More stringent Qualification for Permits

This is a discussion on More stringent Qualification for Permits within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; My opinion on a license. A license can't prevent anything! How many accidents or traffic deaths has a drivers license prevented? Just as good as ...

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 130

Thread: More stringent Qualification for Permits

  1. #61
    New Member Array rbringh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    7
    My opinion on a license. A license can't prevent anything! How many accidents or traffic deaths has a drivers license prevented? Just as good as the inspection sticker on my car. To me it's just another tax. I haven't been to the DMV in 8 years. Pay the fee online and in comes my new license.
    Bob
    Bersa 380
    CZ 75B

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #62
    Senior Member Array Adkjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Northern Vermont
    Posts
    765
    ^well said rbringh...that's how I feel
    Vermont does not issue Permit/Licenses to Carry a Concealed firearm. Vermont allows anyone
    who can legally own a firearm to carry it concealed without a permit of any kind.

  4. #63
    Member Array PaxMentis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    S. Oregon (aka Paradise)
    Posts
    356
    Quote Originally Posted by WHEC724 View Post
    Like the responses above, I appreciate and share your concern, but the last thing that I ever want is more regulation.

    I want a government that protects me from foreign invaders. I believe that me and the rest of our good citizens can pretty much handle everything else.
    I'll second this one.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

    -- L. Neil Smith

  5. #64
    Senior Member Array rmodel65's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by 21bubba View Post
    Link it or it didn't happen.



    here you go.....

    TH - Feature Stories Article
    n 2004, the good citizens of Christianfield, Denmark -- libertarians to the core -- decided to remove all of the traffic signs and signals, including the Denmark equivalent of "Don't Walk" signs, from their most dangerous intersection. This was done to determine if they would be safer without government intervention, which is what traffic signs unquestionably represent.
    "What if," these citizens asked themselves, "it was up to us, not Denmark's transportation department, to determine the safest way of crossing an intersection?"
    After several months of forgoing government traffic signs and depending on their judgment -- including approaching the intersection cautiously -- the number of serious accidents dropped to zero.

    Traffic signs disappear in German town's attempt to improve road safety
    Traffic signs disappear in German town's attempt to improve road safety

    A German town council has decided the best way to improve road safety is to remove all traffic lights and stop signs downtown. From tomorrow, all traffic controls will disappear from central Bohmte in the hopes of reducing accidents and making life easier for pedestrians. Vehicles and pedestrians will enjoy equal right of way in an area used by 13,500 cars every day. Shared Space, the idea of removing signs to improve road safety, was developed by Hans Monderman, a Dutch traffic specialist, and has been implemented in Drachten, northern Netherlands, where accidents have been reduced significantly. But not everyone is convinced it will work. "Just because it worked in the Netherlands doesn't mean it will work here," said Werner Koeppe, a road specialist at Berlin's Technical Traffic Institute
    really Koeppe because people there are different??

    German town ditches traffic lights to cut accidents | Oddly Enough | Reuters

    Server Error ... hmonderman

    _________________
    S&W M&P40/M&P9c OC rigs
    S&W 640-1 or Sig P238 as a CC rig
    proud www.georgiacarry.org member
    Second Amendment Foundation Life member

  6. #65
    Ex Member Array maddyfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    nKy.
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by Corwin View Post
    Actually, if you are a taxpayer, you have a right to drive on the roads that you are paying for. They are your roads, not the government's, because you pay for them.

    .
    Again, your right would be to USE the road, not drive on it. There is no right to drive.
    USE could mean walk, cab, bus, run, so forth. Self operated powered travel is not a right.

  7. #66
    Ex Member Array maddyfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    nKy.
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by 21bubba View Post
    Link it or it didn't happen.
    Get out and travel some Bubba. Limited to non existant traffic controls are somewhat common in the Netherlands and Belguim.

    Wired 12.12: Roads Gone Wild

    Here is one instance, search a bit and you can find more. I found this one is 3 seconds.

  8. #67
    Ex Member Array maddyfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    nKy.
    Posts
    450
    Quote Originally Posted by TedBeau View Post
    I guess I am in the minority here but I can't see where driving is in any way less a right than owning a gun. Freedom is freedom!


    The fifth amendment says:

    No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty (as in freedom to move about as one desires, including driving a car), or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "

    and the ninth amandment says:


    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Such as the right to drive a car.

    As many people have noted a car is at least as deadly as a gun, so why shouldn't there be at least some requirement to demonstrate safe operation?
    This entire arguement is spurious at best. Using your logic, you could claim 'liberty' to mean anything at all that you might want to do.
    You certainly have a right to travel and use public roads. But not to operate a car, that is a privilege, and as such is rightly regulated and licensed.
    You need to separate in your mind 'travel' from 'drive'

  9. #68
    Member Array Zach and Holly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    479
    Quote Originally Posted by dairycreek View Post
    While I understand where the OP is coming from I just cannot, in good conscience, invite any part of the government to set up another requirement for that which his supposed to be an unfettered constitutional right.

    For once how about NOT looking at the government to do what others might/should do. If his family is concerned as to this old guy's capabilities with firearms they should step in and act as a family is supposed to act.

    Good post. It's also like the age-old question...should you have to take the driver's test again at a certain age to ensure you're still physically and mentally ABLE to drive? Or....just want until there is an accident to SHOW that the person is unfit to drive. It's a hard discussion. No one believes they should have to give up their freedoms and rights because of age.

    It's interesting, who on this forum would admit that they would willingly give up all their firearms in old age...even if they knew they were beginning to slip a little bit?
    It is utterly illogical to believe that passing laws to reduce gun violence will be successful when those who are commiting the gun violence do not obey the law.

  10. #69
    Senior Member Array unloved's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southeastern Pennsylvania
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by maddyfish View Post
    ...you could claim 'liberty' to mean anything at all that you might want to do.
    That's exactly what liberty means. Anything at all I might want to do, so long as I do not infringe upon the rights of others. "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes

  11. #70
    Member Array Corwin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    Do I have the right to use the public schools that I pay taxes for? (I dont have kids). Can I sit in on any of the classes that I missed? Catch up on current events?

    Sure, use the roads...just obey the laws while doing so. Laws apply to those roads....and they are laws that have nothing to do with any particular right. Driving is a privilege, not a right. You can walk on the edge. If allowed, ride your horse. When in a bus, you are using that road.
    You have a right to use what you pay for. Go ahead, use the school, sit in on the classes you missed. Oh, they won't let you? Well I guess maybe you're getting screwed then... but that's a whole 'nother subject.

    I'm not trying tyo derail this thread so I'll guess we'll have to disagree about the driving thing.

  12. #71
    Member Array Corwin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by maddyfish View Post
    Again, your right would be to USE the road, not drive on it. There is no right to drive.
    USE could mean walk, cab, bus, run, so forth. Self operated powered travel is not a right.
    I say it is a right. Maybe there should be a thread for that...

  13. #72
    Member Array Corwin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by unloved View Post
    That's exactly what liberty means. Anything at all I might want to do, so long as I do not infringe upon the rights of others. "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
    +1 on this.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." -Declaration of Independence

    It's spelled out pretty clearly here. The purpose of government is to secure our rights, not decide what they are and give us permission to exercise them.

  14. #73
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,082
    This is not a proper responsibility of government. The OP makes the same kinds of arguments that gun banners make. "Do it now before some tragedy happens". I have a better idea. It's called throw people in jail who negligently shoot innocent bystanders and don't try to make the occasional mistake by some moron an excuse for further government infringements on the rights of all US citizens.

  15. #74
    VIP Member Array rottkeeper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    3,194
    Quote Originally Posted by peckman28 View Post
    This is not a proper responsibility of government. The OP makes the same kinds of arguments that gun banners make. "Do it now before some tragedy happens". I have a better idea. It's called throw people in jail who negligently shoot innocent bystanders and don't try to make the occasional mistake by some moron an excuse for further government infringements on the rights of all US citizens.


    You are using too much common sense, politicians don't think that way.
    For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the son of man be. Mathew 24:27

    NRA Member

  16. #75
    Member Array alexcantslee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dallas, Tx
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by sleepyhead View Post
    Alex,

    An important distinction needs to be made. The 2nd amendment gives us nothing.

    We have certain unalienable rights inherent in our humanity. No government, constitution, or bill of rights can grant them to us, nor take them away.

    We have the right to keep and bear arms, as does every citizen of every nation everywhere. Regardless of what laws are passed, amendments added or removed to the Constitution, or supreme court decisions, we, as humans, have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

    The 2nd amendment is merely a declarative statement to the government, a reminder that we will not give up this right.
    Fair enough, I was typing on auto pilot. You are correct, its doesnt grant us anything at all, only says that they don't have the power to take it away. I shoulda proof-read that more.

    Alex!
    My other Kahr is a Kimber.

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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Qualification
    By evanely in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: June 20th, 2009, 12:47 AM
  2. LEOSA qualification for non-LEO?
    By press1280 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: January 10th, 2009, 01:23 PM
  3. CCW shooting Qualification?
    By Krmnnghia in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: May 1st, 2007, 07:21 PM
  4. CCW Qualification
    By Hekkenschutze in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: December 4th, 2006, 06:48 AM
  5. Qualification requirements
    By zx9rt1 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: September 25th, 2006, 12:28 PM

Search tags for this page

az post police shooting qualification
,
pa post firearms qualification
,
police shooting qualification requirements georgia
,
stringent qualifications for concealed carry
,

werner carry system

Click on a term to search for related topics.