Would you support mandatory training if...
- Thread starter Playboypenguin
- Start date
You might want to rethink that comment
We all don't agree, in fact many of us here thoroughly disagree.
Rights are not just for people who have passed the want it bad enough test.
And I am quite sure that I don't want the only people who have guns to be the ones that think that there should be a test.
JuanCarlos
New member
They won't be the only people with guns. They'll be the only ones carrying them concealed in public. Private ownership should still require no permit, and open carry/carry in vehicle should still require no permit. That, and people who don't think there should be a test aren't exactly prohibited from taking it anyway.
Also, could you point me to the part of the second amendment that mentions concealed carry as a right? The version I've always seen is actually pretty vague. I see plenty of room in the text to require a permit for concealed carry.
And yes, joab is right...we most certainly don't all agree on that one. At all. I'll even go you one better and say a violent felon shouldn't necessarily be barred from exercising his rights, once his sentence (including probation/parole) is served.
The Second Amendment does not specify what method of bearing arms is permitted, therefore all methods should be permitted (see the tenth amendment.). This is starting to sound a lot like some of the more far fetched interpretations of the 2nd that we've all heard (it only applies to state militias etc.) The important phrase here is shall not be infringed by dictating to me how I may carry my weapon, the govt is infringing upon my rights. Even following your own logic, many states (my home state of Indiana included) do not allow their citizens to carry a handgun openly or concealed without a permit, so my rights are still infringed upon.
In that case I'm glad that you're not the one deciding who gets a permit and who doesn't. While I do agree that it is a good idea for someone to have training and support the govt financing such training, I still do not support it being mandatory. Even government financed training can be restrictive. I cannot attend the free firearms safety classes offered by many local police departments in my state. In Indiana, a gun permit may be issued at the age of 18 (that's when I got mine) however, most of the classes offered by local police departments require the students to be at least 21. I am currently 20 and therefore cannot take said classes for another year.
I do not necessarily agree with that. For example, in many states a DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol) is a felony and therefore disqualifies the offender from ever owning a firearm. I'm pretty sure that there is a significant percentage of the adult population that has as some point or another driven their car when they've had a bit too much to drink but I don't believe that this means they will never be responsible enough to own a gun. Should a violent crime make you inelidgable, absolutely. Should a repeated history of substance abuse disqualify you, yes. But a single lapse of judgement should not. In this type of case, there should be a period of time that the person must go without repeating the offence before they are again elidgable to own a firearm. Then again I personally don't think that a single DUI should necessarily be a felony.
JuanCarlos
New member
First, that last part. I agree that at that point they are most definitely infringing on your rights. Which should make sense, since you were following my own logic.
As for the first part, I'd say that if the method of bearing arms is not specified, then the decision of how they are to be borne would be left to the states; provided, of course, that the right to bear them in general is not infringed.
Also, the whole militia thing always falls flat because it is explicitly defined as a right of "the People." Though I imagine somebody could craft an argument that the right is of the People, but only to keep and bear arms as it relates to the militia. Which would of course allow for private ownership, but carry only for the common defense. Which would not be a good thing.
All I'm saying is that, like many of the other amendments, it's possible to interpret the second in multiple ways. Your preferred method is obvious. Mine actually comes closer to yours than most people's. I just don't consider yours (or mine) to be objectively correct.
Provided we're talking about classes being offered on flexible schedules (I'm talking 7 days a week) and transportation provided for those without and those with disabilities...well, I just don't see it as particularly restrictive. Also I think it should be offered at 18...you can vote and get drafted, after all.
Yeah, I know exactly how expensive it would be. Good thing it'll never happen anyway, I guess. But I figure if we can afford a war in Iraq we could afford this...especially if it means that any law-abiding citizen who wants to carry a concealed weapon can, while at the same time making sure every person who does so knows which end is which. Seems like a fair compromise, even though I know that's a dirty word.
Also, I'd also say that unless this program was run exactly as I describe, I'd prefer to see unrestricted open carry. I'm willing to compromise this far, but not one inch farther.
I don't have a ccw permit, It is very difficult to get here in San Joaquin Co. I have carried since I got out of the Army in 1963 and went to the police academy. Even though I am no longer a police officer I carry concealed when I think I need to. I don't ask anyone's permission and I don't tell anyone. I am careful to carry CONCEALED, unlike some others who "accidentally" let it show. Apparently to bolster their own ego. If I ever have to use the weapon, I'll be alive to answer any charges. If I obey the law I may well not survive to answer questions. I live in Stockton CA which has one of the highest murder rates in the country. We have drive by shooting daily(almost). No one is going to protect my family but me. We can't even get the cops to answer a burglary call.
Bottom line folks is that it's up to you to protect your family and your property. The authorities can't do it. Even if they answered the call, they would get there too late. Worrying about mandatory classes is stupid, it gives the authorities one more layer of rules over your freedom. Maybe it is time for us to stand up and refuse to obey unconstitutional laws. Any one out there with me?
Bottom line folks is that it's up to you to protect your family and your property. The authorities can't do it. Even if they answered the call, they would get there too late. Worrying about mandatory classes is stupid, it gives the authorities one more layer of rules over your freedom. Maybe it is time for us to stand up and refuse to obey unconstitutional laws. Any one out there with me?
And standardized, mandatory training would make places like yours easier to obtain a CCW and thus be able to protect your family and still obey the law.
What would you be against that and instead promote violations of the law? It is obviously up to you if you feel you need to carry, do as you need to. But OTHER people carrying illegally won't help your situation one bit.
applesanity
New member
Well hmmmm.... mandatory training would require some sort of registration or confirmation, to make sure you completed the course, right?
And wouldn't registering for a gun training course be a de facto gun registration? And aren't we all really, seriously against any form of gun registration?
Unless, like, you just wanted to learn about guns but not really shoot anything.
And wouldn't registering for a gun training course be a de facto gun registration? And aren't we all really, seriously against any form of gun registration?
Unless, like, you just wanted to learn about guns but not really shoot anything.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
No, you simply sign up for the class, take it, and then you get a certificate you present when applying for your permit.
applesanity
New member
Oh okay. That doesn't sound too harsh. But the notion of being forced to do things (even though i'd probably do them anyway), just sort of irks me.
Like the "gratuity" on a restaurant check. I'll give you whatever tip if I feel like it, so don't specify an amount, like you're entitled to it. Just kidding.
Like the "gratuity" on a restaurant check. I'll give you whatever tip if I feel like it, so don't specify an amount, like you're entitled to it. Just kidding.
Mandating how a person can keep or bear arms is an infringement on their right to keep and bear arms.
When the law mandates that I cannot simply put on a jacket that inadvertently covers my gun because it's cold or because I simply don't feel like open carry that day, or ever, my right to bear arms has been infringed.
When I can only carry a legally owned gun in a legislated manner my rights have been infringed
Now using your same logic
Can you show the part of the first amendment that mentions pornography as a right?
Can you also show me in the second amendment where it is allowed to respect the rights of those that pass a test but not those who don't.
If we allow this line of thinking to go on in the not so distant future we will be reading comments about how concealed carry, like driving, is a privilege.
Like driving, it has already degraded to that level in all but two states.
Hanging our heads and meekly accepting it condemns future generations to a suspension of that privilege, unless they pass a test
JuanCarlos
New member
Actually, no I can't. Because it isn't there. And because I do believe there are compelling public interests involved, I think the government does have the power to regulate, though not ban, pornography.
KenpoProfessor
New member
Giuliani says this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emeu2KRt2Vg
Yea, let's make it a privilege and remove the right.
And to answer your question, absolutely not.
Have a great Kenpo day
Clyde
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emeu2KRt2Vg
Yea, let's make it a privilege and remove the right.
And to answer your question, absolutely not.
Have a great Kenpo day
Clyde
JuanCarlos
That phrase, and ones like it (e.g. the public good) have always interested me. Just who is this "public". Well, it has to be a group of individuals, doesn't it? If that is true, why are the interests, or rights, of one individual (who belongs to some group) more important than those of an individual who doesn't belong to said group? Just wondering......
That phrase, and ones like it (e.g. the public good) have always interested me. Just who is this "public". Well, it has to be a group of individuals, doesn't it? If that is true, why are the interests, or rights, of one individual (who belongs to some group) more important than those of an individual who doesn't belong to said group? Just wondering......
I'd be willing to bet that concealed carry was a common practice when the 2nd Amendment was written and that it is implied in the text. The "in general" part of your statement is what bothers me. That thinking and interpratation has gotten us to where we are now.
One point I tried to make earlier was that states that require training to obtain a CWP are no more likely to have a higher incidence of accidental or unjustified shooting then those that don't. It would appear it is a non-problem statistically. I'll go further and suggest that a north-eastern state like Vermont that doesn't require a permit for law abiding citizens to carry concealed would probably jump on the "mandated training" bandwagon if it was really found to be a problem?
The other problem I have with this discussion is that somehow the mandated training is OK if the govt. pays for it. I've got news for you: We are the govt. and with a 9 trillion dollar($9,000,000,000,000) national debt we are bleeding to death by the death of 1000 cuts by worthless programs that give minimal benefits compared to their costs.
2Seventy
[/Quote:
I'd be willing to bet that concealed carry was a common practice when the 2nd Amendment was written and that it is implied in the text.
Is that a musket in your pants or are you happy to see me?
(Revolver was patented in 1836, BTW)
QUOTE]
Who said anything about revolvers? Muzzleloading pistols were readily available at the time. How many carried them concealed at the time I don't know but if it was a concern at that time they could have entered it into the 2nd. text. The fact is they didn't. I also don't see where "bear arms" has any implied meaning as to exclude concealed carry.
2Seventy