Thanks 9Mmare, I think.
I do have a point to make, regarding the 2A. Everyone quotes the last part, and ignores the first "A well REGULATED militia". Now if we can agree that militia in this case means, and the courts have agreed, all citizens (18 years old and up), then WHO regulates them? All mandatory SAFETY training would fall under such language.
Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.
Well after a nights rest "I still wish I had some valium or something" Im back maybe clearer headed.
Ky you must shoot a target that a monkey could hit blindfolded and break down what weapon you bring plus some class room to get CC permit. Its not horrible its rather easy though for some of us it was a tad expensive which is why I think they put the cc permit in in the first place. Instead of just making it law you could cc, they needed fees out of it for the state. Follow the monney. But Ky is a good state cc wise and oc wise. One of the best ones.
That said and perhaps im making a point that others see as impossible I just dont happen too based on history and a lot of other things.
Mandatory training is yet another infringement on top of the other infringements. Hopefully we at least here agree that though this stuff is legislated it shouldnt be???? That most if not all the regs imposed are unconstitutional even though some courts say they arent depening on what flavor of judge happens to be looking at the issue. Do they happen? Obviously. Doesnt make it right.
My point is this. Hopefully more clearly this time. Mandatory training wont accomplish anything. It only leaves another layer of regs to go through for a person to do what they should be able to do with no regs at all.
Life is not perfect and we cannot legislate it to be so. Accidents happen regularly with highly trained LE and Military with firearms. They will happen regardless. Thats life. Thinking legislating will change that is a dangerous path to go down.
My right to carry ends when I stick a gun in someones face and commit a crime with it.
Debating here on what courts have done or will do is sort of useless. I would venture that though some here think they know what all that legalize means they probably dont
I still think if Glockman10mm has opportunity to pull me over Im in deep doo doo. LOL:tongue: :blink::smile::smile:
It's not just about 'training.'
It's about whether or not the govt should FORCE training on people...and we're trying to learn if that will make a difference.'
So far...no evidence it will do so.
Maybe easily "fixable" but at this point they are what they are , in some areas it's near impossible for someone making even a decent wage to survive and have the "extra" fees (including annual renewals) . What I figure is that it is only a matter of time before some smart legal minds realize the simple way to defeat things as they are is to argue the financial "gap" and how this makes it much more difficult on low income and minorities . The reality also is that there is much truth to this, just because the upper middle class (and above) can manage to do so, can be valid evidence that "certain groups" are intentionally excluded via fees and costs.
Another point that could matter is even where open carry is 100% legal (as in Ky.) should a female really not be allowed to have a weapon in her purse(etc.) in the case where an EPO is not being exactly followed? (that is but one example) right now the waiting list is about 60 days in my area to get into a ccw class and then another 90 days or so to get the ccw permit itself. While under some circumstances that is fine, however in others it doesn't seem to me to abide by the 2nd at all. The Right to self defense (even with deadly force ) should not be dependent on time and/or $ IMO
Open carry reveals to the would be attacker he/she is armed, not seeing a weapon means odds are they're an easy target, much more so in the above example
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
The second part is clearly because of the first part? To put it another way, WHY would the Right of the people to keep and bear arms be "necessary" to the security of ? IF it doesn't mean that? Because it clearly does in this case. Regulated in this context IS talking about being armed "the people" means US......as SCOUTS confirmed
You can't "focus" on "regulated" and not see "security of a free state" nor ignore the arms part- they're intertwined in this usage.
"Regulated" as some are trying to use it here and "Shall NOT be infringed" go against each other... and make zero sense in any other context thus cannot be as some are claiming
But if we as a society in general place high value on education for the advancement of everything that is worth doing, doesn't it stand to reason that proper firearms education would be an asset to all of us concerned here?
And I believe it could be done without an undue financial hardship placed on the individual. That is just a matter of a thought put into it. I'm not talking about tactical training here.
Since there are already states with training requirements such as here in Ky, my thoughts are to revamp the current curriculum to meet the goal of covering the in and outs of carrying in public.
We have been so programmed to be suspicious of Goverment, and rightfully so, that we cannot be proactive for our own good.
But rather than participate, you have set on the sidelines like a cheerleader and occasionally stepping in with a me too, or oh yeah, we win attitude.
But other than that, you are a non event.
I think glockman10mm is spot on. This is one area of the debate that I believe needs help. When it comes to high velocity projectiles I'll rely on common sense over statistics any day.