DescentBB

If people had to pass an IQ test with a minimum score of 110 to:

- get a driver's license

- own a gun

- vote

Just hypothetically of course.

(And before any smarmy remarks from Fern, yes I have scored far far above said minimum.) ;P

The answer is too complicated, but in simple terms…

You would ruin democracy.

That's called discrimination.

flip wrote:That's called discrimination.

So if a persons IQ is 45 you'd have no problem with that person being legally able to carry a firearm?

an IQ score has no relation towards firearm or vehicle responsibility.

Heh, if their special needs then they probably wouldn't even think about it

Ferno wrote:an IQ score has no relation towards firearm or vehicle responsibility.

Really? You do know Ferno, in both cases you have to take a test before being licensed.

ThunderBunny wrote:If people had to pass an IQ test with a minimum score of 110 to:

- get a driver's license

- own a gun

- vote

Just hypothetically of course.

(And before any smarmy remarks from Fern, yes I have scored far far above said minimum.) ;P

First off, you'd probably see widespread inflation of IQ 'results' generated, sort of like any standardized testing requirements for school graduations or civil service exams in many cases. Second thought: IQ is a dicey measurment anyway, so the barrier you wish to suggest is pretty arbitrary. Given that 100 is a 'norm', for some reason you would suggest that only the most intelligent amongst us ought to be allowed to vote, drive and hunt? I don't see the merit in that. Having said that, guns and driving privileges require a certain amount of testing, which would seem to weed out the most slow-witted members of the group. And, when it comes to voting, it seems that the slower members of the intellectual pool get elected. Anyone with a brain avoids running.....

ThunderBunny wrote:What would happen...
If people had to pass an IQ test with a minimum score of 110 to:

- get a driver's license

- own a gun

- vote

Just hypothetically of course.

The keeping and bearing of arms is a right, and voting is representation. So no. As far as driving a car, I'd say tests to demonstrate comprehension of road rules and driving ability are all that is needed. Obviously that takes a certain level of intelligence. I believe anything else would just be looking to set a bad precedent.

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:an IQ score has no relation towards firearm or vehicle responsibility.

Really? You do know Ferno, in both cases you have to take a test before being licensed.

*twitch*

woodchip wrote:

flip wrote:That's called discrimination.

So if a persons IQ is 45 you'd have no problem with that person being legally able to carry a firearm?

They do anyway. Tell any rural person he or she can't carry a gun because they're too stupid to own one would start a revolution, plain and simple.

he should be shot for those shorts alone.

I was trying to figure out if those were actual shorts or just boxers, but either way, blech.

callmeslick wrote:he should be shot for those shorts alone.

"Tisk" Some people just don't have a fashion sense.

There actually is a kind of test, excluding the gun safety course they have to take...

I've worked in the office where they review gun license applications in Texas. They're backlogged by the thousands. And half the idiots who apply can't follow directions. One mistake and we'd reject the whole form, which is good because we wouldn't have to finish reviewing.

They mix up "country" with "county". The fields Name, Date of Birth, Social Security Number, and others like those could suddenly change throughout the documents they have to fill-in.

Your photo should show a picture of you. You should tape the photo to the inside of the square labeled, "tape photo to the inside of this square"; not the back; not next to it.

The photos of people who apply are priceless. We found what looked like Teal'c's mom, from Stargate SG1. She looked just like Teal'c, only super ugly with red hair. She was passed around and named Teal'c's mom. We also found a "vladimir putin", who was also passed around. We'd use his photo as a puppet and say things in Borat's accent, like "I needs a Texas gun license really bad to shewt et things. Go Longhorns."

Isaac wrote:There actually is a kind of test, excluding the gun safety course they have to take...

I've worked in the office where they review gun license applications in Texas. They're backlogged by the thousands. And half the idiots who apply can't follow directions. One mistake and we'd reject the whole form, which is good because we wouldn't have to finish reviewing.

They mix up "country" with "county". The fields Name, Date of Birth, Social Security Number, and others like those could suddenly change throughout the documents they have to fill-in.

Your photo should show a picture of you. You should tape the photo to the inside of the square labeled, "tape photo to the inside of this square"; not the back; not next to it.

The photos of people who apply are priceless. We found what looked like Teal'c's mom, from Stargate SG1. She looked just like Teal'c, only super ugly with red hair. She was passed around and named Teal'c's mom. We also found a "vladimir putin", who was also passed around. We'd use his photo as a puppet and say things in Borat's accent, like "I needs a Texas gun license really bad to shewt et things. Go Longhorns."

I see that Texans are getting top value for their tax dollars.

I get the feeling that "we" really means "me" as in, that's what Isaac does

Krom wrote:I see that Texans are getting top value for their tax dollars.

I'm not the file-clerk Texas needs. I'm file-clerk Texas deserves. Or is it the other way around? I forget.