Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

This is a discussion on Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Our military intelligence intercepted and decoded several Japanese messages that do not agree "with your statements" , I didn't miss your point at all, mine ...

Page 29 of 36 FirstFirst ... 19252627282930313233 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 435 of 532
Like Tree139Likes

Thread: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

  1. #421
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,587
    Our military intelligence intercepted and decoded several Japanese messages that do not agree "with your statements" , I didn't miss your point at all, mine is as valid now as it was when I first stated it. OUR citizens being armed IS (at the very least) a worthwhile endeavor and likely has prevented several invasions over the past 244 years or so. Reducing arms is therefore a risk to National Security , which begs the question of WHY would anyone support that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jemsaal View Post
    That wasn't my point. I was specifically referring to the historicity of the statement. In the rest of my post, I even referred to the fact that Japan armed it's citizens to help either stave off, or resist invasion, so I also admitted that the overall idea was indeed correct. It's the idea that a Japanese officer argued that very point to his superiors that I am stating has no historical fact - mainly because Japan had no desire to invade the US in the first place. Their entire goal was to cripple our Navy, buttress their Eastern theater, and then march through Asia to link up with Germany.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #422
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,587
    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    You're correct. They didn't invision those things. The FCC was then created and can impose fines for vulgarity on TV and radio. Laws have been created regarding internet pornography. Members of the press have successfully been sued for slanderous comments. People have been arrested for making threatening texts and phone calls. The 1st A is restricted.
    I seem to not see the famous words of the second

    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED-

    Nor do I find "being necessary to the security of a free State"

    This is no minor difference as I'm sure you are aware....

    The second is the only one this way and is clearly the way it is for a very good and valid reason, the security of a FREE state- without it fully in place we will become slaves (and sadly some even here seem to ignore that reality)

    And (yet again) to show that in fact our rights are slowly being eroded doesn't make it "right or proper" (or legal for that matter) two wrongs (or two thousand) never make it right!

  4. #423
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,773
    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyKen View Post
    MANDATORY TRAINING before posting on the internet!!!! The 1st amendment is not an unlimited right!

    Ken
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  5. #424
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,967
    Not that they will but any official that took the oath to protect the Constitution of the United states then supports any infringement upon it should resign their office. If they will not back up the Oath they took before God and Country they should not be in that office anyway since they have already betrayed it.
    Aceoky likes this.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  6. #425
    Member Array CowboyKen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    386
    Quote Originally Posted by 38special View Post
    You're correct. They didn't invision those things. The FCC was then created and can impose fines for vulgarity on TV and radio. Laws have been created regarding internet pornography. Members of the press have successfully been sued for slanderous comments. People have been arrested for making threatening texts and phone calls. The 1st A is restricted.
    Non of which are preemptive in nature, unlike MADATORY TRAINING. Would you support mandatory training as a requirement to be allowed to post on the internet (so maybe you wouldn't make typos/spelling errors in your posts - invision)?

    Ken

  7. #426
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,967
    The 1a and 2a argument sort of doesnt get anywhere since its based on when on 1a someone being sued for not speaking the truth and damaging somone else. Abusing that right in a sense a crime if you will.

    There are already a ton laws that if you rob shoot accidently harm someone with a firearm that make that a crime.
    Criminals lose their rights to a great extent up to the right to try to defend themselves in court. Once convicted they lose about all their rights especially the one to bear arms.

    1a or 2a arent restricted until you do something wrong with em ie something criminal. Which is how it should be. All of this trying to make a the world safe by preemptive and unconstitutional laws isnt going to change anything.


    The world is not a safe place. Life aint fair and accidents happen. You cannot legislate that away. It makes some uncomfortable to admit that and some to the point that they wont admit it but its a fact.
    Aceoky likes this.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  8. #427
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,853
    Actually , the funny thing is Hopyard says we need mandatory training to protect ourselves from ourselves. Maybe their shoul dbe madatory training for Twitter and Facebook....seems like lots of folks getting trouble on that front

    For those of you that can't figure out a joke..........that is a joke.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  9. #428
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,773
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    The 1a and 2a argument sort of doesnt get anywhere since its based on when on 1a someone being sued for not speaking the truth and damaging somone else. Abusing that right in a sense a crime if you will.

    1a or 2a arent restricted until you do something wrong with em ie something criminal. Which is how it should be. All of this trying to make a the world safe by preemptive and unconstitutional laws isnt going to change anything.
    Umm, no not necessarily. Even if you speak the truth and harm no one, I can still restrict you from speaking or assembling or practicing your religion on my property. Most cities/counties ect. require you to have a permit and approval for a public event/protest/parade. The FCC requires you to have a license to broadcast over the airways.

    Lots of restrictions on the 1A besides on illegal or harmful things.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  10. #429
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    But it does not answer my question. The DUI example is not valid as far as not having enough data. They did study after study after study and do have numbers to support a certain BAC limit. They didn't wing it and just make up a number.

    Hunter safety course have been hashed out already. The only commonality is firearm saftey. Hunter safety courses do not talk about laws dealing with CC'ing.

    Since we live in a country with 50 states and various laws on mandatory training for CCP/CHL's there can be numbers to gather.
    You got an answer already right here: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

    The underlying presumption made by everyone supporting mandatory training is that there will be substantially more crimes committed, more gun related accidents if we let people exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. Therefore we have to solve that presumed problem. They presume a potential problem. That's their rational basis. Only it's just not true. Then their solution is to deny or continue to deny everyone's fundamental right until mandated training is completed. And the results? Just like every other gun control law? Their solution doesn't solve their perceived problem, and it doesn't matter to them. What they want is to disarm all of us. The ends justify the means.

  11. #430
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    UMost cities/counties ect. require you to have a permit and approval for a public event/protest/parade.
    They can't mandate that everyone in the parade take a two day public speaking sensitivity training course and apply for individual licenses before they can carry a sign.

    The FCC requires you to have a license to broadcast over the airways.
    The FCC requires you to have a license to broadcast electromagnetic signals into the air, and they do that to regulate electromagnetic interference not speech. They can't mandate that you take a two day public sensitivity training course before they allow you to broadcast speech over those electromagnetic signals.

    Lots of restrictions on the 1A besides on illegal or harmful things.
    Strong compelling government interest implemented in the least restrictive way possible. It's called strict scrutiny. All you have to do is make the case that mandatory training fits within that guideline and you've got a good analogy. Only you don't have a strict scrutiny case to make at all. No one in 29 pages has come anywhere close.
    Aceoky likes this.

  12. #431
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    This is where these folks are:

    rational basis - test of constitutionality of a statute, asking whether the law has a reasonable connection to achieving a legitimate and constitutional objective.

    That's the bottom line in every third post in this 29 page thread and in the 20 page thread before this one. Only they didn't read the Heller decision or just can't accept or admit what it says: "If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect." Which is exactly the debate we're having nationwide right now. Training is only a small side note.

    Regarding Justice Breyer's proposal (ie minority opinion) of a "judge-empowering 'interest-balancing inquiry,'" the Court states, "We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach."

    This is where they need to be before they deny every man, woman, and child their palladium of all fundamental rights, mandating training:

    strict scrutiny - the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.

    We don't have precedence for strict scrutiny yet, but rational basis is gone. A "view to prevent crime" as we've had in the Texas Constitution since 1876 ended in 2008. These folks and all their friends in Washington and the state legislatures just haven't accepted that reality yet.

  13. #432
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,853
    strict scrutiny
    Oh no!!! Not strict scrutiny again!!! Where is Armyman
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  14. #433
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,967
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Umm, no not necessarily. Even if you speak the truth and harm no one, I can still restrict you from speaking or assembling or practicing your religion on my property. Most cities/counties ect. require you to have a permit and approval for a public event/protest/parade. The FCC requires you to have a license to broadcast over the airways.

    Lots of restrictions on the 1A besides on illegal or harmful things.
    Yep your property private owned by you. Protected by the Constitution
    County parades etc NOT the feds and for that Ill just say follow the money
    FCC airwaves? Licence fee, wrong and again follow the money. this one is as wrong as infringing 2a but since 2a is getting it I guess thats ok with some.
    I give up not posting on this anymore. Either you get it that any infringement on 2a is a step to another one or you dont. Past history is there to look at. Some have a money interest in this Mandatory training thing and some are just unwilling to accept that life is what it is. You cant law away accidents, or make life the safe place you desperately need it to be. You being generic for those who support infringing 2a. When its gone by little steps like this, then its gone. What scares me is some of the responses I see on a supposedly pro 2a site that cant see that. Color me gone from this thead. Nothing else to say
    Aceoky likes this.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  15. #434
    Member Array CowboyKen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    386
    OH my! My attempt at a humorous post:
    MANDATORY TRAINING before posting on the internet!!!! The 1st amendment is not an unlimited right!
    Has turned into a serious discussion. Foiled again!

    Ken

  16. #435
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by Aceoky View Post
    Our military intelligence intercepted and decoded several Japanese messages that do not agree "with your statements" , I didn't miss your point at all, mine is as valid now as it was when I first stated it. OUR citizens being armed IS (at the very least) a worthwhile endeavor and likely has prevented several invasions over the past 244 years or so. Reducing arms is therefore a risk to National Security , which begs the question of WHY would anyone support that?
    Sorry, I have to ask for sources on that one. As far as I've seen, that story has been debunked over and over.

    As for your point, it's valid, but you were arguing it as if I presented an argument against it, and I didn't, so I was confused as to why you would even include that in a response to my post.

    If you moved from responding to me specifically to a general discussion, I can understand that . . . just had no idea why you were arguing with me about something we agreed on - weapons = national security.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

powered by mybb advanced weapons

,
powered by mybb all movies
,

powered by mybb best exercise

,
powered by mybb code search
,

powered by mybb criminal law

,

powered by mybb free full movies online

,

powered by mybb free online training course

,

powered by mybb law and order

,

powered by mybb legal

,

powered by mybb paintball stuff

,
powered by mybb reference
,
powered by mybb video of potty training
Click on a term to search for related topics.