from the Bill of Rights and the Constitution which are the pillars upon from which all lawful authority grow. Again should the root be altered the branch may also be altered. Due process itself derives from the Bill of Rights. Interpretation of that right has lead to the (limited) impairment of the right to vote. For historical reasons a very broad interpretation of the Right to Bear Arms has placed only the narrowest of limitations being imposed on that right. Both are still just interpretations of the rights as defined in the Bill. Again I would argue that amending a particular right must by default open up the opportunity for reinterpretation.
You posted that rights are equal. But just equal as far as regulation. But, for your argument to actually have merit, the same form of criteria that you and your ilk would apply to one must apply to all. If not, your argument is flawed and worthless. You "argue" points as if your points trump other(s) points and/or views on every occasion you babble them off. When you see a valid and compelling argument that differs from your argument, perhaps you should concede to the facts and answers thrown back your way - try it sometime. He has a COMPELLING point. And it differs from your non-compelling point(s). Yet you just run on with your idea(s) that have no merit. We call that "not being able to see the forest because the trees are in the way". You could "argue" that it's possible to indict a ham sandwich as well. That won't stop people from laughing and pointing. Again, your "all things are equal under the law" "argument" doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to push off. And if you want to counter and do counter, that doesn't mean your counter-argument is inherently better than the point(s) that you are arguing. Yet you continue to drone on like you have said your view(s) and they are better and/or compelling than your "opponents" (LOL!) argument. That's what I mean by "arguing with yourself". Your view(s) lead to this... ...unarmed victims. A whole country full of them. Those two thugs have a good chance of taking the, "Room Temperature Challenge" in this country. Or maybe those two thugs would think twice about robbing someone because of the possibility that their victim could be armed. These two thugs (and your countries assinine firearm laws) didn't even give those two victims a "sporting" chance in a country where firearms are mainly used for "sport". Absolutely pathetic.
OK. In summary; Point 1) My argument is not flawed. All rights can in theory (and usually are) subject to limitations. The means of limitation can vary i.e. an age limit, a fee, a license, legal precedent etc. Licensing is a form of limitation. I never said it was the only possible form or that all rights needed to be limited by license.. Point 2) Just because you think someone's point is 'valid and compelling' doesn't mean mine aren't. That's just a very convenient excuse not to argue any further. I fully acknowledge TOG raises valid points and I believe I do the same when addressing his arguments. Least-ways he hasn't directly claimed my arguments have absolutely no merit whatsoever. You however seem to argue that any position not fully in agreement with your own is by default completely invalid/lacking in merit. Point 3) Ham sandwich??? I can't recall mentioning luncheon meats in any of my postings. Were you hungry at the time you posted? Point 4) I drone on? I think you mean I defend my position. This is supposed to be a forum where ideas are debated. But since it seems to upset you when I do this and if it will make you any happier I can just cow tow and agree with whatever you want me to agree with. Point 5) I watched the video. All I can say is that one video clip doth not an valid argument make. I researched armed robbery stats for the US and Australia. Australia 2017/18 - 4,915 victims (ABS annual crime statistics) US 2017/18 - 98.0 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2017 (FBI crime statistics) . The two sets of of stats to not equate directly but with some simple back of envelope calcs they show our rate compares favorably with yours. So no, we don't have the same gun laws as the US but neither based on the evidence is there any pressing reason to believe we need them.
OK. In summary: Point 1... I am right. You can't see the forest for the trees and Point 2... It's a good thing that you didn't pick being an attorney or lawyer as a profession.
Ooh a 'cliche'. Well that certainly trumps any point I raised - you win. I considered it but of course your right (as always). As a detective I never had to martial facts or evidence to prove a case I wished to bring before the courts. I never had to organize those facts in a coherent logical, fashion while ensuring I covered all the essential elements or proofs of the matter I was investigating. Never had those facts reviewed by my peers, or a prosecuting council. I never had a judge or defense solicitor critique them and certainly never had to produce evidence or facts that were then presented to a jury of 10 for assessment. All the persons I ever arrested or charged simply walked into court, plead guilty on day one and then caught a taxi to prison at their own expense. They were all very helpful that way.
Then it would be worthwhile to go about confining suicidal individuals to the appropriate mental health facilities for the duration of their natural lives, to ensure that they have absolutely no opportunity to go about ending their own existence under any circumstances? Perhaps forcibly put them into medically induced comas so they are incapable of doing anything to end their own existence? If such is not worthwhile, then why not? The individuals will be kept alive, and in the end that is all that is ultimately important, correct?
I do not know about laws of civil commitment which could balance Safety and rights of disabled people. Only experts can design working laws.
The rights of the disabled must be violated in the name of their own safety, and keeping them alive when all they wish is to go about ending their own existence. It is either one standard or the other, it cannot be both. Either they can have their constitutional rights and be left to go about ending their own existence, or they can lose their constitutional rights and forcibly be kept alive. Which is more important for the mentally ill and disabled individuals to have? Constitutional rights that they cannot exercise, or a long life?
If one does not have the right to end their own existence, then ultimately what rights does one truly have, if they are nothing more than slaves?