You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I find it funny
- Thread starter SC4006
- Start date
Blue Grass
New member
To paraphrase Shane: "A gun is just a tool, Marion. No better or worse than the man who holds it."
The antis have to treat you like a criminal. If they didn't, they'd have to admit that people, not guns, are the problem.
The antis have to treat you like a criminal. If they didn't, they'd have to admit that people, not guns, are the problem.
Some of us definitely get it.
I can fly with an M16A2 under my seat into a foreign country, I can't drive into NJ with a pistol.
The disconnect that the anti gunners are attempting to enforce is that the individual cannot ever be trusted with firearms unless they are in an organized social hierarchy with dominant leaders who control and direct their behavior.
We are not allowed to be free with our own independent view of what to do. That's why when I got out of the military after 22 years my state would not recognize any of my previous service, knowledge, or expertise in using the numerous firearms I (and many others) trained on.
Six months on duty carrying an M9 every hour, and in rotation, an M16A2 with full magazine? Not good enough, we won't even trust you to have a CCW permit.
It's taken years to recover the rights we have lost, and every incident where someone goes rogue killing innocents only adds to the burden. Because one or two percent of the population does that, the other 98% can't be trusted.
It's part of our human nature - people in general don't accept risk, even that low. A 2% risk can and does affect our decision making, especially after the event. Up to then, we almost ignored it, after, it's suddenly much larger in our perspective.
Add up all the 2% risk events that have happened, and the general public becomes concerned, politicians and anti's get onto a campaign, things start moving toward legislation.
Notwithstanding that many other risks in life are far more prevalent - like, distracted moms with children under 6 with a swimming pool in the yard. Thousands of kids drown annually - but nobody is ever going to campaign about it.
Evil guns? You bet. Big political stakes there, because it empowers the powerless to force others to be officially anointed before they can exercise their rights. It's about control - not about logic or freedom.
If there truly was freedom local groups would be hunting down drug dealers and shooting them on sight.
Gangstas would nod politely on the street as they pass by.
Bank robbers would be laughed at while the staff pulled out their AR's from the cabinet and the floor manager shouted the action plan.
Retail employees could carry as they see fit.
"No weapons allowed" would never be posted - or need to.
We just can't trust a very few, and we won't do anything in terms of prior restraint to prevent them acting on their potential plans. Which is another ball of snakes.
So we live with disarmament and lump it, until it becomes absolutely necessary to deal with it. Usually at the expense of somebody's life, at which point tongues cluck and it's said, something should have been done.
Which only covers up the real issue. Restrictions on our rights only create freedom for those who lack morals.
I can fly with an M16A2 under my seat into a foreign country, I can't drive into NJ with a pistol.
The disconnect that the anti gunners are attempting to enforce is that the individual cannot ever be trusted with firearms unless they are in an organized social hierarchy with dominant leaders who control and direct their behavior.
We are not allowed to be free with our own independent view of what to do. That's why when I got out of the military after 22 years my state would not recognize any of my previous service, knowledge, or expertise in using the numerous firearms I (and many others) trained on.
Six months on duty carrying an M9 every hour, and in rotation, an M16A2 with full magazine? Not good enough, we won't even trust you to have a CCW permit.
It's taken years to recover the rights we have lost, and every incident where someone goes rogue killing innocents only adds to the burden. Because one or two percent of the population does that, the other 98% can't be trusted.
It's part of our human nature - people in general don't accept risk, even that low. A 2% risk can and does affect our decision making, especially after the event. Up to then, we almost ignored it, after, it's suddenly much larger in our perspective.
Add up all the 2% risk events that have happened, and the general public becomes concerned, politicians and anti's get onto a campaign, things start moving toward legislation.
Notwithstanding that many other risks in life are far more prevalent - like, distracted moms with children under 6 with a swimming pool in the yard. Thousands of kids drown annually - but nobody is ever going to campaign about it.
Evil guns? You bet. Big political stakes there, because it empowers the powerless to force others to be officially anointed before they can exercise their rights. It's about control - not about logic or freedom.
If there truly was freedom local groups would be hunting down drug dealers and shooting them on sight.
Gangstas would nod politely on the street as they pass by.
Bank robbers would be laughed at while the staff pulled out their AR's from the cabinet and the floor manager shouted the action plan.
Retail employees could carry as they see fit.
"No weapons allowed" would never be posted - or need to.
We just can't trust a very few, and we won't do anything in terms of prior restraint to prevent them acting on their potential plans. Which is another ball of snakes.
So we live with disarmament and lump it, until it becomes absolutely necessary to deal with it. Usually at the expense of somebody's life, at which point tongues cluck and it's said, something should have been done.
Which only covers up the real issue. Restrictions on our rights only create freedom for those who lack morals.
Tirod, you're spot on. What you said is exactly how I think. I wish we could live in a world you described, but unfortunately I don't think it will happen; there are still just too many people that haven't caught on to the logic of defending yourself from the people who have zero regard to the law.
I find it funny....
I have thought about like everyone has. They don't trust us does not mean they don't trust us to be good Citizens. It means they don't trust us because
we may rise up to defend the Republic and our Constitution.
After what Session said on the floor in regard to the passage of TPA it reaffirms the conclusion.
I have thought about like everyone has. They don't trust us does not mean they don't trust us to be good Citizens. It means they don't trust us because
we may rise up to defend the Republic and our Constitution.
After what Session said on the floor in regard to the passage of TPA it reaffirms the conclusion.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
When I was in Vietnam (and not exactly downtown Saigon), I got in touble for having an MP nightstick.rickyrick said:When I was in the army, my buddy got into trouble for having a cheap novelty crossbow and a flea market blow gun
This shows quite clearly the difference among the states. I had to take an 8-hour NRA Basic Pistol class to get a carry permit in my home state. Florida, on the other hand, readily accepted my DD-214 as proof of firearms safety training -- even though the DD-214 was almost 40 years old at the time and didn't show any qualifications with handguns (although I did for a time shoot on my unit's pistol team, I was never formally "qualified" with the M1911A1).tirod said:We are not allowed to be free with our own independent view of what to do. That's why when I got out of the military after 22 years my state would not recognize any of my previous service, knowledge, or expertise in using the numerous firearms I (and many others) trained on.
Six months on duty carrying an M9 every hour, and in rotation, an M16A2 with full magazine? Not good enough, we won't even trust you to have a CCW permit.
kilimanjaro
New member
Even the most abbreviated military firearms training is head and shoulders above state requirements for licensees.
kilimanjaro said:Even the most abbreviated military firearms training is head and shoulders above state requirements for licensees.
What military were you in, and which states are you referring to?
ANY state that has ANY requirement at all for training requires more than the US military. In my experience (US Army) typical handgun training takes less than 5 seconds, and consists of the armorer handing over the gun and saying "bullets go here, pull this to make it shoot".
Some states require no training. Just a background check.
One state in which I have a license; the training required involved nothing about firearms.... Just anger management and legal mumbo-jumbo.
In the army I received quite a bit more training than any civilian licensing requirement.
Now since this is a constitutional right, why do we need training at all?
One state in which I have a license; the training required involved nothing about firearms.... Just anger management and legal mumbo-jumbo.
In the army I received quite a bit more training than any civilian licensing requirement.
Now since this is a constitutional right, why do we need training at all?
One state in which I have a license; the training required involved nothing about firearms.... Just anger management and legal mumbo-jumbo.
Actually, if done right, I think this is probably the best "training" requirement for a CCW permit.
A lot of people are competent gun handlers and shooters, but not well versed in the "legal mumbo-jumbo", and THAT is something they need to learn in order to be a good CCW holder.
Knowing when you can shoot, and when you cannot, in the eyes of the law is something different from gun safety training, and not often well covered, if at all, in "safety" classes.
The most dangerous people are the ones that think they know what is right, when they actually do not.
Now since this is a constitutional right, why do we need training at all?
In the broadest sense, everyone needs training before they know what they are doing.
What the issue is, is what kind or level of state mandated training, if any, is proper.
Yes I was kinda sarcastic, I do agree with the legal training and anger management, deescalation or whatever title they put on it.
I do find it frustrating as to the inconsistency of it all.
State A: you walk into sheriffs office, fill out forms, get finger printed and two weeks later the permit is in the mailbox.... This is nice, but no training.
State B: a long costly process taking almost a year, requiring expensive classes.
State C: no permit required.
And anything in between
Some states make allowances for veterans.
Texas makes allowance for veterans under 21, and pays for it in reciprocity denial by other states, even though Texas is more stringent than many other states.
I do find it frustrating as to the inconsistency of it all.
State A: you walk into sheriffs office, fill out forms, get finger printed and two weeks later the permit is in the mailbox.... This is nice, but no training.
State B: a long costly process taking almost a year, requiring expensive classes.
State C: no permit required.
And anything in between
Some states make allowances for veterans.
Texas makes allowance for veterans under 21, and pays for it in reciprocity denial by other states, even though Texas is more stringent than many other states.
In my experience (US Army) typical handgun training takes less than 5 seconds, and consists of the armorer handing over the gun and saying "bullets go here, pull this to make it shoot".
My U.S. Army experience was much different. I was instructed in proper field stripping, cleaning and reassembly of the M1911A1 before I was allowed to see the bullets. We actually went to the range and qualified with the pistol as well. Grip, sight picture and trigger control were part of the training. This was 1976 so things very well could have changed.