MANDATORY classes for ccw?

Bamabred · #51 05-06-2013, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RaceBannon

I'm not a big fan of regulations aimed at solving a problem that doesn't exist. How often are permit holders responsible for accidental shootings? How about accidental shootings outside the home?

^^^This^^^

gunfish · #52 05-06-2013, 08:24 AM

I am glad I live in a country where conversations like this take place. I am gladder still that I live in state that requires no "test" to issue a carry license. It can get scary thinking overmuch of the nature and ability of my fellow citizens to to conduct their lives as I see fit in even a general way. I do not think I should have control over their method of defense. They may be old, poor, weak, outnumbered, unpopular, stupid, ugly, or have differing beliefs that I don't approve of. They are on their own, just like me.

USAF385 · #53 05-06-2013, 08:43 AM

The poll result isn't surprising so far, considering how many here support universal background checks. I'm guessing a large percentage of those in favor of one are also in favor of the other.

ladder13 · #54 05-06-2013, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USAF385

The poll result isn't surprising so far, considering how many here support universal background checks. I'm guessing a large percentage of those in favor of one are also in favor of the other.

Not surprised either, looks like decades of gov't conditioning has taken it's toll. Sorry, but I don't see blood running down the streets in those states requiring no training at all.

deadin · #55 05-06-2013, 08:55 AM

How about this......??

Take the test (both written and performance) without spending $$$ ($150 in some cases). If you don't pass, then remedial training.
To have the "powers that be" decide that I don't know squat about the law and firearm handling and then make me pay to listen to someone "teach" me everything I already know just seems to be another ploy to limit my access to firearms......(and make money).

blujax01 · #56 05-06-2013, 09:08 AM

While I am not in favor of mandatory training to obtain a CCW, in Ohio it is mandatory already. 12 hours of training in fact, including 3 hours of range time.

The essence of the poll came from another thread mainly concerned with firearm ownership and government oversight.

A question better suited to the original conversation would be:

Do you support mandatory government-regulated safety and proficiency training in order to own a firearm?

JFootin · #57 05-06-2013, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete99004

So if you open carry, or don't carry but you own firearms you don't need any safety training? Why would you only require it for concealed carry? Why would you not require for anyone who has a firearm? Why don't they require new mothers to attend baby safety training? How else will they find out not to put peas up the kids nose, or not to put a plastic bag over the kids head?

What ever happened to being responsible for yourself and for the safety of others?

No! Not Mandatory training, but everyone should be trained in my opinion, just not mandatory.

Pete

If they want to ensure public safety with training classes, not just for CC but also for OC, it should be FREE, available to all and not mandatory. Nor should there be any license required, which is antithetical to it being a God-given right. Should everyone be held strictly and individually accountable for what they do with any weapon? Yes. Should there still be laws enforced concerning brandishing, terroristic threats, assaults, kidnapping, false imprisonment and every kind of stupidity with a weapon? Yes. But should law abiding citizens be demonized, denied, made to wait, made to pay lots of money and jump through hoops to exercize their rights? No. Any way you want to look at it, any and all of this stuff is serious infringement!

11B Lifer · #58 05-06-2013, 10:17 AM

To ensure public safety anyone who wants to write an article critical of the government should take a First Amendment Class-Just a short written test-if you pass then you can publish-if not then no article. Just a common sense exercise----controlled by the "party" of course.

Lost Lake · #59 05-06-2013, 10:34 AM

Keep in mind the poll asks if you believe in mandating training, not if you had to show proof of training to carry a gun.

I believe in what my forefathers wrote..... "Shall NOT be infringed"

Anything less is a slippery slope of corruption. They were there, they saw how it happens, and they gave us the tools to be a great nation.

Let's not waste this fabulous opportunity to BE a great nation by complacently giving away our rights to a few whining anti-gun people.

.

Bill Bates · #60 05-06-2013, 10:43 AM

Recently ( and currently ongoing) we fought a fight to stop mandatory background checks. One of the main reasons we, as firearm owners, were and are concerned was that those background checks could lead to registration and confiscation. We are concerned with government knowing we own firearms because we know that information may be used at some point in time to confiscate our firearms.

With that think I'm amazed at the number of firearm owners that see no problem with, and agree with government requiring training and license to exercise our right to carry a firearm. We go through a class, get a background check and the state issues a permit and keeps that information...anyone want venture a guess where the government who they will look at first, if and when, they decide to confiscate firearms?

We should never allow the government to require permission for us to exercise our inalienable rights.

Of course as with all right there are accompanying responsibilities. As firearm owners we have a responsibility to train, know the laws of use and to properly secure our firearms.

Rule3 · #61 05-06-2013, 10:48 AM

I do not understand why the whole 2nd amendment has to be bantered about? If your State requires a License or Permit already to conceal carry then why not get all bent out shape about that??

That, based on some of the replies is an "infringement"

I am infriged when I can not carry in the Post Office or a Federal building, a school, sporting event, bar etc. Lets get rid of those lame requirements also.

So for everyone to be happy, anyone should be able to buy any gun anytime and carry it were ever they want.

There problem solved.

ladder13 · #62 05-06-2013, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rule3

I do not understand why the whole 2nd amendment has to be bantered about? If your State requires a License or Permit already to conceal carry then why not get all bent out shape about that??

Let's talk about kittens then.

Realzebub45 · #63 05-06-2013, 11:08 AM

People are already bent out of shape about that. It says to keep and bear, not just to keep at home. Simple really.

Lost Lake · #64 05-06-2013, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rule3

I do not understand why the whole 2nd amendment has to be bantered about? If your State requires a License or Permit already to conceal carry then why not get all bent out shape about that??

That, based on some of the replies is an "infringement"

I am infriged when I can not carry in the Post Office or a Federal building, a school, sporting event, bar etc. Lets get rid of those lame requirements also.

So for everyone to be happy, anyone should be able to buy any gun anytime and carry it were ever they want.

There problem solved.

Yes our rights are being infringed on right now! In the ways you posted and many many others. YOU cannot own a sound muffling device for your firearm unless you pay for a $200 tax stamp and submit to an FBI background check.

Why is that? Do you realize what that law did when it went into effect in 1934 when suppressors were selling for $5 or less and the gov wanted a $200 tax stamp on them? It destroyed an industry.

Today that $200 isn't much, but it could be raised to $10,000 with the stroke of a pen.

The reason why the suppressor tax was put in place is debatable, but one account I have read which kind of makes sense is this:

The gov had a lot of out of work IRS agents after prohibition was over. When they passed a silencer and machine gun regulation only 1% of those items were ever registered ($200 at the time was a LOT of money). If the goal was registration the tax could have easily been $5 right?

What the new laws did was create a lot of criminals. Now why would the gov want that? Think about it.

I think any new regulations passed could also do the same thing. Requirements for training, training renewal, registration, licensing, proficiency testing, ammo registration, ammo limits, etc. Any new law can create a lot of new criminals, new reasons to expand government and cause more taxes.

No foil hat here. Just take a poll on how many of us would willing register all our guns and agree to the need to re-register them if we pass them on to our kids. All those who 'lost their guns in a boating accident' immediately become felons by not registering their weapons.

It's a slippery slope.

.

A10 · #65 05-06-2013, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timn8er

Just curious:

People on this thread seem to be in favor of training, but not mandatory training. Again, just curious, don't pick up your flamethrower yet, But if the training isn't mandatory, how many people do you think will even bother with it?

What kind of standards should & could be set for this non-mandatory training?

So, your premise is that if the Government doesn't require it, it won't get done? I guess we should mandate all training then.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bekeart

Gun safety classes are now required to get a hunting license. Well except for us old geezers.

Gun safety is equally important for concealed carry.

If you oppose requirement of a class, would you agree the person should be REQUIRED to pass a gun safety knowledge and practices test.

"shall not be infringed" but we have minimum age limits ...

People aren't really citizens until they reach the age of 18. They do not have all the rights accorded to them by the Constitution until that time. Hunting licences are granted by the state (you don't actually have the right to hunt, any more than you have a right to drive, or be an electrician, or plumber) so the state can decide what requirements they want to set for those licences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DR505

For non-LEO's, yes. For LEO's no...see HR218.

Uhhh.....no. If the law applies to one, it must apply to all, regardless of their choice of career.

smitholdtimer · #66 05-06-2013, 11:26 AM

You all know that there are those individuals who for one reason or another have never been exposed to firearms or the use there of. These folks do need training and plenty of it. I've heard horror stories from individuals who were taking the training and classes required by our fair state citing situations that were very scary to them and the remainder of the class. Just a fact of life that the individuals who have not had the privilege of learning how to properly handle guns or chose not to learn are now choosing to own and carry a gun. It is a good thing if they have the proper training and learn the safe handling procedures before they are turned loose on the public. We all had to learn from someone! Just one more opinion!

Rule3 · #67 05-06-2013, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladder13

Let's talk about kittens then.

I have a copy of the Constitution right here in front of me.

Under the 2nd Amendment I do not see any thing about a Form 4473??
So based on that, all the felons, drug addicts, wife beaters, husband beaters and mentally ill should all be allowed to have guns as they are still US Citizens and their rights" have been infringed. So the whole thing about CCW and training is mute.

We must have this nonsense of back ground checks repealed.

We must have anarchy except of course in New Yawk

I like kittens but then they become CATS!

gm272gs · #68 05-06-2013, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bamabred

...Most people who own a gun have had some sort of training, whether it be a father, friend, or safety course...

From my experience, not true.

I am an instructor and was at the range just yesterday doing a private class with a guy and his wife.

While I was there, no less than three (3) people showed up with new guns they had purchased, and not a single one of them had ever handled a firearm of any kind, before. None of them had any training, whatsoever.

I see this all the time, and it's kind of scary.

Lost Lake · #69 05-06-2013, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rule3

I have a copy of the Constitution right here in front of me.

Under the 2nd Amendment I do not see any thing about a Form 4473??
So based on that, all the felons, drug addicts, wife beaters, husband beaters and mentally ill should all be allowed to have guns as they are still US Citizens and their rights" have been infringed. So the whole thing about CCW and training is mute.

We must have this nonsense of back ground checks repealed.

We must have anarchy except of course in New Yawk

I like kittens but then they become CATS!

Cats.... I have no use for cats. The local oriental food place has been shut down three times (as reported in the newspaper) because they have been caught with multiple cages (23 at last report) of stray animals in the facility storage room. I guess different cultures see animals differently. Some won't eat cows while I just love a juicy steak!!!

Okay, back to the subject: Felons don't get the same rights the rest of us do. That's what you give up when you decide to commit felonies.

.

JJEH · #70 05-06-2013, 12:15 PM

Well, some new firearms owners that do the CCW class did never really handle/shoot a firearm before. Therefore I think taking a safety- and handling class is a good idea. Not to purchase one, but to get the CCW. And then it's up to each individual to keep up to date with proper training.

woodsltc · #71 05-06-2013, 12:38 PM

Ladder13, I voted for "no" mandatory training, but when you look at how the poll question is worded ("mandatory" could be interpreted to mean just a little training or an extensive course on law with a demonstration of firearm safety and proficiency or anything in between)....Accordingly, I'm not surprised at how this poll is going.

I can't speak for all states, but my guess is that "most" states "already" require some sort of mandatory class in order to get a "carry license"....at least Tennessee does. Note: I said "most states". I know there are some that only require you to pay a fee and have a background check, but I think those states are in the minority.

I think most people are going to vote based on what they are already familiar with, which is some kind of mandatory training that's already required in their home state. JMO

Don

SW_shooter · #72 05-06-2013, 12:52 PM

Well let's see if I can pour some gas on this fire.

I voted Yes for mandatory training before reading all the responses. Some good arguments some not so good in my opinion. Why do I say yes? Because I believe people (like me when I started my gun buying) should have some sort of instruction on proper handling, care and use AND especially the legal ramifications of using the firearm to shoot another human.

and now the gas........................

You guys that have military experience think you're special and don't need classes for concealed carry are full of it. Just because you served time in the military (and I really do appreciate your service and thank you from my heart) doesn't mean you know the legal aspects to shooting a civilian in self defense. I agree you probably deserve a pass on the handling and care of a weapon but that'd be the extent of it. IMHO

The paranoid portion that think the government will somehow magically obtain their names and numbers to confiscate their guns are just that...paranoid.

Why did I have to take a test to get my drivers license, I mean come on it's just driving. Why would I have to get a pilots license to fly an airplane, it's just flying a little single engine plane. Hunting and fishing? The government doesn't own those animals so why do I have to get a license to harvest them? I don't have to have a license to farm or grow a garden and the vegetables/animals I harvest!

A vehicle is a deadly weapon, airplane can be a deadly weapon and a firearm certainly is a deadly weapon and that's why I think a little training is a good thing.

here kitty kitty....

gregintenn · #73 05-06-2013, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Why did I have to take a test to get my drivers license, I mean come on it's just driving. Why would I have to get a pilots license to fly an airplane, it's just flying a little single engine plane. Hunting and fishing? The government doesn't own those animals so why do I have to get a license to harvest them? I don't have to have a license to farm or grow a garden and the vegetables/animals I harvest!

A vehicle is a deadly weapon, airplane can be a deadly weapon and a firearm certainly is a deadly weapon and that's why I think a little training is a good thing.

here kitty kitty....

I'll be glad to tell you why, although it has been previously covered in this thread.

You do NOT have the specific constitutional right to fly an airplane, drive a car, hunt wildlife, eat a cat, etc.

We've just plum given up on personal responsibility haven't we?

SW_shooter · #74 05-06-2013, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregintenn

I'll be glad to tell you why, although it has been previously covered in this thread.

You do NOT have the specific constitutional right to fly an airplane, drive a car, hunt wildlife, eat a cat, etc.

We've just plum given up on personal responsibility haven't we?

I figured someone would try to re-direct my point to that argument. If you've read the 2nd amendment it says you have the right to bear and keep arms, NOT to conceal carry! And don't give me that argument that you interpret it to mean you can keep and bear arms on your person.

My point (which wasn't obvious enough apparently) was that we use other deadly "things" and have to have training to use them, why not for a gun?

redlevel · #75 05-06-2013, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Bates

I'm amazed at the number of firearm owners that see no problem with, and agree with government requiring training and license to exercise our right to carry a firearm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ladder13

looks like decades of gov't conditioning has taken it's toll.

Yep . . . . once you get used to it, I guess it ain't really so bad.

I just have to keep saying, "Thank God for Georgia."
I guess us dumb old "regressive" Crackers will keep plugging along.

By the way, I can't believe some keep harping on the training LEO's get.
How many LEO's have shot themselves in the leg, butt, or foot with their
Glops in recent years? I am certainly not a police basher, but apparently
the training the average street cop gets ain't much.

Autococker07 · #76 05-06-2013, 01:45 PM

Although it hurts my heart to say yes, a few years working in a gun store has shown me that a significant number of "legal" carriers have not received, or have forgotten/ignored any type of safety training.... it would blow your mind how many concealed guns have been pulled on me..... very very few have been pulled safely, and cleared......

Obviously the key to this issue is keeping a ccw license separated from what/who/etc.... the govt has no need to know what why or when you carry, only that you, the carrier have met a basic safety course.... it would be a tough thing to do effectively....

Rule3 · #77 05-06-2013, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GA 1911

Georgia does not require a mandatory class or test for a GWCL (GA Weapon Carry License). We only require a background check, and I have not heard that Georgia citizens are carelessly wounding himself or family members due to a lack of "training".

The ATF also issued me a FFL 03 C&R License without "training". I had to submit to a background check and have a current hunting or GWCL license.

I guess a TN guy can have a FFL 03 which would allow him to buy, sell, and ship eligible guns within the 50 States. Just don't carry one until you are certified by the local gov'ment.

Well do you expect more from Georgia?

Just kidding. Joke hint hint.

But you mention Hunting Licenses. Why do we need those? According to our leaders guns were only needed to hunt game and feed our families. Something like "you do not need x amount of bullets to kill a deer" or something like that.

Hell we need fishing licenses and that does not involve guns (usually) They claim it goes to resource management just like the Lottery goes to education.

Bullzaye · #78 05-06-2013, 01:52 PM

I voted "No".

I don't see anyone looking into the knowledge (or lack thereof) of voters entering the voting booth. It occurs to me that the dangers presented by an uninformed, ignorant voter are much greater than an untrained CCW'er.

I'm not espousing testing for voters...I'm just saying that personal responsibility trumps the "feelings" of being unsafe that some of you profess to have around potentially untrained (or at least, not government sanctioned) CCW'ers. We assume that voters have done their due diligence before they cast their votes...why can't we assume the same of a person choosing to carry a gun for self-defense?

Tim

jag312 · #79 05-06-2013, 01:58 PM

[QUOTE=sipowicz;137204786]Cops are pretty well trained in firearms yet they miss quite often when the SHTF...QUOTE]

I'm afraid that I will have to disagree with you on that. Most Police Officers I know have only a superficial knowledge of the gun they carry. Others are just pathetic. Maybe it is because of the area where I work. Don't get me started.

jaykellogg · #80 05-06-2013, 01:59 PM

I voted "no" even though i agree that training is good. I support background checks also (on some level), but I have yet to see a background check bill I can support. My fear is anti gun locations could make the training so onerous or expensive as to limit the number of permits issued

nachogrande · #81 05-06-2013, 02:03 PM

the fact that you already need to get a license is against the constitution. on the flip side pretty much any other lic req's proof of a certain level of skill, ex drivers, pilots, boating, Dr's, Nurses, almost any licensed profession. and I don't believe there is such a thing as too much knowledge/training/practice when it comes to guns especially. I would hope the individual seeks it out on their own. I for one would rather see a methhead get the cash drawer than be caught in the crossfire of a bunch of know nothing ccw licensed carriers in a crowded 7-11 regardless of their good intentions.

Realzebub45 · #82 05-06-2013, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SW_shooter

I figured someone would try to re-direct my point to that argument. If you've read the 2nd amendment it says you have the right to bear and keep arms, NOT to conceal carry! And don't give me that argument that you interpret it to mean you can keep and bear arms on your person.

My point (which wasn't obvious enough apparently) was that we use other deadly "things" and have to have training to use them, why not for a gun?

I'm sorry. You are saying you have the right not to conceal carry? Or, are saying that it says you specifically do not have the right to conceal carry. You don't think they covered slipping a snubbie flintlock in your pocket under the blanket "Keep and bear"? Wait until the left gets a hold of your theory.

So all those women packing purse guns were breaking the law back then, huh? I would be curious, because I don't know, to find out when and where was the first CCW permit issued? This was a reaction to ensure that previously illegal activity was controlled? I saw on Ebay they were selling John Hancocks original CCW permit. They wanted too much $$$ though. Coincidentally, it looks just like a copy of the Bill of Rights, go figure.

Alnamvet68 · #83 05-06-2013, 02:49 PM

Absolutely when it comes to training. Just because we have a 2nd Amendment doesn't mean every legally eligible to purchase and possess a firearm joker is qualified and safe to possess and carry same. I fear more the dilettante with a Wyatt Earp syndrome then any street criminal with a gun.

3dots · #84 05-06-2013, 02:53 PM

Mandatory classes, no. Some proof of competency, I think so. And even that may could be exempted from hunting license records. A person that buys an annual hunting license surely knows how to handle a firearm, wouldn't you think?

gregintenn · #85 05-06-2013, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SW_shooter

I figured someone would try to re-direct my point to that argument. If you've read the 2nd amendment it says you have the right to bear and keep arms, NOT to conceal carry! And don't give me that argument that you interpret it to mean you can keep and bear arms on your person.

My point (which wasn't obvious enough apparently) was that we use other deadly "things" and have to have training to use them, why not for a gun?

From Merriam-Webster:

Quote:

— bear arms
1
: to carry or possess arms

Another definition of bear is to give birth. I don't believe that was the intent of our founders.

What other deadly things are specifically addressed in the bill of rights?

SW_shooter · #86 05-06-2013, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Realzebub45

I'm sorry. You are saying you have the right not to conceal carry? Or, are saying that it says you specifically do not have the right to conceal carry. You don't think they covered slipping a snubbie flintlock in your pocket under the blanket "Keep and bear"? Wait until the left gets a hold of your theory.

So all those women packing purse guns were breaking the law back then, huh? I would be curious, because I don't know, to find out when and where was the first CCW permit issued? This was a reaction to ensure that previously illegal activity was controlled? I saw on Ebay they were selling John Hancocks original CCW permit. They wanted too much $$$ though. Coincidentally, it looks just like a copy of the Bill of Rights, go figure.

Well if you have ever bothered to read the 2nd amendment or any of the supreme court rulings regarding the amendment you would see that they (forefathers) never addressed concealed carry as we know and think of it. I wasn't saying either of what you ask. The supreme court may have if depending on your interpretation of the highlighted portion below. (quoted from Wikipedia, [not best source but quick])

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "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"[9][10] but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[11]

As to the legality of a woman carrying a weapon in her purse back then, well I'm not that old nor a legal scholar so I don't know and I bet you don't either.

Why would the left care what I say? I'm not expressing a theory, just an opinion as are you. I'm not against concealed carry at all. I just believe people with deadly weapons on their person should have some basic training on how and when to use one.

keith44spl · #87 05-06-2013, 03:04 PM

.

Well, I voted NO.............

Firearms education, like sex education should be taught at home!

My father taught us boys about guns and wemen....

They's both dangerous, either one er both can get ya killed.

Now put that in your pipe and smoke it!

.

woodsltc · #88 05-06-2013, 03:14 PM

Have we beat this horse to death yet ??

Don

redlevel · #89 05-06-2013, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alnamvet68

I fear more the dilettante with a Wyatt Earp syndrome then any street criminal with a gun.

With all respect, this is malarkey.^^^

Again, there are probably close to three quarters of a million
permits out in Georgia now, with no requirements
for training. I haven't heard of a rash of citizens
being gunned down by a "dilettante with a Wyatt
Earp syndrome." In fact, though, it isn't unusual
to hear of armed citizens, many of them women,
who haven't had a day of "mandate" training
successfully defending themselves.
Woman hiding with kids shoots intruder | www.wsbtv.com
This incident happened earlier this year.
I believe I read a report that stated the husband
bought her the revolver, took her to the range for
a few rounds, and told her to use it if needed.

USAF385 · #90 05-06-2013, 03:29 PM

Man.... I feel bad for the elderly folks who want to be able to carry a J frame for protection. I am sure they know their limitations. None of them want to be mall ninja heroes as some have talked about. They just want to be able to protect themselves from the thugs on the street.

Can they hit the target with great accuracy at 21 feet? Maybe maybe not. Can they use that J frame to protect against the thug at close range? Most likely. However, they would not be able to pass proficieny test.

Sorry grandpa. You did not get enough rounds on the paper at 7 yards. No concealed carry for you.

Rule3 · #91 05-06-2013, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USAF385

Man.... I feel bad for the elderly folks who want to be able to carry a J frame for protection. I am sure they know their limitations. None of them want to be mall ninja heroes as some have talked about. They just want to be able to protect themselves from the thugs on the street.

Can they hit the target with great accuracy at 21 feet? Maybe maybe not. Can they use that J frame to protect against the thug at close range? Most likely. However, they would not be able to pass proficieny test.

Sorry grandpa. You did not get enough rounds on the paper at 7 yards. No concealed carry for you.

That makes no sense. "Know their limitations" Ever try to take car keys from a senile or Alzheimer person? I did with my Dad it was horrible, Fortunately after taking and hiding his keys he eventually forgot about driving.

If they can not hit the paper at 7 yards, where do the stray bullets go, bystanders? If they can not pass a proficiency test of some kind (anyone, not just elderly) then they are safe to be around themselves or others?

I had to be certified to scuba dive. Who am I gonna hurt other than myself? No it's not in the Constitution.

But no problem we let them drive and abilities can fall off rapidly in 5 years or when ever their next renewal is. Live down here in Fl and you will see it every day. My neighbor who I love dearly is great guy, he is 93 or so. No he should not be driving but he is. He is a accident waiting to happen.

ladder13 · #92 05-06-2013, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woodsltc

Have we beat this horse to death yet ??

Don

4 more days left

Lost Lake · #93 05-06-2013, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregintenn

From Merriam-Webster:

Another definition of bear is to give birth. I don't believe that was the intent of our founders.

What was the intent of our forefathers???

You tell me after you READ what THEY WROTE:

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.”
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot’s Debates, vol. 3 “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.”

“… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
Thomas Paine

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

“The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … “
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

The Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment guaranteed our right to keep and carry guns. Don't you think they did a little research?

ladder13 · #94 05-06-2013, 04:14 PM

This is fun, people comparing a Constitutional right to having to get a license for applying pesticides.

gregintenn · #95 05-06-2013, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lost Lake

What was the intent of our forefathers???

You tell me after you READ what THEY WROTE:

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.”
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot’s Debates, vol. 3 “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.”

“… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”

“Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
George Washington
First President of the United States

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
Thomas Paine

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

“The great object is that every man be armed.” and “Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … “
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

The Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment guaranteed our right to keep and carry guns. Don't you think they did a little research?

I believe exactly as I did the first time I read all those quotes. The founders beleived in individual liberty. With that comes personal responsibility. The bill of rights was all about limiting government. Nowhere can I find where any of them addressed mandatory training for inherent rights. I don't believe that you and I are on opposing sides of this issue.

That is a pretty good collection of quotes you posted there. Thanks for gathering them together and posting them.

USAF385 · #96 05-06-2013, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rule3

That makes no sense. "Know their limitations" Ever try to take car keys from a senile or Alzheimer person? I did with my Dad it was horrible, Fortunately after taking and hiding his keys he eventually forgot about driving.

If they can not hit the paper at 7 yards, where do the stray bullets go, bystanders? If they can not pass a proficiency test of some kind (anyone, not just elderly) then they are safe to be around themselves or others?

Got it. Anyone with carpal tunnel, arthritis or Parkinson's loses the right to protect themself just because they can't score high enough at the mandated distance. Thanks for making your stance clear.

And thanks or reading my post carefully. I was referring to people who might have a hard time hitting 7 yard targets, but could still hit a threat at ten feet. People not looking to stop mass shooters in malls, but want to be able to walk home without fear. I don't think I said anything about Alzheimer's. Nope, I double checked.

And getting into these training requirements, I hope it's in a situation with moving targets. Targets that move behind friendly cutouts. Since obviously self defense shootings ONLY occur in crowded malls and not in dark alleys. A stationary target isn't enough to ensure an individual is proficient.

MrJT · #97 05-06-2013, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rule3

That makes no sense. "Know their limitations" Ever try to take car keys from a senile or Alzheimer person? I did with my Dad it was horrible, Fortunately after taking and hiding his keys he eventually forgot about driving.

If they can not hit the paper at 7 yards, where do the stray bullets go, bystanders? If they can not pass a proficiency test of some kind (anyone, not just elderly) then they are safe to be around themselves or others?

I had to be certified to scuba dive. Who am I gonna hurt other than myself? No it's not in the Constitution.

But no problem we let them drive and abilities can fall off rapidly in 5 years or when ever their next renewal is. Live down here in Fl and you will see it every day. My neighbor who I love dearly is great guy, he is 93 or so. No he should not be driving but he is. He is a accident waiting to happen.

THAT makes no sense.

Way to judge an entire group of people based on the conditions of a few. The poster didnt even mention alzheimer's but you found it necessary to base your argument on alzheimers.

I'm pushing 70 and my aim and physical strength isn't was it once was. However I know I get hit center mass in close proximity. It's good I know who your friends are and who thinks you're a second class citizen undeserving of the right to protect yourself.

ChattanoogaPhil · #98 05-06-2013, 04:57 PM

No. The Constitution provides the correct answer.

As a point of discussion, I believe the perceived risk from a lack of mandatory CC firearms training is WAY overblown.

Tennessee and Georgia share a border. Georgia requires no mandatory training. Tennessee requires 8hrs including range time. Does anyone here have information showing that Georgia permit holders are significantly more dangerous than those of us here in Tennessee? If you do, I'd be interested to see it.

kisportolt · #99 05-06-2013, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redlevel

It sounds like not only do you want to check up on proficiency, but also to make sure an applicant has the right attitude.

Are you going to be the "attitude and reason checker"?

(To "allot" means to dole out, or to distribute, or to assign a share. "A lot" is two words, and means a great many, or a large number. 'Scuse me for pointing that out, but that is a pet peeve of mine. Maybe you want to "allot" carry licenses?

)

Correcting grammar on this forum? Talk about a slippery slope... Especially since you failed to point out the person who feels we have a "right to bare arms". Sleeveless shirts shall not be infringed! But he was on your side of the argument, so maybe it's okay then..

SW_shooter · #**100** 05-06-2013, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChattanoogaPhil

No. The Constitution provides the correct answer.

As a point of discussion, I believe the perceived risk from a lack of mandatory CC firearms training is WAY overblown.

Tennessee and Georgia share a border. Georgia requires no mandatory training. Tennessee requires 8hrs including range time. Does anyone here have information showing that Georgia permit holders are significantly more dangerous than those of us here in Tennessee? If you do, I'd be interested to see it.

I don't know about that but I found something interesting and scary. The title of the statistics seems to be written by someone with a particular point of view.

From VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers
"Private Citizens Killed by Concealed Carry Killers
May 2007 to the Present"

Tennessee 15
Georgia 5
Texas 33

Maybe it's time to relocate?