Why 2nd Amendment supporters who support mandatory training are wrong….

[Foxfyre]

It could be responsible if everybody had the same agenda for public safety.

However, as we see time and time again the Liberals will abuse the process to make it restrictive. Their agenda is not public safety but to do away with the right to keep and bear arms.

For instance, it is reasonable to allow concealed carry. However, in many Democrat controlled cites and even states it is almost impossible to get a license. Even with the Bruen decision.

Another example is how some cities and even states have made it extremely difficult for the average citizen to purchase an AR-15. Like what was recently passed in Illinois and Washington State. That is very unreasonable and the type of oppression you get when you allow Liberals the ability to require some kind of control.

I do not trust anyone with my individual liberties. Least of all a goddamn Democrat that has no regard for Constitutional freedoms.

Repeat: The crime should never be be the possession of an arm but the crime that is committed with it. No Constitutional right should be taxed, regulated, restricted or infringed upon. If the government can do any of those things then the Bill of Rights ain't worth the parchment it is written on.

Basically I agree with you. And it is sad that angry and destructive partisan politics overrides common sense as the norm these days and pretty well prevents common sense solutions so that everybody's important needs can be met.

You see I don't want my crazy neighbor who gets drunk on Saturday nights and does a whole lot of angry, stupid, dangerous sh*t having access to a machine gun and ammo or a fully armed piece of artillery. So how do I protect myself and my neighbors without violating the Second Amendment?

This would be an extreme case of course--and it is only an analogy as I'm pretty sure all my neighbors could be trusted with a machine gun or a 105mm recoilless rifle--but somehow there has to be a way to deal with things like that. We sure don't want those machine guns or artillery pieces in the hands of gang members or other lawless individuals or in a bar where fist and knife fights between angry drunks are common. There has to be some reasonable regulation that does not infringe on constitutional liberties.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Working order means trained, organized, equipped and ready to fight

Not a random bunch of rednecks

Oh my goodness we train monthly pecker lips
We're well organized and equiped

 

[Cellblock2429]

A citizenry armed with AR15s can't be herded into boxcars.

/——-/ Yours is my quote of the week in my sig line.

 

[2aguy]

If I understand you correctly, you support mandatory training for concealed carry but not for simple possession.

Is that right?


If so, I'm very, very tempted to agree with you and I have a license to carry in a state that requires training but I had been shooting since I was ten years old and, in the Army, got extensive training and use of numerous small arms, M-79s, .50 cal. BMGs as well as Soviet and Chinese weaponry.

You're right, it is reasonable to expect someone who is carrying a loaded firearm in public to be trained to some degree.

The reason that I have reservations is that we would be infringing, to some degree, on a Constitutional Right.

Even though the infringement is to a small degree, that's how Rights are completely taken away... by small degrees.

I would much prefer to see people seek training voluntarily through some sort of incentive program like tax credits, discounted ammunition etc.

Thanks,

And the democrats thought it was "reasonable," to require blacks to pass a literacy test for voting......do you agree with what they did for that?

 

[2aguy]

Actually Bob Blaylock developed the concept.

At first it seems a good idea, hit 'em early, hit 'em hard.

But some people don't get the opportunity to graduate for a variety of reasons.
I think the stuff highlighted would be worthwhile to teach at the high school level but that might require getting rid of other courses needed for higher academics.
and
Let's be honest, not all HS educations are equal.

What I suggest isn't onerous.
Want a Glock? To take a Glock safety course. Maybe 4 hours. No tests, just situational awareness as it were. Loading, unloading, clearing, cleaning, storage.
Want a shotgun? Different course because shotgun safety is different from handgun safety.

To me the concept isn't pro or anti gun. It's just common sense.
When the guy handling the gun is safer, we're all safer.

Nope.....we already see what the democrats are doing with mandatory training......they aren't going to make it easier......they want to keep people from exercising that Right, just like the democrats did when they had Literacy Tests before blacks could vote.

 

[Dadoalex]

Nope.....we already see what the democrats are doing with mandatory training......they aren't going to make it easier......they want to keep people from exercising that Right, just like the democrats did when they had Literacy Tests before blacks could vote.

You can't see the end of your nose for the ignorance and stupidity blocking your vision.

 

[2aguy]

I do not mind licensing for concealed carry so long as it is reasonably and equitably applied. I don't want the would be robber to be able to conceal the weapon he intends to use to rob the liquor store or whatever, and if he does, I want the law to be able to count that as a prosecutable offense. Those with criminal records are generally not granted a CC permit.

Many states including mine that is a bright blue state allow open carry pretty much everywhere and without any licensing requirements and without any restrictions except in schools, court houses, bars etc. that right or wrong do not allow firearms of any kind.

The Founders were adamant that the citizenry not be prevented from owning and possessing firearms, but their qualification of a 'well regulated militia' suggested that some laws/regulation in how those firearms would and could be used could be appropriate.

It already is a prosecutable offense.......a felon can't buy, own, or carry a gun in the first place. And until someone draws the weapon with the intent to commit robbery, if they are not already a felon, what difference does it make?

Nope..........you don't understand the word "regulated," as in to be able to march in formation......not regulating who could own or carry a gun.

 

[2aguy]

You can't see the end of your nose for the ignorance and stupidity blocking your vision.

And if you vote for democrats, with their history and current use of racism...you are a fool.

 

[2aguy]

I know this will surprise you, but...

Anti-gun trogs hate the right to keep and bear arms, and will do everything in their power to make it as hard as possible for the law abiding to exercise it.
They don't care about rights, the law abiding, or the constitution -- they just hate the right to keep and bear arms.

They are misanthropes...they hate humans....

 

[Dadoalex]

And if you vote for democrats, with their history and current use of racism...you are a fool.

I've been foolish.
But I wan't stupid enough to fall for the Trump grift.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Foxfyre]

It already is a prosecutable offense.......a felon can't buy, own, or carry a gun in the first place. And until someone draws the weapon with the intent to commit robbery, if they are not already a felon, what difference does it make?

Nope..........you don't understand the word "regulated," as in to be able to march in formation......not regulating who could own or carry a gun.

And you apparently didn't read what I wrote.

 

[Flash]

You see I don't want my crazy neighbor who gets drunk on Saturday nights and does a whole lot of angry, stupid, dangerous sh*t having access to a machine gun and ammo or a fully armed piece of artillery.

...and I don't want some idiot pothead driving on the streets killing my wife as she goes to the grocery store.

Of course we don't want anybody to do something stupid.

However, my Constitutional rights should not be infringed upon because somebody else is an idiot.

 

[Flash]

Let's put everything in the proper perspective.

As usual the Bee has it right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It puts the shop owner and employees at a disadvantage and higher risk if the robber conceals the weapon until just prior to the robbery.

Which they do, whether it is legal to do so or not.
Restricting the law abiding with the idea that said restriction will prevent criminals from doing something is farcical, at best.

 

[Foxfyre]

...and I don't want some idiot pothead driving on the streets killing my wife as she goes to the grocery store.

Of course we don't want anybody to do something stupid.

However, my Constitutional rights should not be infringed upon because somebody else is an idiot.

There's no way to know that pothead is out there though or a danger to you. But when we know a crazy drunk shouldn't have a weapon that can kill a lot of people and is likely crazy enough to do it, I think there must be a way to regulate that.

 

[2aguy]

There's no way to know that pothead is out there though or a danger to you. But when we know a crazy drunk shouldn't have a weapon that can kill a lot of people and is likely crazy enough to do it, I think there must be a way to regulate that.

There already is......if you are carrying while intoxicated you can be arrested.

You really don't understand how this works. The criminals are already carrying guns illegally no matter what laws you pass.....they can be arrested when they are caught.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There's no way to know that pothead is out there though or a danger to you. But when we know a crazy drunk shouldn't have a weapon that can kill a lot of people and is likely crazy enough to do it, I think there must be a way to regulate that.

It's generally illegal for a drunk person to carry a gun.
In all 50 states, I'd wager.

 

[Foxfyre]

There already is......if you are carrying while intoxicated you can be arrested.

You really don't understand how this works. The criminals are already carrying guns illegally no matter what laws you pass.....they can be arrested when they are caught.

You guys mean well but you're really missing the point. But I gotta go. Maybe I can think of some way to explain it better tomorrow. Everybody have a good night.

 

[2aguy]

You guys mean well but you're really missing the point. But I gotta go. Maybe I can think of some way to explain it better tomorrow. Everybody have a good night.

You are explaining it fine, you are just wrong.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

There's no way to know that pothead is out there though or a danger to you. But when we know a crazy drunk shouldn't have a weapon that can kill a lot of people and is likely crazy enough to do it, I think there must be a way to regulate that.

That makes you against the 2nd Amendment.