A House Divided

Status
Not open for further replies.
I still feel that an hour of training would help cut down on accidental firearms accidents due to the plain old lack of knowledge of what a gun can do if someone isn't careful about how they handle it. And has little to no idea of the implications, power, and ability to cause grave bodily harm and death that is possible from their purchase.
Is that unreasonable? I see people who know nothing about guns, go out and spend a thousand dollars. or more, on a new 1911, like a Kimber, just because it looks "cool", with no idea what a 45 caliber bullet can do, how far it can travel past the target, what the safety does, or even what single action, vs. double action is.
Let alone how to safeguard, load, clean, and everything else that goes along with it.
Perhaps this being a fairly knowledgeable bunch of guys, it goes unrecognized that over 8 thousand people a day, move into my state. Many of them can't wait to get a gun, with absolutely no prior experience with firearm, they need only pay and wait 3 days and Walla, they have a gun ammo and whatever else they want, and can keep it in their car, home or business, with no training.
But many only bought what they saw in a gun magazine or what someone else told them they "have to get".
Would a little training past the 4 rules be such a bad idea? It's not like anything else you can buy, nothing is as immediate as a bullet that mistakenly gets fired while showing off their new toy, or failure to secure the weapon from the kids.
I don't see it as a big imposition to ask someone to spend an hour to take a "no grade" course in firearm safety. I think it would cut down on accidents and benefit everyone if done properly on a state level or even at the gun store once a week for new purchasers.
This is just a common sense question, not a manipulation of the Constitution, I have been writing my legislators and every politician for decades, "before computers" about the necessity of the Right to bear arms, so if this is a bad idea I would abandon it but I just don't see why it is so bad to make sure that the person buying the gun knows what they are doing more so than when they walked in without a gun.
 
I really have a hard time understanding just what part of "Shall not be infringed" these people do not understand. No means No, period! If you believe otherwise please feel free to move.
 
there are already lots of restrictions on the 2nd Amendment, and rightly so
Click to expand...

Now hold on there.

When we start talking about (and I hate this trite phrase) weapons of mass destruction, there is a lot of room for discussion, and even those of us who are the true hardliners with RKBA can see the folly is allowing unfettered access to a weapon with the potential to level entire cities. But I will argue to that end that, even the government possessing them, cannot just arbitrarily use those weapons for whatever purpose it sees fit. For one, the military that actually deploys said weapons is of the people, and (at least for now) not going to unleash that destruction against their own nation, their own families. Secondly, there are serious repercussions if those weapons are misused; we call this war, and in the event that they were used against us, it's revolution. Even with the disparity of armament that exists, our own government knows that it cannot count on the armed forces to enforce it's will, and that a true revolution would likely be successful.

In other words, though "they" have them and "we" don't, "they" still have to answer to "us" if they use them in a way that "we" disapprove of.

In contrast, a suicidal sociopath will have to answer to no one if he were to unleash a fuel-air bomb on his own city. There is no check/balance there, so no form of assurance and no option for reprisal. Just a whole lot of destruction and dead people.

Now, some might try to scale that argument against smaller weapons, but there is a significant difference. A looney tune with an ICBM would be unassailable and unstoppable; he is not on site, and the destruction is massive and instantaneous. But a crazy with a machine gun, while a serious threat, can still be dealt with. There is a parity with his intended victims.

Rockets, artillery, tanks, etc? It's a little more fuzzy, since we're talking about weapons that do create a significant disparity and would be particularly destructive if turned against a peaceful, civilized and unexpcting population. But they also aren't at the same level that ballistic missiles or bombs are. As such, there probably should be some oversight on these, but by an agency that is still beholden to the citizens, not the rogue executive .gov that currently manages it.

Anyway, back to the topic..........
 
Training is great; it should be everyone's Personal Responsibility to be fully trained in anything they purchase. Everything from chain saws to firearms; they both are deadly in untrained hands. But; under NO circumstances should the government be involved in either!
 
Quote:
Maybe in your mind but not in mine.

Because you seem to think like a progressive.


Quote:
Is your opinion the end all of all opinions??

My opinion is irrelevant; we're dealing in facts here.

Show just one example where such appeasement ("compromise", as you call it) has not led to further erosion of gun rights.


Quote:
Even the "old oak" ends up down in the end.

So you've already given up? Is that what you're saying? You're able to enjoy your guns today, but you have resigned yourself and accepted that your grand kids will not have RKBA?

That's the fundamental difference between us. You like guns, but don't really value RKBA. I'm ready to die for the right of my children and my children's children to defend themselves against common criminals or tyrants.


Quote:
No, it sounds like the guy that lives to fight another day.

Better dead than red
Better red than dead.

2nd one gives one the chance to continue.

Conversely, let's modify this one:

First they came for (AR-15s), and I remained silent because I was not (an AR-15 owner). Then they came for (semi auto Handguns), and I said nothing, because I was not (a semi-auto handgun owner). Next they came for (repeating firearms), and I kept quiet, because I was not (an owner of repeating firearms). Finally, they came for (my single shot 12 gauge), and by then, there was no one left to speak out for me.

If you're not familiar with the provenance of the original quote, I suggest you research it, as it pertains both to the principle of this discussion, and exemplifies what happens as a populous allows themselves to be gradually disarmed, first through regulation, then registration and finally confiscation.


Quote:
So, it now comes to the point of name calling on your part.

Nice try at deflection, but calling a spade a spade does not insult the spade. If you collaborate, you are a collaborator. "Compromising" WRT RKBA is collaboration, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

If you would go back to my orginal remarks what I'm advocating is instruction for the ownership of firearms. I got mine from caring older brothers and again in the service to our country. We no longer have that much, many young kids basically grow up on their own and the armed forces is entirely volunteer.

My remarks regarding the teaching/instruction is above my pay grade is in fact true, I am crippled, unable to leave the house much at all, much of my life has been spent fighting the good fight, it's pretty much over at this point. Grand kids? They will fight just the same as I fought mine. Laws made today are no more permanent than as to who is in office.

Also if you all go back to any of my posts, not once did I call anyone a name, to bad the same can not be said for you members that disagree with me. So are you all a class act?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
george burns said:
I still feel that an hour of training would help cut down on accidental firearms accidents due to the plain old lack of knowledge of what a gun can do if someone isn't careful about how they handle it. And has little to no idea of the implications, power, and ability to cause grave bodily harm and death that is possible from their purchase.
Is that unreasonable? I see people who know nothing about guns, go out and spend a thousand dollars. or more, on a new 1911, like a Kimber, just because it looks "cool", with no idea what a 45 caliber bullet can do, how far it can travel past the target, what the safety does, or even what single action, vs. double action is.
Let alone how to safeguard, load, clean, and everything else that goes along with it.
Perhaps this being a fairly knowledgeable bunch of guys, it goes unrecognized that over 8 thousand people a day, move into my state. Many of them can't wait to get a gun, with absolutely no prior experience with firearm, they need only pay and wait 3 days and Walla, they have a gun ammo and whatever else they want, and can keep it in their car, home or business, with no training.
But many only bought what they saw in a gun magazine or what someone else told them they "have to get".
Would a little training past the 4 rules be such a bad idea? It's not like anything else you can buy, nothing is as immediate as a bullet that mistakenly gets fired while showing off their new toy, or failure to secure the weapon from the kids.
I don't see it as a big imposition to ask someone to spend an hour to take a "no grade" course in firearm safety. I think it would cut down on accidents and benefit everyone if done properly on a state level or even at the gun store once a week for new purchasers.
This is just a common sense question, not a manipulation of the Constitution, I have been writing my legislators and every politician for decades, "before computers" about the necessity of the Right to bear arms, so if this is a bad idea I would abandon it but I just don't see why it is so bad to make sure that the person buying the gun knows what they are doing more so than when they walked in without a gun.
Click to expand...
Part of living in a free society is that you are going to have people who break the laws. Period. These people are known as criminals. In a truly free society, you will always have people who break the laws. That's too bad, but it is what it is.

Also, in a free society, you have idiots. These people are known as idiots, morons, pea brains, etc. In a truly free society, you will always have people who are stupid, either due to being lazy or apathy or whatever. That's too bad, but it is what it is.

Also, when the Founding Fathers set up the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and formed the first federal government, it was on the tacit understanding that for this new and fantastic government to work, the population has to be educated.

So, I guess what I'm saying is that while training and education is nice, you can't force people to do it. If you live in a free society, people are gonna be people, and not all people are smart, motivated, educated and valuable assets to their community, nor do they want to be.
 
Training is great; it should be everyone's Personal Responsibility to be fully trained in anything they purchase. Everything from chain saws to firearms; they both are deadly in untrained hands. But; under NO circumstances should the government be involved in either!
Click to expand...

So who do you wish to get involved?
 
MachIVshooter said:
Now hold on there.

When we start talking about (and I hate this trite phrase) weapons of mass destruction, there is a lot of room for discussion, and even those of us who are the true hardliners with RKBA can see the folly is allowing unfettered access to a weapon with the potential to level entire cities. But I will argue to that end that, even the government possessing them, cannot just arbitrarily use those weapons for whatever purpose it sees fit. For one, the military that actually deploys said weapons is of the people, and (at least for now) not going to unleash that destruction against their own nation, their own families. Secondly, there are serious repercussions if those weapons are misused; we call this war, and in the event that they were used against us, it's revolution. Even with the disparity of armament that exists, our own government knows that it cannot count on the armed forces to enforce it's will, and that a true revolution would likely be successful.

In other words, though "they" have them and "we" don't, "they" still have to answer to "us" if they use them in a way that "we" disapprove of.

In contrast, a suicidal sociopath will have to answer to no one if he were to unleash a fuel-air bomb on his own city. There is no check/balance there, so no form of assurance and no option for reprisal. Just a whole lot of destruction and dead people.

Now, some might try to scale that argument against smaller weapons, but there is a significant difference. A looney tune with an ICBM would be unassailable and unstoppable; he is not on site, and the destruction is massive and instantaneous. But a crazy with a machine gun, while a serious threat, can still be dealt with. There is a parity with his intended victims.

Rockets, artillery, tanks, etc? It's a little more fuzzy, since we're talking about weapons that do create a significant disparity and would be particularly destructive if turned against a peaceful, civilized and unexpcting population. But they also aren't at the same level that ballistic missiles or bombs are. As such, there probably should be some oversight on these, but by an agency that is still beholden to the citizens, not the rogue executive .gov that currently manages it.

Anyway, back to the topic..........
Click to expand...
fair enough.
 
I still feel that an hour of training would help cut down on accidental firearms accidents due to the plain old lack of knowledge of what a gun can do if someone isn't careful about how they handle it. And has little to no idea of the implications, power, and ability to cause grave bodily harm and death that is possible from their purchase.
Is that unreasonable? I see people who know nothing about guns, go out and spend a thousand dollars. or more, on a new 1911, like a Kimber, just because it looks "cool", with no idea what a 45 caliber bullet can do, how far it can travel past the target, what the safety does, or even what single action, vs. double action is.
Let alone how to safeguard, load, clean, and everything else that goes along with it.
Perhaps this being a fairly knowledgeable bunch of guys, it goes unrecognized that over 8 thousand people a day, move into my state. Many of them can't wait to get a gun, with absolutely no prior experience with firearm, they need only pay and wait 3 days and Walla, they have a gun ammo and whatever else they want, and can keep it in their car, home or business, with no training.
But many only bought what they saw in a gun magazine or what someone else told them they "have to get".
Would a little training past the 4 rules be such a bad idea? It's not like anything else you can buy, nothing is as immediate as a bullet that mistakenly gets fired while showing off their new toy, or failure to secure the weapon from the kids.
I don't see it as a big imposition to ask someone to spend an hour to take a "no grade" course in firearm safety. I think it would cut down on accidents and benefit everyone if done properly on a state level or even at the gun store once a week for new purchasers.
This is just a common sense question, not a manipulation of the Constitution, I have been writing my legislators and every politician for decades, "before computers" about the necessity of the Right to bear arms, so if this is a bad idea I would abandon it but I just don't see why it is so bad to make sure that the person buying the gun knows what they are doing more so than when they walked in without a gun
Click to expand...

Not a bad idea at all. Could even be held and done by an NRA instructor. Free - Good
small charge - not as good but still not bad, "small charge $5/$10 bucks". Heck the 4H program costs a heck of a lot more than that.
 
This thread reminds me on the lead-in to the old Superman TV series: “a never ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way”. Problem is, everyone has their own definition of those words.

We are locked in a battle of ideologies, the core of which is human nature. Applying this logic to the 2nd Amendment, I see three camps: those against, those for, and those with little/no opinion but would lean toward the left due to safety concerns. It is the third camp that can inflict the most damage to our gun “rights”.

When doing some research on gunpowder, I found the following information: The first recorded firearms accident took place in Germany in 1515 when a man shot a prostitute in the chin while playing with a Wheelock pistol. Gun laws were enacted immediately. So begins the era of gun control.

This fight is not new and most likely will never end. I believe we should stand our ground but in a vigilant and non-defiant way. Educate but do not compromise. I have had my fill of elephant.
 
If you would go back to my orginal remarks what I'm advocating is instruction for the ownership of firearms. I got mine from caring older brothers and again in the service to our country. We no longer have that much, many young kids basically grow up on their own and the armed forces is entirely volunteer.
Click to expand...

I don't simply advocate training; I implore it. The difference between us is that you view it as a mandatory prerequisite to exercising a constitutional right. Should people have to take public speaking classes to exercise their 1st amendment right? Should a course in criminal justice be required before one can invoke the 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th?

My remarks regarding the teaching/instruction is above my pay grade is in fact true, I am crippled, unable to leave the house much at all, much of my life has been spent fighting the good fight, it's pretty much over at this point. Grand kids? They will fight just the same as I fought mine. Laws made today are no more permanent than as to who is in office.
Click to expand...

Your age and disability do not exempt you from civic responsibility, which includes careful consideration of rights as they apply to all citizens of the USA before voting on issues directly, or voting for people who will decide such issues.

Also if you all go back to any of my posts, not once did I call anyone a name, to bad the same can not be said for you members that disagree with me. So are you all a class act????????????????????????????????
Click to expand...

I've not called you any names. If you're referring to quisling, that's just a more specific synonym for collaborator. We've already been over this; if you are willing to cooperate with our opponents to restrict the rights of your brothers so that you may (ostensibly) preserve the portion of those rights that you personally value, you are an enemy of RKBA, thus an enemy of mine.
 
Let's see now, we need training on baseball bats, knives, pins & everything that could hurt us! We won't have time for nothing else! AGAIN! WHAT PART OF NOT BEING INFRINGED IS IT THAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND?
 
Total unabashed ownership of firearms ain't gonna happen.

You know it, as do I.

Training is a good thing, but then it seems here it should be ignored.

Off to do something important, take a nap!
 
While I said I would stop arguing, something in this thread really busted my chops.


1. Stop acting like the right does not like gun control too.

"Guns are an abomination".
Click to expand...

-Republican President Richard Nixon

"I asked Congress to ban the manufacture and sale of these "Saturday night specials.""
Click to expand...

-Republican President Gerald Ford
" I also believe that government should pass laws such as instant background checks to help keep guns out of the hands of felons and juveniles and others who should not have them."
Click to expand...

-Republican President George Bush Jr.


[In a 1991 speech, Reagan said]: "I'm a member of the NRA. And my position on the right to bear arms is well known. But I support the Brady bill and I urge the Congress to enact it without delay. It's just plain common sense that there be a waiting period [7 days] to allow local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on those who wish to buy a handgun."
Click to expand...
-Republican President Ronald Reagan.

So, please, please, please, stop saying the right does not want gun control either, that is UTTER BS. These are words taken right out of the mouths of Republican Presidents and are a matter of record.

2. Stop supporting Ted Nugent.


He is the lowest life POS of existence of any human. He crapped his own pants to avoid the draft, yet supports the military.

"Romney’s Ted Nugent problem is about to get a whole lot worse if the mainstream media ever decides to report that Mittens has not rebuked a self-admitted pedophile. In a 1998 episode of VH1’s Behind The Music, Ted Nugent admitted to being a serial pedophile. VH1 politely phrased this as, “his weakness for young women.”
Click to expand...


So ya, keep on cheering for Ted Nugent, a Self Admitted Pedophile, Draft Dodger, Coward, and a all around arrogant POS.

I'd just love to send "Uncle Ted" over to the middle east with a gun to face ISIS and see how long it would take before he would chicken out and run away.
 
Last edited:
As a member of one of the largest police forces in the free world, We were given training in firearms all the time! Yet I saw several ADs & one of my best friends was shot by another SP while on duty! Not on purpose! Training is good to do,but even that won't deal with stupid!
 
My state is one of the few that requires absolutely zero training in order for a citizen to obtain a CPL. For the first couple of years that I resided up here, I grappled internally with this issue, initially believing that the requirement for no training was a bad, bad thing.

Fast forward 20 years, and I've come to realize that we have very, very few cases of firearm-related accidents or misconduct that would have been mitigated by training. My state's experience indicates (to me, at least) that most firearms owners are responsible, and even if they do not avail themselves of formal training, they give serious thought to their possession and use of guns.
 
So, please, please, please, stop saying the right does not want gun control either, that is UTTER BS. These are words taken right out of the mouths of Republican Presidents and are a matter of record.
Click to expand...

Very few of us here would say that there are not strong elements of "the right" which would ban guns! That's one of the reasons we do not identify as "right" or "left."

I will not support Nixon, Ford, Reagan, or any other politician who is in favor of gun control -- though I may have to hold my nose and vote "lesser of evils" more often than not.

I don't really know why you're arguing so hard about this. I don't think anyone here has tried to convince you that "the right" was the good guys and "the left" were all bad.

Pro gun -vs.- anti gun. That's it.

Nugent? Some like him, some hate him. Again, so what? My guns don't have anything to do with Uncle Ted, and he's not any sort of messiah of my cause. Thinking of him as a "POS" doesn't mean you have to love gun control the way you seem to. You can be an independent thinker, not swayed on an issue by your love or hate of personalities occasionally connected to it.




So, politely, stop throwing up smokescreens about dead politicians and washed-up rockstars. Stop believing what Obama's own press sheets say about him. Start to read and study and THINK. Then come to the table and let's talk about the issues.
 
So much for the "High Road". Like many firearms forums, it's become very political. I would love to find a forum that deals with firearms only.
 
I would also point out that on live fire training you are required to wear protection! And even then highly skilled people are hurt &killed. As I pointed out nothing stops stupid! No matter what some people just don't get it! There seems to be some that will not listen! Don't know who first said it, The road to hell is paved with good intentions! In my 55 years, I have seen how true that is! This is about guns! And the right to have them! And who cares about Ted but himself!
 
Last edited:
Remember, a tree that bends in the winter storm lives to flower and bear fruit in the following year, The tree that stands stiff is blown over and dies before the spring weather ever warms it's branches.
Click to expand...
There are worse things in life than death. There are many things worth fighting for, even to the very end of my life. Being complicit to the restriction of anyone's right, no matter which right it may be, is simply abhorrent to me. But then I tend to be very stiff necked on some things.

Training is a good thing, but then it seems here it should be ignored.
Click to expand...
No one is saying that training is a bad thing. What we are saying is that the Gov't, the same people are unable to manage pretty much everything they touch, should not have a say or requirement for it. Training is or paramount importance but it should not be a requirement to exercise a right. As was stated before, would you call for training classes to exercise our other rights?

They are rights, not privileges. The difference is huge.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mnrivrat
  • Locked
The Lost Report - 2nd Amendment 1982
Replies
5
Views
941
mljdeckard
mljdeckard
mnrivrat
  • Locked
2nd Amendment Senate Report - Must Read
Replies
11
Views
881
mnrivrat
mnrivrat
H
  • Locked
Text of Feinsteins AWB extension
Replies
6
Views
535
DTLoken
D
C
  • Locked
Divide and conquer
2 3
Replies
62
Views
2K
GTSteve03
G
A
  • Locked
Dave Kopels latest from National Review on-line.
Replies
1
Views
902
jmbg29
J
Back
Top