Vern Humphrey
Member
But that choice isn't on the menu. No one is saying if we accept training we will be allowed unrestricted carry.
Instead, training has been used in the past to deny people the right to carry.
CCW shooting test mandatory (as a poll)
- Thread starter zammyman
- Start date
- Status
Instead, training has been used in the past to deny people the right to carry.
CoRoMo
Member
Six pages of posts and we're still waiting for a little proof of these type statements. Is anyone going to submit evidence to these claims? I didn't think so.
Vern Humphrey
Member
That's correct. Pulse is trying to get us to buy something that isn't for sale. No one is offering us unrestricted carry in return for "training" or a test.
K3
Member
Pack a lunch.
No evidence will be submitted because all of this is based on feelings.
CoRoMo
Member
Or what? They should be left to die at the hands of a violent criminal? If they can't pass, they are prohibited from defending themselves? Some free country you believe in eh?
This anti-2nd Amendment filth makes me sick.
Vern Humphrey
Member
No need for that -- simply point out that no one who says there is a problem with lack of training has managed to show such a problem actually exists.
If CCW holders were killing or injuring people by accident, or shooting innocent people while trying to shoot a BG, the media would be on it like ugly on ape.
But they aren't, because there's nothing to be on.
If CCW holders were killing or injuring people by accident, or shooting innocent people while trying to shoot a BG, the media would be on it like ugly on ape.
But they aren't, because there's nothing to be on.
Pulse
Member
what kind of proof?
you try to push for unrestricted carry at all times and everywhere.
that is simply not going to happen, you can make Ted Nugent the president and it is still not going to happen.
you try to push for the impossible and will accept no substitutes.
maybe, just maybe, it would be wise to accept something better then what you have now but that still is not exactly what you want.
how many States accept a Colorado permit?
would it be so bad to accept a standardised Test that would allow you to carry anywhere in the US?
be in the subway in NewYork, a Bus in LA or you home town?
looking at the requirements for a Permit in Colorado, it wont be any diffrent then what you have right now.
if you would walk up to Sahra Brady and ask her:
"what you you rather accept: A. unrestricted carry anywhere, anytime, no question asked or B. carry anywhere anytime after one passed a class and test that makes sure that he has the abillity to be safely carry a gun in public?"
we aksed our Anti gun loby and they said B.
they would have never accepted A and would have done anything they could to stop it from happening.
now i get to carry in States that dont even issue Permits to there residents and i am not any less free then i was before, no actualy i feel i gained more freedom.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Verified statistics showing that "untrained" CCW holders are shooting themselves and other innocent people.
As has been pointed out again and again, Vermont and Alaska don't even require a permit to carry concealed. If the predicted incidents occur, they should certainly occur in those two states.
Other states allow open carry with no license or test (Virginia and Arizona, for example). If the predicted incidents occur, they should certainly occur in those two states.
You say it, but that don't make it so. In view of your repeated failure to show with real data that the predicted catestrophies occur, why should we take your word?
You're not offering a substitute -- you're demanding something more restrictive than what we have now.
Who is offering us something better than we have now?
FoMoGo
Member
So... the Second Amendment says you can carry, but you say it doesnt mean you can conceal.
This means it says you can open carry, therefore the framers of the Bill of Rights were idiots?
Am I reading you right here?
Jim
stogiegila
Member
The 2nd Amendment provides you with the right to keep and bear arms, not to carry them concealed. If you want to be able to do that, then take a test to show your competency.
I don't see what the big deal is to go to the range and hit the target and pass the written exam. I don't view this as an infringement on my rights, but testing my abilities to take the 2nd amend to the next level.
I'm no expert in this, but that is just my common sense 2 cent opinion. However, I can definitely see arguments going the other way that everyone should be allowed to carry. Almost like going back to the old west days. If everyone has a gun on them, bad guys would be forced to think twice about doing something.
I don't see what the big deal is to go to the range and hit the target and pass the written exam. I don't view this as an infringement on my rights, but testing my abilities to take the 2nd amend to the next level.
I'm no expert in this, but that is just my common sense 2 cent opinion. However, I can definitely see arguments going the other way that everyone should be allowed to carry. Almost like going back to the old west days. If everyone has a gun on them, bad guys would be forced to think twice about doing something.
rbernie
Contributing Member
Where is the means by which the arms are borne specified within the BoR?
Oh, wait. It's not.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't state 'Open Carry' or 'Concealed Carry'. It states, 'right..to bear arms...shall not be infringed'.
The 2nd Amendment needs no 'next level', because concealed carry licenses are already a restriction upon the right. You have become so conditioned to being told what *is* acceptable that you no longer grasp the notion that you have inalienable rights even in the absence of a government.
The right is to 'keep and bear arms'. Period. End of sentence. Anything else on the subject is a restriction. Choose the restrictions that you'll accept wisely, because they seldom go away once enacted.
And again - look to VT and AK and tell me how many bodies are piling up in the streets because they allow unrestricted carry, without mandatory goverment-approved testing.
Why is it that everybody that agrees to a training/testing restriction fails to provide the data to indicate that there is actually a demonstrated bona-fide need for this restriction?
RobMoore
Member
stogiegila, what about the concealed part makes you want to enforce training. So, a person can carry a gun, but the minute they put a jacket on over it, they need special training?
USSR
Member
The 2nd Amendment is a Right; a driver's license is not a right, merely permission granted by the state to those it deems worthy. Big difference.
Don
Look there isn't much data on CCW shooting accidents but just google "man shoots self" and you'll find tons of examples. Here are 5.
The first 2 are from vermont and alaska
There may not be empirical data but you can't deny there are a bunch of idiots out there. I don't buy that this is solution to a non existent problem.
What if there were a bunch of CCW shooting what then? Would training or a test be palatable?
What about felons and the mentally ill?
If there is absolutely NO infringement there should be an outpouring of support for ANYONE to have guns, but I don't see it even here a bastion of the 2A
http://kdka.com/watercooler/man.shoots.self.2.842235.html
http://www.adn.com/rural/story/513117.html
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...man_shoots_self_in_hip_while_target_shooting/
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/man_shoots_self_outside_harrah.html
http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/415139.html
http://www.wsmv.com/news/18446403/detail.html?rss=nash&psp=news
The first 2 are from vermont and alaska
There may not be empirical data but you can't deny there are a bunch of idiots out there. I don't buy that this is solution to a non existent problem.
What if there were a bunch of CCW shooting what then? Would training or a test be palatable?
What about felons and the mentally ill?
If there is absolutely NO infringement there should be an outpouring of support for ANYONE to have guns, but I don't see it even here a bastion of the 2A
http://kdka.com/watercooler/man.shoots.self.2.842235.html
http://www.adn.com/rural/story/513117.html
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...man_shoots_self_in_hip_while_target_shooting/
http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2008/12/man_shoots_self_outside_harrah.html
http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/buffaloerie/story/415139.html
http://www.wsmv.com/news/18446403/detail.html?rss=nash&psp=news
rbernie
Contributing Member
This is anecdotal data that is tangential to the discussion. There is no shortage of 'man shoots self' or 'child shoot child' articles in the news, just as there is no shortage of other articles of a sensationalist nature.
The premise of the discussion is that a concealed carry license holder should be subjected to mandatory qualification testing in order to reduce the risk that they will injure others (aka 'innocent bystanders').
That is the data you need to provide. It needs to be actual data that addresses the AD/ND/bad shooting of CHL holders in public.
But you cannot, because there is little to no evidence that CHL holders are a demonstrated public safety risk due to ND/AD or lack of ability to aim. Further, there is no evidence to suggest that a mandatory test prior to receiving a CHL/CCW actually decreases the likelihood of an AD/ND/piss-poor shot from occurring.
So again - where is the demonstrated NEED for a restriction that would drive anyone to WANT such a restriction?
I'm really beginning to think that the elitist Fudd factor is more prevalent and ingrained in our psyche than I would have previously thought.
FoMoGo
Member
There are highly trained people who shoot themselves...
Just because a person is trained is no guarantee that they wont at some point have a brain fart and put a bullet into themselves.
The same way anyone can have a slip of the tongue and say something stupid... or actually go thru the effort to write it down for the public to see.
Jim
Just because a person is trained is no guarantee that they wont at some point have a brain fart and put a bullet into themselves.
The same way anyone can have a slip of the tongue and say something stupid... or actually go thru the effort to write it down for the public to see.
Jim
I'm responding to the argument that there is no problem because there is no data and that is circular logic.
I showed those anecdotal examples exactly because there is no study.
You can't argue that just because there isn't a study there is no problem.
I showed those anecdotal examples exactly because there is no study.
You can't argue that just because there isn't a study there is no problem.
a2fireball
Member
Yep. Its right there between the 1st and 3rd ammendments.
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.
Dictionary definition of "keep":
"To hold or retain in one's possession; hold as one's own"
...sounds a lot like having something in one's pocket.
K3
Member
That's what I support. It wasn't a problem for a long time. A few high profile shootings and we get GCA68 along with FFLs and 4473s. Horsepuckey.
People are too emotional and kneejerk too much.
How many is 'tons' of examples? 5? 50? What are you measuring this against? Statistics? It could be 500 examples and still be an insignificant number when taken into the correct context. It appears you are knee-jerking on this as well.
Pulse
Member
i do believe that, but i never said that in this debate.
i do believe that right now with the average firearm handling skills, it would end in nothing good.
but over time, with rising skilllevels that would go away, maybe make firearm training in schools mendatory?
but in this debate, i never said that and its more of a personal feeling.
that is the same, sorry lame, argument we hear in many other debates.
"the swiss give there 14year old selectiv fire assault rifles and free ammo, it works there, so it will work anywhere else."
while yes, we indeed do that, it wont work in most other countrys.
Alaska and vermont are both Rural areas with a low population making up barly 0.3% of the entire US populus, with a strong cultur in hunting and a generaly high firearm level of firearm handling skills.
how about we move that in to a densly populated area like NYC or Miami? you still think it will be exactly the same?
$
for many Stats it would be equal to what they have now with the possible added bonus of nation wide carry and no "Gun Free Zones" because it a Federal Licance.
take the law of Colorado, make it Federal .. voila.
right now? no one.
but that does not matter, many here would say 'NO' even if the brady bunsh and Obama them self would offer it to you.
instead many here would prefer to rave about how unconstitutional any form of Licencing is.
"the best is the enemy of good enough"
fits well.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Here is is:
The bolded words mean you can't limit the right -- you can't say, for example, "Well, okay you can carry, but you can't carry a loaded gun."
Or "Well, okay you can carry, but you can't carry an acessable gun."
Or, "Well, okay you can carry, but you can't carry a concealed gun."
Take a look at the General discussion page
How often do you see someone post something about an accidental shooting or a ND.
Everyone piles on the shooter but rarely do you see "Well that's just the price of Freedom"
I think being an absolutist is just as delusional as the people who want to ban all guns everywhere, forever.
Vern Humphrey
Member
No, the "sorry, lame" argument is the one that demands training as a solution, but refuses to offer proof there is a problem.
K3
Member
Why are folks so keen on getting the guvmint's permission?
The guvmint is an authority? An expert? Competent?
How many things has the monster bureaucracy screwed up? Do you really expect them to get something right?
The guvmint is an authority? An expert? Competent?
How many things has the monster bureaucracy screwed up? Do you really expect them to get something right?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
