Friend Shecky, if government thinks it "needs" money, it gets it. That is true even if "needs" is a suspect judgment. Jefferson warned us to that effect.
Like friend HD, I see your logic. However, I think you argue from an incorrect premise. You say:
Traditionally, government schools offered classes as tools to help students eventually become self sufficient members of society.
As I suggested, but can expand on, traditionally schools offer classes for reasons that are, at best, tenuously connected to "selfsufficiency." I refer not only to dance, golf, diving, fencing, field hockey, baseball (where still-soft bones are damaged by the act of hyperextending the elbow, AKA "throwing"), football (where 25% of players are maimed), and art appreciation. Is knowledge of history any more necessary for selfsufficiency than a good pickoff move? Literature? Higher mathmatics? Geography? Latin? Apparently not since so few have such knowledge -- or are physically fit -- and are, yet, financially successful. (We don't need the late night buffon to show us the lack of "education" among typical Americans.)
I submit that traditionally public shcools were not "trade schools." The ideal was "liberal education" and/or producing "good citizens." This with the odd "trade school" or talk of "an educated work force" as a bow to taxpayer sensitivities.
If physical fitness were a primary goal, it could be achieved far more cheaply and at a lower physical toll.
Do you argue in favor of tobacco subsidies?
No. I merely see that they exist. My poorly made point is that, traditionally, particular items of government spending primarily benefit a minority -- sometimes a very small minority. Many examples can be drawn as required. One hopes that he is not omitted from the list of beneficiaries of
some such spending.
As for farm subsidies, the theory is that we need selfsufficiency in food production. To that end, some benefit more so that we all benefit some. Unfortunately, more than 50% by value of farm products come from outside the U.S., so I guess "it" didn't work OR it could be worse but for . . . .
This plan IS like the government handing out shotglasses for the purpose of raking in the tax revenue on the whiskey people buy.
I respectfully submit that your analogy is not apt. The shot glass has a single value. Teaching firearms use has benefits beyond stimulating hunting, as other posters have illustrated.
Interesting that this WV proposal seems to have little to do with gun rights, or self defense, or the Second Amendment.
How so? Did Alvin York learn to shoot in "self defense" classes? No, he learned to shoot while hunting. Speaking of social benefits, familiarity with arms and their proper use is learned more in hunting than in any other activity.
Additionally, hunters are less likely to fall into the error of confusing possession and hunting use of firearms, mere things, with the causes of violence, which are social.
The idea that state schools can teach useful things isn't a new one.
The idea that state schools can teach popular things isn't a new one. What is new is that the state school is used to teach a non essential subject, of diminishing popularity, I might add, because the state needs the money it can squeeze from students. And there's little indication that it would even work! It presumes that all the other things youngsters do to fill their lives will go away so they again can take up hunting.
As you might anticipate given the above, I disagree with your statements of facts and presumptions. Schools have traditionally taught unpopular subjects. Moreover, when has popularity been a proper measure of value?
Where is this social contract? I never signed it. If the government really wanted to keep us all safe, they'd more likely take away guns, than teach them in schools. That would seem the best way for the government to discourage folks from taking the law into their own hands.
First, the concept of the
implied "social contract" is taught in most (if not all) HS political science courses. (See Hobbes, Locke, Rosseau.) That topic is likely not required for selfsufficiency, yes? It's only a way of looking at the human condition and rationalizing why the state seeks a monopoly of force. Doesn't make you a better computer tech or saleman.
Second, taking away guns would not end violence. Homo Sap was quite proficient at violence before the wide use of firearms and continues violent conduct exclusive of firearms. You know that. If not, see, Attilla, Hun, the; rage, road; and Clinton, Hillary.
Finally, "take way guns" is not an option. Beyond the fact that it would be unconstitutional, it would be contrary to my inherent right to bears arms, a right superior to the Constitution and all other laws of men. If our supposed masters attempted to diminsh that inherent right by attempting to bar access to firearms generally, there would be trouble -- in WBGV and elsewhere.
:thumbup:
