Imagine someone writing a letter to the editor of their local newspaper advocating for literacy tests for people before they would be allowed to vote.

Part of a Georgia literacy test given to voters in 1894.

Or submitting a letter advocating Americans be required to take a religious test before they would be allowed to choose their house of worship?

Anyone advocating either of the above would be written off as a kooky moonbat, or a racist lunatic.

“Better to be thought an idiot than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”

One village rocket surgeon opened his mouth in New York State – or more accurately, put pen to paper and removed all doubt of his paper-thin intellectual depth as his local newspaper published his ill-considered suggestion.

Require gun owners to take safety tests
Posted on September 14, 2014 | By Letters to the editor  | Times-Union

These days, there are a lot of arguments regarding gun control, including whether people should use guns or even be able to own them.

While I agree guns are dangerous and, in the wrong hands, can be seriously threatening, I like to think of it like this: When a car crashes into a person, we don’t blame the car, we blame the driver. When a person abuses his or her right to own a car (drunken driving, moving violation, etc.), he or she may lose the right to drive. Why not look at gun control similarly?

I am not a gun owner, but I have friends who are, and they are in favor of a solution like this. In order to legally drive a car, one must first get a learner’s permit before getting a license; this process can take several months to a year, but the result is often a responsible driver.

By making gun owners take safety tests and mental health exams, we might see some more responsible gun owners, and people who could be a threat with a gun might be turned off, because it wouldn’t be that easy. This proposed system wouldn’t stop people from misusing guns. But I believe it would produce safer gun owners, and potentially bring down the number of death by firearms.

Samuel David Quinones
West Sand Lake, NY


Maybe we should do the same with voters, Samuel.

Ditto for people considering conceiving a child.  Parenting tests and mental health exams, perhaps, Mr. Quinones?

It’s pretty evident Mr. Quinones was sound asleep in history class, or perhaps was skipping a lot of school to work on his physics doctoral thesis.

15 thoughts on “SPECIAL KIND OF STUPID: Implement testing before one can exercise Constitutional rights?”
  1. Does this nanny state commie liberal have a plan to get criminals to take these tests before they buy a stolen gun in an alley somewhere ? . what a complete slave.

  2. Excuse me but this fella is the same as those who support permits and training and and and!

    Pot meet kettle. It is no different.

    1. And what legislation did you get passed last year?

      We won’t win our rights back overnight.

      Assholes like you criticizing those doing yeoman’s work restoring our rights doesn’t help.

  3. Driving a car is a privilege granted by the state, not a right. And can be revoked for no reason. As such, the state may place any restriction or condition before granting such a privilege.

    Firearms ownership is an individual right protected, not granted, by the Constitution. The Constitution was written to restrict government, not citizens.

    So many things wrong with that excerpt.

  4. Personally, I think people should have to prove they have at least a clue of how our nation and laws work before they can vote. Just being born here shouldn’t be good enough.
    “The civics test is an oral test and the USCIS Officer will ask the applicant up to 10 of the 100 civics questions. An applicant must answer 6 out of 10 questions correctly to pass the civics portion of the naturalization test.”

    1. Can you say 9th amendment?
      You have an a obvious right to property. Horse or car, it’s just a method of travel and also a matter of property. There exists a self evident right to travel. It follows that there MUST be a right to use property aimed at travel to well travel.

      The problem I see with this is accepting the false premise that government is empowered to command licenses to use your owned property. Tell me, where is that authority specifically enumerated as delegated to government?

      Oh and rights ARE privileges and they are also immunities. Read the 14th and try to supplant “privilege” with permission or even allowance. Go sheds and try to explain how that makes sense.
      It doesn’t – BECAUSE in the context of the Constitution, rights and privileges are SYNONYMS!

  5. I think that most gun owners, like me, would *embrace* a test, check, & license system if the following two conditions were applied:

    1) The license would be cheap or free, and would be auto-renewed at no additional cost or hassle. (Of course, it could be revocable for cause, like a felony conviction.)

    2) Every other restriction & proscription on the sale, transfer, carrying, and (responsible) use of firearms would be stricken from the books.

    1. I could tend to agree, but I think that the government implementing the test, under those conditions would be like Rodney Dangerfield in Back To School where, at his oral final exam, the business professor asked him only one question… 27 parts!! What I am saying is, that the government would make the test so inconcievably difficult that hardly anyone could pass.

    2. How about foisting ALL that garbage on those adjudicated as guilty- leaving innocent people alone altogether? Why concede your rights even an inch KNOWING it WILL be taken a mile ( Illinois CCW fiasco as example )?

    3. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      Is any part of the second amendment conditional on passing a test?

      With the passage of IL CCW, we won back a portion of our God-given right to defend ourselves and our families.

      We need to work toward eliminating state-imposed “tests” and restrictive regulations.

  6. How about ditching all gun laws and simply trying criminals for their crimes and imprisoning as necessary.

    And bring back the rope, most ricky-tick, por favor.

  7. I think there should be more than just an age and State of origin requirement for our congressmen and state legislators.
    There is even know education requirements for people who create laws affecting the lives of millions and millions of people.
    Many of our politicians not do not even know what The US or their respective state constitution says.

Comments are closed.