Are You Too Stupid ... for Concealed Carry?

BlueTrain said:
...I think avoiding the word "kill" is quibbling and an attempt to avoid facing the serious consequences of "stopping" someone....
Click to expand...
And we don't avoid the word "kill." We acknowledge that using lethal force to defend ourselves might well result in the death of the assailant and that one using lethal force in self defense must be willing to accept the death of the assailant as a result.

But we distinguish, quite properly, between the intent to kill and the intent to stop (which might result in the death of the assailant).
 
And this is the very point that I appreciated hearing from folks on, a point that is now incorporated into the article.
 
In WWII a study was conducted. It determined that roughly 1/3 of all soldiers engaged in COMBAT did not fire their weapons. They were incapable of defending themselves.

My point is there people who should not carry firearms. That includes: individuals who psychologically cannot fire at another human being. Individuals who do not have the judgement to use a firearm. Individuals who do not have the skill to use a firearm.

Who is to judge? With rare exceptions the individual who chose to carry and defend themselves and their family. Exceptions, Violent criminal offenders, Persons judged mentally incompetent. NOTE: I excluded white collar criminals, people who have voluntarily sought treatment for mental issues. and Misdemeanors.
 
As a small aside, there was a longer saying among us who had spent time over yonder (post-Russians and pre-Americans):

"Any body who says an armed society is a polite society has never been to Afghanistan."
 
You do not pull it out to show to your buddies. You never cover anyone with the muzzle. Your finger should be indexed. You simply do not “play around” with your concealed firearm. It goes in the holster and never comes out, unless absolutely necessary
Click to expand...
Please explan, "...Your finger should be indexed ..." I have no idea what is meant in that context.
 
Here in Texas you must attend classes to teach you the legalities of CC and pass an extremely easy proficancy test showing you know how to safely use your weapon and I agree with that in principle. I think the fees are a little high and could prevent lower income folks from getting their CCW liscence.
But there is something about "needing a liscence" that seems wrong to me when I read the Constitution." the right to bear arms shall not be infringed"
 
Yes, training should be accomplished if part of the militia, according to the original meaning of regulated in context. Of course, SCOTUS has ruled the 2A is independent of militia service, so that's not really a problem.
Dahermit, see how my finger is alongside the side of the firearm, NOT on the trigger, but can easily be dropped on to it? That's properly indexed.

usePhantom.jpg
 
dahermit said:
Please explan, "...Your finger should be indexed ..." I have no idea what is meant in that context.
Click to expand...
Rule Three of the Four Rules of gun handling, as promulgated by Jeff Cooper, is "Keep your finger off the trigger unless your sights are on the target."

We are accordingly taught, and we teach, keeping the trigger finger out of the trigger guard and indexed along the frame except when on target.
 
BlueTrain said:
I sure wish people would quote the whole amendment. They always leave out the part that says "well regulated."
Click to expand...

Okay, here's the whole 2nd Amendment:

"Amendment 2
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now that we have that in front of us, let's examine it. Linguists and grammarians have written reams upon reams pointing out that the entire militia clause is a non-binding, prefatory clause that does NOT modify in any way the focal clause, which is "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In the Heller and McDonald decisions, the Supreme Court has "blessed" this view. The militia clause now officially does not affect the central meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

But ... let's look at it anyway. Is it your argument that, because the militia clause refers to a "well-regulated" militia that this somehow justifies under the 2nd Amendment asking for training as a prerequisite to being granted a license to exercise what is supposed to be a guaranteed right? If that's your argument, I submit that you have the cart before the horse. At the time of the American Revolution and even up to the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights, the primary armed force in the fledgling United States of America was the citizens' militia. The term "well-regulated" meant well-trained, not "over-burdened with stupid laws." But the militia clause does not say one must obtain training before enrolling in the militia. In reality, in the historical context it was precisely the opposite. In the original Militia Act of 1792, it was required that each member of the militia provide his own firearm, and provide his own basic load of 'X' round balls of suitable caliber, and sufficient powder to fire same.

Militia Act of 1792 said:
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
Click to expand...

In short, the colonists and early Americans were required to have and carry ("keep and bear") the weapon in order to receive the training, NOT to receive the training before being allowed to carry the weapon.
 
Aguila Blanca said:
...Is it your argument that, because the militia clause refers to a "well-regulated" militia that this somehow justifies under the 2nd Amendment asking for training as a prerequisite to being granted a license to exercise what is supposed to be a guaranteed right?...
Click to expand...
Arguing about whether or not the Second Amendment somehow justifies a training requirement is pointless. It's well settled constitutional law that constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited governmental regulation. Whether or not, as post Heller and post McDonald litigation unfold the courts will sustain states laws requiring the satisfaction of a training requirement as a condition of receiving a "shall issue" permit necessary to carry a concealed handgun in public will be decided by application of existing principles of scrutiny (whether "strict" or "intermediate"), not by a textural analysis of the Second Amendment.
 
I'm not sure how this got so off track into a discussion of government requiring training. I see nothing in the OP's post to suggest the he is urging government to impose a training requirement. What he wrote is:
Amsdorf said:
...And you need to be fully trained in the use of your firearm. Find a competent instructor and take a class. Better yet, take several classes. Just as if you want to get to Carnegie hall, you need to practice, practice and practice some more. You owe it to yourself to get in as much range time with your carry gun as you possibly can. If you aren’t willing to master all aspects of handling your concealed carry firearm, don’t strap it on...
Click to expand...
There's nothing there about government requiring training. I read the statement as saying that the responsible person who decides to carry a gun in public will choose to get training. I agree with that.
 
When reading through this a picture of a previous news story kept flashing through my mind. It was a news story (With film) of an instructor giving a class on safety with a hand gun and shooting himself in the leg. The news stories over the years are unbelievable. TRAINED police shooting themselves with guns, being shot by someone else with their own gun, threatening people when drunk with their guns, off duty and shooting at each other......Do you think training is the answer to everything? Anything can happen and usually does, to people with an attitude. I detect a slight one here.
 
Yes, people who supposedly have training sometimes mess up. That doesn't mean they'd do better without training. It only means they really needed more training, or they really didn't benefit from the training opportunities they had.
 
I really like the first post.

I agree with everything in it too.

I carry a 38 snub revolver because when I need it,I know I will probably be too stupid to properly use a semi auto fast.

So,in some ways,yes,I am too stupid to conceal carry (a semi auto).

Edit..and i just checked the rest of the thread and I don't have to shoot anyone if I am drawing my weapon.

I just have to realize that I am suddenly invovled in a situation where I am very much under protected should certain people decide to proceed with certain actions they are taking in my direction.

I have had one case where just drawing a weapon stopped a potential attack.

No one harmed,no police involved,we all went our separate ways.

Concealed carry is about stopping an attack hopefully before it gets that far but being able to stop it if it goes too far anyway.

Each situation is different and the urgency factor can change in a heartbeat too.

Anyone who tells anyone that everytime you pull your self defense weapon out you have to fire it - should be put in jail.

Because that is worse then just being wrong-they are advocating killing people or getting decent people killed because they wait way too long before they deploy their self defense weapon in a bad situation.

Know the law,yourself,your gun,your environment and the people in it.

The rest changes by the second.

There are no engagement rules set in stone after that.
 
Last edited:
I just hate being called stupid! Find a better word, please.
Click to expand...

I just figured he was talking about everyone else. :rolleyes:

Actually, I was ok with it. It grabs your attention and makes a point (albeit maybe not the correct one). I read the thread because of it, a milder opening and i may have passed it over while skimming what to read in my precious little time slot.
 
In support of gunplumber.

I read an Army study several years back concerning injuries from accidental discharge by types of units.

The units with the highest percentage of accidental discharge injuries were the Special Operations units. These are also the units with the highest level of firearms training.

Functional fire arms are prohibited from Arkansas hunter safety classes. Why? because to many accidental discharges occurred during these classes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top