Off shoot of "Some Should Carry"
This is a discussion on Off shoot of "Some Should Carry" within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; This may end up as a LONG thread. I'd like to know what folks here would argue in response to the following hypothetical beliefs:
November 30th, 2005 05:45 PM
Off shoot of "Some Should Carry"
This may end up as a LONG thread. I'd like to know what folks here would argue in response to the following hypothetical beliefs:
1. Anyone who carries a concealed weapon should have to be licensed, and the license requirements should include certification not only in safe-gun-handling skills but also legal, practical and common-sense issues attendent to carrying a concealed weapon. (An argument in favor of this might be, "If someone's going to walk armed around a mall, where my family members might be shopping, he should have proved that he knows how - and when and under what circumstances - the weapon may be employed.")
2. Anyone who is licensed to carry a concealed weapon should have to provide proof every year, as a condition of license renewal, of supervised (by a certified instructor) training that covers both the physical employment of the carried weapon and a refresher course on the legal, practical and common-sense issues attendent to carrying a firearm. (An argument in favor of this might be, "Doctors and lawyers have to provide proof of continiung education each year as a requirement of licensing.")
Now, here's the kicker - I'd like to read comments that do NOT concern the practice of some in DC to use existing record-keeping to further restrict our 2nd Amendment rights.
I'm look forward to reading the coming explosion.
"You may not know it, but there's things that gnaw at a man worse than dyin'."
Charles Travis Postlewaite, 1882
November 30th, 2005 05:45 PM
November 30th, 2005 05:58 PM
I agree, only downfall is the yearly refresher/ qualification would be charged to us the permit holders. Perhaps if the permit was less expensive and qual. were resonalbe priced this would be a good move. Even lots of PD officers are not that proficient in firearms use.
November 30th, 2005 06:42 PM
Jon, please understand that this isn't a flame, surely you've heard the phrase "Slippery Slope"?
November 30th, 2005 07:39 PM
The Declaration of Independence states that we have unalienable rights endowed unto us by our creator.
These include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I don't need a license to defend the life endowed to me by my creator do I?
I may choose to get one to avoid incarceration, however I have no scriptural obligation to do so.
Last edited by soflasmg; December 1st, 2005 at 05:25 AM.
Reason: correction of Otis-like spelling
November 30th, 2005 07:56 PM
Congratulations, Jon -- you've suggested a set of requirements that would do any gun control activist proud. That's not a shot at you; I understand what you're trying to say. The problem is like the topic of licensing martial arts instructors, which comes up every now and again as voiced by very well-meaning people. Why not institute quality control, licensing, and oversight of such people to prevent frauds and poor instruction from harming martial arts students?
The answer to that is the same as the answer to all handgun licensing and requirements schemes: The ability to license and regulate a right is the ability to deny that right, no matter how well-meaning is the original regulation.
Just as registration of firearms invariably leads to confiscation, regulation of firearms owners will inevitably lead to the creation of "have's" and "have nots" as those in power define and constrict whom they believe to be worthy.
Are there people carrying guns who should not be? Sure -- just as there are people driving cars who should not be because they are a danger to themselves and others. There are people serving food in restaurants who will make people sick. There are people who babysit young children who shouldn't be doing that, either, because they lack the skills. They are people having children who have no business procreating because they can barely take care of themselves.
The answers to these problems do not and should not involve government regulation and oversight. Down that path lies tyranny. As William Pitt said, "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
Either we see our fellow human beings' freedom of action as a benefit to all of us, or we see it as a threat. When we start seeing it as a threat, we become the gun-grabbing leftists who are destroying society through their well-meaning but ultimately tyrannical legislation, regulation, prohibition, and confiscation.
November 30th, 2005 08:01 PM
Lets just keep it civil please
i agree the Slippery slope thing
November 30th, 2005 08:14 PM
I am a strong believer in Personal Responsibility.
I would rather keep the lid on Pandora's Box closed as tightly as possible.
November 30th, 2005 08:37 PM
I have to go with QK's for one reason: Who would be the arbitror deciding the ability of any shooter to carry? 'Cause you know damn well politicos are NOT gonna let any real firearms trainer/teacher be the one stamping the renewal on your CCW but some paper-pusher.
CCW, short of warfare, is the ultimate Survival of the Fittest. At the end it is the individual who has the responsability for his training and his weapon to be reliable, and we cannot allow some public servant with a manila folder/ fluorescent light tan on his skin decide if we are fit to carry or not. The ultimate decission will be made when SHTF.
You have to make the shot when fire is smoking, people are screaming, dogs are barking, kids are crying and sirens are coming.
Ego will kill you. Leave it at home.
November 30th, 2005 08:37 PM
I think the free states of Vermont and Alaska got this whole gun thing down pat.
USAF: Loving Our Obscene Amenities Since 1947
November 30th, 2005 08:45 PM
I watched Illinois "lose" my application for a FOID card a half dozen times before I gave up and acquired guns the old fashioned way.
Permits with requirements are quick ways to discourage legal ownership.
Driver carries less than $45 worth of remorse.
November 30th, 2005 08:50 PM
I really have to disagree with the annual thing. That would do a lot to discurage many folks. Given the expense, an annual renewal could be prohibital foe a good number of folks.
EOD - Initial success or total failure
November 30th, 2005 09:01 PM
Anyone should be able to purchase and carry any type of weapon available, including military. The military should not be better armed than we, and we should not have to have a license for anything.
Now, I'd like to think reasonable people would feel the need on their own to become qualified with their weapons. I realize that's not the case. However, no one has the right to deny anyone from purchasing and carrying a gun if they want to.
November 30th, 2005 09:08 PM
I don't believe there should be a permit system period. I believe that the framers would not support permits. I do believe that the framers did support people pursuing training with arms. So as a responsible citizen I endeavor to train as often as practicable with my arms.
Permits simply give government a way to restrict or deny a right that the framers chose to give to "the people". Also it provides for a tax on people who wish to exercise a right given to "the people".
November 30th, 2005 09:18 PM
No argument here. BigJon
IMHO I think a psychological evaluation of the license holder would be nice, along with your first two points.
There is a LOT of people who carry that are a mentally unstable. Some states require character references, but anyone can find three people that will say "sure he/she is very responsible, and mentally stable". To keep my Florida G license, for armed security. I have to get a evaluation, and qualify yearly. I don't see any problem with that. It even reassures me that the people I work with are capable of handling the responsibility.
I'm not a fascist, or an elitist. Its just that there are too many people who carry that gives decent CCW holders a bad name. These people are just arming the Anti's. Thats just my take, for what its worth.
November 30th, 2005 09:27 PM
That discussion would be far beyond record keeping, 2nd Amendment rights, or even political persuasions and ideals.
I'd like to know what folks here would argue in response to the following hypothetical beliefs
It would by necessity delve into basic political philosophy and general philosophy, ethics, morality and probably somewhere along the way religion would slip in.
A 'slippery slope' indeed.
The *only* relevant answers to the questions you pose are those that deal with where we draw the line between anarchy and totalitarianism.
There's a lot of distance in there and everyone has a different perspective that changes constantly.
You're asking how much govt control we want or are willing to tolerate...to what extent is it the govts job to keep us safe, from others or ourselves...how much control should any man or woman have over another...where does personal responsibility end and govt begin...the subjects that arise from a brief consideration of your questions are beyond numerous...
And that's a wonderful thing, because it forces us to look and analyze outside ourselves.
But there are no 'answers' to the question.
Phil's post comes closer than I ever could to describing the gist of it...the 'gut' description of one side (my side) of the argument.
(And very well said Sir!!)
Got any easier questions???
By paramedic70002 in forum General Firearm Discussion
Last Post: February 18th, 2011, 12:15 AM
By RR9501 in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: October 9th, 2010, 01:48 PM
By JonInNY in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: October 15th, 2008, 10:45 AM
By buckeye .45 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: January 4th, 2007, 09:43 PM
By profshadow in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Last Post: June 28th, 2006, 02:21 PM