Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states - Page 36

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; Originally Posted by Ogre I believe most people on sites such as this are just like you. As are, IMHO, most who seek out CCPs. ...

Page 36 of 36 FirstFirst ... 263233343536
Results 526 to 532 of 532
Like Tree139Likes

Thread: Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

  1. #526
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    I believe most people on sites such as this are just like you. As are, IMHO, most who seek out CCPs. My only desire in any type if legislation would be to ensure that as many gun owners as possible are safe gun owners. I too like hopyards idea of online testing concerning laws etc. something to encourage training would not be remiss. Low or no cost access to training facilities, expedited purchasing eyc.
    Answer the question. Do I get a gun if I refuse to take your class?


  2. #527
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    I've been agreeing with you 9MMare, but you just planted both feet into the anti-gun crowd's boat. Now, bear with me, this is going to be a long post. I hope people can appreciate this history lesson by Stephen Halbrook.


    No offense 9MMare, but your great ideas are just as bad as anyone else' in this thread. It's just as bad as anything from the anti-gun crusaders putting our country at siege over gun control. It's just as bad because fundamentally you're advocating that the government usurp the power over the People to limit our 2nd Amendment right "under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe," and you're not even proposing a constitutional amendment to do it. I hope this history lesson from Texas makes it clear why we should all be willing to give up our lives to make sure that never happens again.
    I dont care that you think it's bad. I realize everything you wrote (altho I dont nec. agree) and made up my mind anyway. I wouldnt propose such a thing but I wouldnt fight it if proposed. Because *I believe in protecting myself.* And I think such a test might help with that.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  3. #528
    VIP Member
    Array 1MoreGoodGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Fort Worth, Texas
    Posts
    6,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    I find it funny that people would be threatened by sitting for 30 freakin minutes to learn about the safe handling of their firearm prior to walking out the door. How is that denying ANYONE their rights? Good lord people is the need to have a gun RIGHT FLIPPIN NOW so dire that you cant wait 30 minutes?

    As for those who seem to want unfettered access to any and all weapons with no training required. I guess you wouldnt mind living next door to the guy who buys a S&W 500 for home protection. See I kinda worry bout my neighbor...18 yrs old, never fired a gun in his life other than a bb gun, and HAD to show me his new "toy" that he bought. Yes I am a little worried now. Oh ya wanna know how he showed me? Finger on the trigger and shaking it like a kid with a new toy "see what I got!! see what I got". Man I am glad that thing has a horrendous DA trigger pull!
    And ya know what, in this state he can strap that sucker on his hip and walk down the street!!!! No training, no experience, no permit needed. Just more money than common sense.
    Situations like the one I am in now are why I would welcome some mandatory training (at LEAST safety training) on all gun purchases.
    If the government can mandate that you have to attend a 30 minute class before walking out the door with your firearm, what stops them from mandating an hour class? Or an 8 hour class? Or a 60 hour class? or a 100 hour class?

    What if it does become a 100 hour class and you have to attend 1 one hour class every Saturday for 2 years (except for the 2 Saturdays each year were they don't have classes)? Imagine waiting 2 years for each and every firearm you purchase.

    How about we let the free market provide educational classes and reading material and let the individual be free to decide if they want to / need to better themselves.
    Aceoky, dldeuce and FTG-05 like this.
    Regards,
    1MoreGoodGuy
    NRA Life Member
    GOA Life Member


    Behave Like Someone Who is Determined to be FREE!

  4. #529
    Member Array Ogre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Tuscaloosa, AL
    Posts
    292

    Mandatory traing states for CHL vs non training states

    Well now you do have me on a quandary. Morally and ethically and indeed philosophically I do support such legislation. Alas it would only work under a perfect governing system, one which truly recognized that our government derives its power from the people. Governments main duty is to enforce the will of the people for the betterment and benefit of ALL the people. Not just those in power, not just those who do or do not want to be armed but ALL the people. That we do not have, this any new legislation while it may be good and prudent is doomed to failure.


    Btw, I have to disagree on WHY the 14th was forced on the states prior to being allowed back into the union. It's primary function was to eliminate the legal grounds for secession from the union. To make illegal what the southern states had done. Prior to the 14th states who had issues with the central government could remove themselves from its authority. Prior to it States were more important and powerful than the federal government-as the framers intended.


    Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.

  5. #530
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by Ogre View Post
    Well now you do have me on a quandary. Morally and ethically and indeed philosophically I do support such legislation. Alas it would only work under a perfect governing system, one which truly recognized that our government derives its power from the people. Governments main duty is to enforce the will of the people for the betterment and benefit of ALL the people. Not just those in power, not just those who do or do not want to be armed but ALL the people. That we do not have, this any new legislation while it may be good and prudent is doomed to failure.
    I appreciate that you see the dilemma, but you've still got it all wrong. The founders recognized that the government they sought to create would never be perfect. They recognized the government and the majority would never limit it's own power to that given to it by it's people. They specifically sought to restrain the government from serving only the interests of the majority and what great ideas the majority would decide was best for all people. What you left out is the most important aspect for the discussion at hand. What you left out is that one of the government's most important duties is to protect the rights of the minority against the whim of the majority. I keep saying it, and I hope at some point it will sink in.

    Btw, I have to disagree on WHY the 14th was forced on the states prior to being allowed back into the union. It's primary function was to eliminate the legal grounds for secession from the union. To make illegal what the southern states had done. Prior to the 14th states who had issues with the central government could remove themselves from its authority. Prior to it States were more important and powerful than the federal government-as the framers intended.
    We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. That's a whole other discussion.

  6. #531
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    I dont care that you think it's bad. I realize everything you wrote (altho I dont nec. agree) and made up my mind anyway. I wouldnt propose such a thing but I wouldnt fight it if proposed. Because *I believe in protecting myself.* And I think such a test might help with that.
    Well, and like I said earlier which is the worse evil? Which presents the greatest risk to public safety? Do we face a bigger risk by gun owners that are trained under their own judgment, or do we face a bigger risk by federal and state governments that are unrestrained by a constitution that strictly protects our right to keep and bear arms? Should we be fooled into believing the leftists that claim it will all be worth while if we can save just one life, or should we be concerned by the reality of the wholesale genocide of the tens of millions we've seen worldwide in the last hundred years? You can form your own opinion, but history makes it crystal clear.

    The people who have debated Piers Morgan in the last month have really dropped the ball on that one. He compares the recent UK murder rates to the US. No one has challenged him to compare the genocide rates of Europe to the US over the last 100 years.

  7. #532
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,209
    The people who have debated Piers Morgan in the last month have really dropped the ball on that one. He compares the recent UK murder rates to the US. No one has challenged him to compare the genocide rates of Europe to the US over the last 100 years.
    Agreed ! And not to forget

    Other violent crimes are much higher in the UK than in the USA even though our population is much larger.......anyone wonder why that was not mentioned. While no one wants to be murdered how many want to be beaten and raped then robbed? They have cameras "everywhere" and it doesn't matter because arms are not allowed, the criminals do as they will quite freely- Ole PM can have that, we don't want it HERE IN THE USA

Page 36 of 36 FirstFirst ... 263233343536

Sponsored 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 training puppies
Click on a term to search for related topics.