older drivers< just drivers? :-) >

Dennis Putnam dap1 at MINDSPRING.COM
Mon Jul 21 16:32:26 MDT 2003

Hash: SHA1

At 07:05 AM 7/21/2003, you wrote:
>Yup!  I have been lurking through this whole "elder
>driver" thing seeing that common sense is ALMOST
>achievable as agreement  - and wondering how it would
>(emotionally) re-focus the discussion if we switched
>to - at what age a person's right to keep ane bear
>arms should be voluntarily suspended?  <grin>

Glad you added the <grin> since one is a privilege and the other is a
right. Although no right is absolute.

>I know there are a LOT of differences - for what it's
>worth most the shooters I know are responsible - and
>that includes not exceeding their own abilities to
>carry safely.
>Not trying to stir up trouble - it is just that this
>is the kind of <lame? questionable?> analogy 1 side or
>the other will use to - well, fuel their fundraising
>letters or start a "millionth-of-a-mom-mantra" or the

Not really a valid analogy for the reason stated above. However, the truth
is that one cannot be prevented from driving a vehicle for any reason (even
blindness) as long as they are on private property. It is only public use
of a vehicle that can be restricted. Ironical, and this is what makes
firearms so unique in their treatment, they are being restricted even on
private property without any reason. While I agree that using them in
public (CCW) can and should be regulated (but not infringed) treating
firearms, in a legal sense, the same way as vehicles would be a tremendous

Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
Comment: Be sure to use my most recent key -  created 6/16/03


More information about the Rushtalk mailing list