Bunnykid68
Grandmaster
By force, if necessary.
Yep
By force, if necessary.
You just eliminated the justification for licensing. Do you realize that? All that compulsory education requirements and how many people graduate from high school still uneducated? Did you know that the average high schooler is reading literature at a 5th-8th grade level? The same government that provides this kind of education, and you want it to provide a similar compulsive education for firearms instructions? Are you nuts?I also have the right to free speech (including reading/writing), but it is required that I go to school to learn vocabulary and how to read/write. I (my parents) have the option to enroll me in public or private school, or home school; but schooling of some kind is required. Is my right being infringed on because they are making me go to school so I can properly use my freedom of speech?
I agree. People should be absolutely free to carry what they want when they want (I'll concede a few secured areas for argument's sake) and how they want without the government infringing on that right. No permission slips, no training requirements, no fees.Firearms should be treated similarly. There are many different options of training available, and you should be able to chose which one you prefer, but learning how to properly exercise your right is not an infringement of that right. IMO
As a free woman, I see irreparable harm in requiring training for people to carry a firearm (concealed is irrelevant, and other "weapons" are not so regulated; let's keep the vocabulary precise). The government has no duty to protect the citizens if by protect you mean prevent harm. (Another side note: it has an equal duty to provide the same protections, such as they are, to the non-law-abiding as well.) So you think you have a right to be protected from irresponsible people, huh? How does that work? I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "right" as it relates to freedom. You only have rights to ACT, for your benefit. Compelling other people to behave in any manner simply for the purpose of improving your lot in life is not a right. There is no inalienable right to force me to do X just so you can Y. Not one. Your right to self defense only extends as far as you have an identifiable and (semi-)immediate threat. Wholesale restrictions of the actions of your fellow citizens just for your benefit is slavery.As a gun owner, I agree with the gentleman above in that I see no harm in requiring training for people to conceal and carry a weapon in public. In many cases (not including guns), our government has to protect the law-abiding, sane, GOOD AMERICANS from those who are not those things. You bring up the word "right". As a citizen, I feel I have the RIGHT to be protected from irresponsible, untrained people carrying deadly weapons. In my opinion, because I have only good intentions for carrying....I have no problem being required to be trained. I understand and respect your stance...just wanted to share mine also.
good discussion always leads to positive ends.
Do you mean "schools" as in public/private ones or just education in general? If it's the former I agree. Not forcing minors to be educated just spells bad news all the way around.
No one is against training. It is a matter of how to obtain it.
Government mandates are feckless. Just look at this bill. Not effective until January 1, 2015. How many LCTHs are there now? 1.4 million now? What about all of them?
What other rights are subject to a barrier to entry? Voting tests? Comparative religion exams? Are there not constitutional amendments against barriers to entry of a right?
Instead of mandates, why not tax deductions? Encourage continual training (not just one inadequate class) by allowing tuition, ammo, travel, lodging costs to be above the line deductions on state income tax. As well, the costs of gun safes would be tax deductions.
It would be optional.
It would put the rhetoric of politicians to the test.
It would give gun owners an incentive to seek training.
Have any of y'all ever read the Heller opinion and what Scalia said in his majority opinion on the term "well-regulated"?
It seems that most of the folks screaming about their rights have no idea. A trained militia would be the modern definition. Training folks.
Have any of y'all ever read the Heller opinion and what Scalia said in his majority opinion on the term "well-regulated"?
It seems that most of the folks screaming about their rights have no idea. A trained militia would be the modern definition. Training folks.
Who cares. It is a prefatory clause and has no bearing on the operative clause.
Have any of y'all ever read the Heller opinion and what Scalia said in his majority opinion on the term "well-regulated"?
It seems that most of the folks screaming about their rights have no idea. A trained militia would be the modern definition. Training folks.
Who cares. It is a prefatory clause and has no bearing on the operative clause.
Maybe you'd be happy with the requirements the citizens of Washington D.C. have to go through?
MILLER: Emily gets her gun - Washington Times
Useless training requirements on stuff she doesn't use.
Can't carry outside the home.
Expensive
Red tape.
Bureaucrats throwing out opinions as fact, and being wrong.
Being handed outdated paperwork, to make it harder for you.
Having to travel outside your city to receive training.
Having to travel outside your city to practice.
And the list goes on.
I see you haven't read Heller.
Have you read it?I see you haven't read Heller.
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.
Wow Steve, that cannot be right can it? This was the 1st thing I read in that decisionHave you read it?
Here you go, I will give you the link. See 1a.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Also read this.
You can find that here.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Wow Steve, that cannot be right can it? This was the 1st thing I read in that decision
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
Have any of y'all ever read the Heller opinion and what Scalia said in his majority opinion on the term "well-regulated"?
It seems that most of the folks screaming about their rights have no idea. A trained militia would be the modern definition. Training folks.
What's the dress code for said training? Will clothing be optional? I really just want to wear my gun belt with the holster, I get sweaty really fast, and want to remain cool and calm during these exercises.
I can always wear this also:
I'm not sure where I stand on this...right vs individual responsibility while doing so? I've been to the range where people (not in training) couldn't hit the side of a barn from 3' even when it wasn't moving! I've seen guys who's rounds ricochet'd off the ceiling, the floor, side walls, etc. I've had friends who have left the same range and came back later rather than shoot with the idiots who were shooting while they were there.
The ability to own and carry a gun for personal protection is a right, one that shall not be infringed. However, it's also a responsibility...to be used appropriately! Not everyone knows and understand the laws, rights, and responsibilities of gun ownership...and definitely all do not show respect for others in the process. Educating people is a large part of continuing to develop responsible (and, hopefully, mature) gun owners! But at what point does 'required' education infringe on the right to self-defense? Tough balance...not always an easy answer!
How is that giving up a right? It would not be mandatory; you could still get your LTCH without training.
Personally, there shouldnt even be a LTCH permit. Why do I need to have a permit to excercise my 2A right?
Assuming you have a LTCH (and I do as well) we both have paid a fee (or sold our rights for chump change)
I was trying to say they could encourage training with lower fees.
I also have the right to free speech (including reading/writing), but it is required that I go to school to learn vocabulary and how to read/write. I (my parents) have the option to enroll me in public or private school, or home school; but schooling of some kind is required. Is my right being infringed on because they are making me go to school so I can properly use my freedom of speech?
Firearms should be treated similarly. There are many different options of training available, and you should be able to chose which one you prefer, but learning how to properly exercise your right is not an infringement of that right. IMO
As a gun owner, I agree with the gentleman above in that I see no harm in requiring training for people to conceal and carry a weapon in public. In many cases (not including guns), our government has to protect the law-abiding, sane, GOOD AMERICANS from those who are not those things. You bring up the word "right". As a citizen, I feel I have the RIGHT to be protected from irresponsible, untrained people carrying deadly weapons. In my opinion, because I have only good intentions for carrying....I have no problem being required to be trained. I understand and respect your stance...just wanted to share mine also.
good discussion always leads to positive ends.
Do you mean "schools" as in public/private ones or just education in general? If it's the former I agree. Not forcing minors to be educated just spells bad news all the way around.
How you shootin today Thorny?