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

[M14 Shooter]

Your statement above displays a remarkable level of ignorance, typical of your ilk.

Doesn't change the fact you lied.

 

[Dadoalex]

Fallacy: Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Are you seriously so stupid you think the dearth of murders by "tommy-guns" since its regulation is due to some other reason?

I guess you also think the smaller number of deaths prior to deregulation of semi-automatic rifles is due to global warming.

It's quite the stretch to be stupid in a dead language.

 

[martybegan]

So you admit you lied.

OK.

Nope. it's what you want, right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are you seriously so stupid you think the dearth of murders by "tommy-guns" since its regulation is due to some other reason?

Nothing here changes the fact you presented a post hoc fallacy; your reply, above, indicates you know you have no hope of presenting anything but.

 

[SavannahMann]

You won't see a maga person shooting them....you have seen left wing, democrat party, transgenders murdering school children......

Maga terrorists?

No.

We did see democrat party brownshirts....blm and antifa, burn, loot and murder in our major cities for an entire year, while the democrat party mayors of those cities told the police to stand down....

Any mandated training is simply a way to deny people a Right......

You apparently enjoyed the Literacy Tests democrats used for voting too....right?

So it was a Democrat who shot the woman and killed her because she displayed a Rainbow Flag in support of the gay community?

Store owner shot to death by man who made "disparaging remarks" about Pride flag, authorities say

The flag stood outside her clothing store in Cedar Glen, California.

www.cbsnews.com

And the shooter himself died. Boy that’s a long way to go to set up someone else don’t you think?

How about the Proud Boy who fled before his Sentencing? Another LW plant?

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/——-/ Progressives know from experience they can’t fill mass graves when the victims can shoot back.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Anybody who knows me knows I am a small government, maximum individual liberty, constitutional appreciator/preacher/teacher. But we cannot have that without necessary laws, as close universal compliance with those laws as possible, and ability to enforce those laws.

I see informative and possibly life saving PSAs as a legitimate function of a government constitutionally authorized and mandated to promote the general welfare. That would be EVERYBODY'S welfare and not just special or targeted groups. And that could certainly include information on gun laws and safety that are in the national interest.

Perhaps we can amicably agree to disagree on that?

As long as you fund the PSAs, I'm cool!

 

[M14 Shooter]

/——-/ Progressives know from experience they can’t fill mass graves when the victims can shoot back.

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

 

[Grau]

I own several. The last time I filled out a form, handed over my CCW credential, and watched as the guy behind the counter copied the card and attached it to the form. He entered the card number on the form as authorization number. I walked out with my purchase five minutes later.

It was about as difficult as getting a fishing license. And far less complicated than getting a hunting license and a tag for a game animal. For that I had to attend a class for Hunter safety.

Why is it unreasonable to expect the person who wishes to carry in public to attend a similar class as the Hunters attend?

And for Range Standards I suggested 25 yards, two hits out of three shots in the target. Slow fire and not timed.

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,

 

[Foxfyre]

As long as you fund the PSAs, I'm cool!

Cool yes. Practical no.

 

[Dadoalex]

Nope. it's what you want, right?

No, you lied.

 

[Dadoalex]

Nothing here changes the fact you presented a post hoc fallacy; your reply, above, indicates you know you have no hope of presenting anything but.

You're right.
Your stupid in any language.

 

[SavannahMann]

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,

Yes. I support you being able to buy no real issue. But public carry. Here is what I want to see.

1) a course lasting a few hours where someone explains to you the laws regarding carrying and using your weapon. We have seen several news stories of late where people were outraged that they were arrested for defending themselves. They had no idea of what the laws actually say or what their rights and responsibilities are. In Georgia you have to attend a Hunter Safety program. This is to help make sure you apply safe hunting practices and you don’t shoot your buddy. You are also told what kinds of animals you can hunt and what seasons there are. What kinds of rifle ammunition you are allowed to use is also covered.

Now you have your license. Now you can apply for your tag. Do you want bow hunting? Black Powder? Buck or Doe? Cartridge Firearm? Gator? Hog? Coyote?

It is a real pain in the ass to go hunting. Permits and tags. Accessing public or private lands. A whole thing.

If you learn what laws will apply to you then you can make good choices.

Let’s say you walk up on a man breaking into your car. You pull your gun and hold him at gunpoint, the criminal is on the ground. The police arrive. You are going to jail in Georgia. You just committed two Felonies. Aggravated Assault, and False Imprisonment. You can’t place someone under Citizens Arrest. You don’t have the authority to do so.

If a man pulls a weapon on you. You reach for yours and he drops his and starts running. If you chase him as a citizen. You are going to jail. Period. No discussion. No it’s not fair will help you.

Wanting to arm yourself to take responsibility for your safety is admirable. However doing to I’ll equipped and ignorant of the standards that the law says will be applied is idiotic.

Oh. And the weapons I qualified with in the army was M-16A1, and A2. M-203 Grenade Launcher, M-60 Machine Gun. M-9 9MM. And familiarized since we didn’t have a range that allowed Qualification with the M-67 90MM Recoiless Rifle.

My unit didn’t have the Ma Deuce .50 BMG. Our biggest Machine Guns were the M-60’s and I loved the Pig. I got to be the gunner for a while before I was made a Team Leader and handed the 203.

The Grunts were getting the SAW’s as I was about to leave that unit. And I didn’t see a Mark 19 until I was reclassified as REMF.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Owning a firearm is not unreasonable. But you and your ilk want to hold people who have not committed any crimes responsible for the bad acts of others.

More to the point, filth such as Dadoalex want to render good human beings easy prey for subhuman criminal shit. They •WANT• criminals to be able to harm us with impunity.

 

[Blues Man]

I am not saying there should be mandatory training. I am saying there should be mandatory safety education as would be the case in getting most other licenses. A high school or NRA (or any other certified org) class in gun safety would do it. And would not be unreasonable as all students would take the course and the Democrats would have to make it passable by pretty much everybody.

It may seem intuitive to us that reasonable safety means you always assume a gun is loaded, you don't point even an empty firearm at any living thing, be certain of what you are shooting at before you shoot, keep firearms away from small children, etc. But many who have never been taught don't think about such things until it is too late. And too many might never see or hear a PSA.

The PSAs could be good reminders of the safety rules and could suggest that firearm owners get training in how to use them competently and safely.

If you want to require licensing in order exercise a right then that has to apply to all rights.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Stop lying.

You might as well ask a fly to stop eating shit as ask Dadoalex to stop lying.

 

[Blues Man]

What we're discussing doesn't violate the 2nd so go somewhere with you mindless NRA drivel.

It actually does.

Requiring anyone to have to pay for classes and pass tests before they can exercise a right is unconstitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're right.
Your stupid in any language.

Says the dolt who can only argue correlation proves causation.

 

[Dadoalex]

More to the point, filth such as Dadoalex want to render good human beings easy prey for subhuman criminal shit. They •WANT• criminals to be able to harm us with impunity.

Another horse's ass for the DADO's stable.

Don't worry little gelding. I won't ride you too hard.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Why is it not a violation of the First Amendment to require a permit to hold an event? The First Amendment says you may peaceably Assemble. But the Supreme Court has upheld the requirement for permits and minimum standards. Security. Sanitation. And the rest.
The Constitution does not set those limits. Yet the Courts have upheld these limits as Constitutional.
Limits on free speech are well established. Limits on Freedom of the Press are also well established. Why is it illegal to Libel or Slander? Isn’t that free speech?
Why is it only the Second where any restrictions are intolerable?

No right includes the rights to harm others, to violate the rights of others, or to deny others the use of common resources.

If you assemble on public property, then it is entirely reasonable to make sure that others are not unreasonably denied their rightful use of that property. Hence, it is reasonable for local governments to impose permit requirements, to make sure that anyone who wishes to use that property is given his fair chance.

The courts have held that prior restraint on free speech is prohibited. Government cannot tell you ahead of time what you are or are not allowed to say. Now if you say something that unjustly causes harm to another, then the one who is harmed has standing to sue you on the basis of that harm.

Comparable limits on the Second Amendment would be limits that prohibit you from shooting someone that you do not have just cause to shoot, or carelessly handling or discharging a firearm in a manner that unjustifiably harms, endangers, or threatens others. The right to keep and bear arms does not include nor imply any right to unjustifiably harm, threaten, or endanger anyone else.

The limits that your degenerate kind want to impose on this right are comparable to the prior restraint on free speech that the courts have consistently ruled are impermissible; or to restrictions on assembly because government does not like the message on which that assembly is based. What you support are direct attacks on the right itself, rather than reasonable restrictions against abusing that right to the harm of others.