MachIVshooter
Member
You mean the EPA that outlawed harmless incandescent bulbs, making the next most economical and thus popular choice the highly toxic CFL? That EPA?
Help Me Understand So I Don't Be A Fudd
- Thread starter berettaprofessor
- Start date
- Status
You mean the EPA that outlawed harmless incandescent bulbs, making the next most economical and thus popular choice the highly toxic CFL? That EPA?
MachIVshooter
Member
Yup
In the same way a book of matches "explodes". They can pop, and create a potentially dangerous shower of melted plastic and hot chemicals in a very close proximity. They do not, however, blow up like a stick of dynamite or piece of Semtex.
Can they combust and propagate a serious fire? Yep. And so can many, many other things.
As for the picture you offered, it was not batteries but volatile chemicals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Hyundai_Fortune
Nice try, though
jcwit
member
No the one that helps protect you at work, mayhap you would rather return to the days of yester year and the working conditions then.
BTW, try the new LED bulbs and save yourself even more money energy wise and safetly too.
MachIVshooter
Member
I believe you're confusing agencies here. OSHA and EPA aren't one and the same, nor is NHTSA or NTSB, etc.
I do use LEDs, because I recognize the kWH reduction that will ultimately amortize the high cost of the lights and eventually save me money. And I certainly didn't need a government agency to make that decision. But it also doesn't make sense to put a $30 LED bulb in a stairwell cubby where the light will be on 20 minutes over the course of a year. I will say it again, the free market sorts this stuff out on its own.
Last edited:
morcey2
Member
Yes, that EPA. But don't question them. They're from the government and they're here to help you.
Why can't I just decide that I like normal incandescent bulbs and buy them for that reason only? I know that I can save money (eventually) on LED bulbs or CFLs but I don't like the sterile light that they put out and I don't like the mercury contamination potential from CFLs.
Matt
thirty-ought-six
member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2015
- Messages
- 185
They only outlawed high wattage incandessants.
They also outlawed asbestos and mercury in oral thermometers. Two really bad things that would still be in use today if it wasn't for the .gov
thirty-ought-six
member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2015
- Messages
- 185
Went from guns to lightbulbs really quick.
Exactly. Why do you think we carry guns?thirty-ought-six said:
Hint: For some of us, it's because we know that some people do bad things.
Again, who gets to choose the curriculum? What's the result of failure? If a student doesn't pass your proposed mandatory gun safety class by the time he's 18, would you have his diploma withheld? He doesn't get his 2A rights? My high school offered "Arkansas Outdoors" way back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, and there was a firearms section in which the students used .22s. I never took that class. Should I not be allowed to carry a firearm in public?thirty-ought-six said:
I asked some fairly specific questions in (I think) my last post in this thread. I'll repost them here in case you missed them. Just so we're clear, thirty-ought-six, they were directed at you.
llwsgn
Member
It appears the thirty ought six agenda here is becoming a bit more filled out than only more government gun regulation. Now it's more government regulation period. Thanks for the help in further forming my point of view on these matters. I owe you.
jcwit
member
Those of you who expect no regulation regarding the ownership of firearms are living in a dream world, and likely in reality realize this.
But carry on.
But carry on.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Expect? No regulation? Exactly what are we discussing here? I thought this was a debate over "Constitutional Carry" vis-a-vis Kansas considering permitless carry of firearms? Is that "No regulation?" Seems there are still some regulations, just no permits or mandatory testing/training. And as I've pointed out there are a lot of states that do this already, and many more considering it. SO that's not exactly "living in a dream world." It has already happened, and is spreading. It is reality.
What's your point?
jcwit
member
The point being that if this becomes a reality and someone does something like happened in Sandy Hook the hammer will fall harder than ever.
My Opinion.
No Sam I do not agree with you, comprende?
My Opinion.
No Sam I do not agree with you, comprende?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
You mean, if this becomes EVEN MORE a reality than it already is in quite a few states?
So...like, after the antis couldn't pull it over on us after VA Tech, Auruora, the Navy Yard shooting, and Sandy Hook (the most heart-rending shooting in memory because of the age of the victims), if there's like JUST ONE MORE mass killing -- and it happens to be in a state that allows unlicensed carry of firearms -- like, THAT's finally going to be the breaking point?
Wow.
Fortunately, that is ALL it is.
Say it as many times as you want. I totally understand that you disagree. Fortunately, you and those who think like you seem to be losing hold of the reigns of power.
Guess you can chuckle at us all if someday, someday we're all lamenting all that blood in the streets.
jcwit
member
That quite amounts to 6 states.
Alaska[edit]
On June 11, 2003, Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski signed House Bill 102 which removed the requirement to obtain a concealed weapons permit in order to carry a concealed firearm. The law went into effect September 9, 2003.
Arizona[edit]
On April 16, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed Senate Bill 1108 which acted similarly to Alaska's bill.[1] The law went into effect July 29, 2010.
Arkansas[edit]
On April 4, 2013 Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe signed legislation to allow Constitutional Carry.[2][3] The law decriminalizes the carry of handguns for self-defense purposes, and puts the burden upon a prosecutor to prove criminal intent of a person carrying a handgun. Also, there are no specifications whether a legally carried handgun should be carried openly or concealed; thus it is considered Constitutional Carry. This law went into effect in August 2013. Attorney General Dustin McDaniel has issued an opinion on Act 746 of 2013 stating that the newly defined "journey" term does not authorize constitutional carry in Arkansas, but admits that the change in the mens rea of the offense for "carrying a weapon" is up for debate, but is outside of the scope of the question presented for this particular opinion. The previous law made carrying a weapon with the purpose to use it against another person a crime. The new law changed the mens rea to carrying a weapon with the purpose to attempt to unlawfully use the weapon against another person. See Opinion No. 2013-047, footnote 7 dated July 8, 2013 or visit his Web site at http://arkansasag.gov/opinions/index.php.
Vermont[edit]
This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (January 2014)
For many decades, the only state to allow "Constitutional Carry" of a handgun (i.e. without any government permit) was Vermont. From the formation of the 13 original states, "constitutional carry" was the law in all states until the 1800s. By the 20th century, all states except Vermont had enacted concealed carry bans, with the exemption in most states for those citizens with a permit. Due to its tightly worded state constitution,[1] Vermont has never been able to have a restriction on the method of how one could carry a firearm, and thus, in this regard, Vermont stood entirely separate from the rest of the United States for quite some time. Because of this, Constitutional Carry is still often referred to as "Vermont carry".
Wyoming (for residents)[edit]
On March 2, 2011 Wyoming Governor Matt Mead signed legislation to allow Constitutional Carry.[4][5] The law officially went into effect on July 1, 2011. Under the law residents can carry concealed or openly without a permit but visitors to the state must either have a valid concealed carry permit from a jurisdiction that is recognized by the State of Wyoming or carry the weapon openly.
While Wyoming does have the resident limitation it is similar to Vermont in that the police may not disarm a citizen just because they "feel" it's necessary.[citation needed]
Oklahoma (residents of constitutional carry states)[edit]
In the state of Oklahoma, any person who is a legal resident of a state that allows concealed carry without a permit may also carry concealed in Oklahoma without a permit, so long as they possess a photo ID showing they are a legal resident of that other state and also meet the legal requirements for permitless carry in that other state.[6]
And 2 of the above is for residents only, Wy does if they honor your states permit however.
jcwit
member
The other 4 put limitations.
U.S. States that do not require a license to carry but have limitations for unlicensed open and/or concealed carry[edit]
Idaho[edit]
Idaho introduced a bill early in 2011 to allow constitutional carry. Currently Idaho issues CCWs on a shall-issue basis and open carry is legal without a permit.[7]
Idaho allows Constitutional Carry within a person's place of abode, fixed place of business, or on property which a person has ownership or leasehold interest.[8] Additionally, a person may carry a concealed weapon without a license when outside of city limits and when not in a vehicle.[9] A firearm may be legally concealed when in a vehicle, either inside or outside city limits, as long as the firearm is disassembled or unloaded.[9]
Montana[edit]
Montana introduced a bill early in 2011 to allow constitutional carry. The bill passed the House with a vote of 55-45, and passed the Senate with a vote of 29-21.[10][11] Montana HB 271 was vetoed by Governor Brian Schweitzer on May 10, 2011[12] and was unable to gather the necessary 2/3 majority to overturn the veto.[13] Montana is currently a shall-issue state for concealed weapon permits and open carry is legal without a permit.[14]
In addition to Montana's concealed weapons permit system, state law allows for Constitutional Carry through an exemption to the ban on carrying concealed weapons outside the official boundaries of a city or town.[15] In 2011 Montana HB 271 was vetoed by Governor Brian Schweitzer (D) which would have expanded it to all areas of the state.[12]
New Hampshire[edit]
SB 0116[16] implementing constitutional carry has been introduced in 2015 for review by the NH Senate Judiciary committee and is scheduled for hearing on January 29, 2015. Two competing bills were introduced in New Hampshire in 2011 that would have implemented Constitutional Carry. On March 15, 2011, the House passed HB330,[17] but the bill died in the senate.[citation needed] On January 5, 2012, the New Hampshire house moved forward with an amended version of HB 536 as well.[18] Governor John Lynch was opposed to the bill,[19] and the bill eventually died in the Senate.[20]
Open carry is legal without a license in New Hampshire, and the state currently issues concealed carry "pistol & revolver" licenses on a shall-issue basis.[21] However, carrying a concealed handgun unloaded is legal without a license. A New Hampshire Supreme Court decision in 2013 clarified that the current law does not prohibit carrying a concealed handgun if it is unloaded and no round is chambered, even if a loaded magazine is nearby.[22]
New Mexico[edit]
Under New Mexico law a concealed handgun license is required for concealed carry when the weapon is both loaded and concealed and the individual carrying is on foot. It is perfectly legal to carry ammunition as well as a loaded magazine so long as it is not inserted into the weapon. Additionally, it is legal for an individual to carry a loaded firearm in a concealed manner without a concealed carry permit while traveling in a vehicle, to include motorcycles, bicycles and while riding a horse. This method of concealed carry has additional restrictions not found in permitted carry such as all the same restrictions that apply to open carry.
U.S. States that do not require a license to carry but have limitations for unlicensed open and/or concealed carry[edit]
Idaho[edit]
Idaho introduced a bill early in 2011 to allow constitutional carry. Currently Idaho issues CCWs on a shall-issue basis and open carry is legal without a permit.[7]
Idaho allows Constitutional Carry within a person's place of abode, fixed place of business, or on property which a person has ownership or leasehold interest.[8] Additionally, a person may carry a concealed weapon without a license when outside of city limits and when not in a vehicle.[9] A firearm may be legally concealed when in a vehicle, either inside or outside city limits, as long as the firearm is disassembled or unloaded.[9]
Montana[edit]
Montana introduced a bill early in 2011 to allow constitutional carry. The bill passed the House with a vote of 55-45, and passed the Senate with a vote of 29-21.[10][11] Montana HB 271 was vetoed by Governor Brian Schweitzer on May 10, 2011[12] and was unable to gather the necessary 2/3 majority to overturn the veto.[13] Montana is currently a shall-issue state for concealed weapon permits and open carry is legal without a permit.[14]
In addition to Montana's concealed weapons permit system, state law allows for Constitutional Carry through an exemption to the ban on carrying concealed weapons outside the official boundaries of a city or town.[15] In 2011 Montana HB 271 was vetoed by Governor Brian Schweitzer (D) which would have expanded it to all areas of the state.[12]
New Hampshire[edit]
SB 0116[16] implementing constitutional carry has been introduced in 2015 for review by the NH Senate Judiciary committee and is scheduled for hearing on January 29, 2015. Two competing bills were introduced in New Hampshire in 2011 that would have implemented Constitutional Carry. On March 15, 2011, the House passed HB330,[17] but the bill died in the senate.[citation needed] On January 5, 2012, the New Hampshire house moved forward with an amended version of HB 536 as well.[18] Governor John Lynch was opposed to the bill,[19] and the bill eventually died in the Senate.[20]
Open carry is legal without a license in New Hampshire, and the state currently issues concealed carry "pistol & revolver" licenses on a shall-issue basis.[21] However, carrying a concealed handgun unloaded is legal without a license. A New Hampshire Supreme Court decision in 2013 clarified that the current law does not prohibit carrying a concealed handgun if it is unloaded and no round is chambered, even if a loaded magazine is nearby.[22]
New Mexico[edit]
Under New Mexico law a concealed handgun license is required for concealed carry when the weapon is both loaded and concealed and the individual carrying is on foot. It is perfectly legal to carry ammunition as well as a loaded magazine so long as it is not inserted into the weapon. Additionally, it is legal for an individual to carry a loaded firearm in a concealed manner without a concealed carry permit while traveling in a vehicle, to include motorcycles, bicycles and while riding a horse. This method of concealed carry has additional restrictions not found in permitted carry such as all the same restrictions that apply to open carry.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Yes... and...
jcwit
member
The rest?? We shall see.
I still contend there is nothing wrong with teaching/instruction of a handgun.
As said earlier, we are all taught how to eat after all.
May very well be a right, which is good, but its not an instinct.
I still contend there is nothing wrong with teaching/instruction of a handgun.
As said earlier, we are all taught how to eat after all.
May very well be a right, which is good, but its not an instinct.
morcey2
Member
You're not just contending that there is anything wrong with teaching/instruction of a handgun. You're contending that it should be mandatory under penalty of law as a requirement to even touch a handgun.
And there was no law requiring anyone to teach me to eat. Funny how that works. My mom taught me how to eat. May Dad and Grandpa taught me about guns and gun safety. In turn, I taught my kids. No law required. I've also taught firearms safety and operation to many people who haven't had parents or other relatives that could teach them.
Matt
jcwit
member
And in todays world there are way to many kids growing up with little to no parental guidance.
Go back and read my post #165.
Go back and read my post #165.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Man, that wildlife safari on the last page was sure something...
Back on point:
"I view licensing of firearms the same way I view another right: voting.
Lots of stupid people vote. When stupid people vote, sometimes we get bad leaders, and sometimes as a result people are killed in the cogs of history.
Should citizens study before they vote? Absolutely.
Has it been ruled in court that we do not need tests and licenses to keep people from voting? Yes.
A good citizen studies, but he doesn't try to take rights from others without due process."
A very good point, this. Think about it; if you can't restrict voters or gun owners from free exercise of their rights, your only alternative is to convince them to willingly adopt practices you deem beneficial to them/everyone. No use of force necessary. Unable to restrain the many because of the actions of the lowest common denominator, the only other option is to work toward elevating more individuals to a higher standard. In short, real social progress rather than domestication of humans.
So very much of modern so-called "progressive" ideology is founded in laziness; people are assumed to be lazy and therefore require direction, and convenient solutions are erected ad hoc to address the solution as a result of lazy thinking. It's hard to trust complete strangers, and it's hard to have faith in the abilities of others to do right instead of wrong. It's the hardest when that trust and faith are betrayed, and both individuals and the system suffer harm from it. A lot of work must be performed by all involved to maintain that faith and trust, and repair the occasional breach. But the rewards reaped when, the vast majority of the time, we are able to pursue our mutual interests together without conflict, far surpass the inevitable black mark or tragedy. Far from denying these occasional trials, to work in spite of them gives the struggle for progress meaning; I will not accept that we should forsake our responsibilities as men because of a few individuals unworthy of the term.
It ultimately comes down to whether you believe Man is destined for greatness or barbarity. The funny thing is, that logic dictates any system erected by men destined for barbarity should be likewise doomed, so how could they ever possibly govern themselves? And how could they have ever built what we have today, were they at their core irredeemable wild animals? The only way to square the philosophical circle is to change human nature, or accept that there are greater and lesser forms of human (and expunge the latter). Though vehemently denied after the logical conclusion of this train of thought was reached in the 40's, there remains a recurring thread of forcible "improvement" or purification of mankind inherent in so many of the statists' ambitions.
"And there was no law requiring anyone to teach me to eat."
Don't worry, obesity will compel statists to pass those laws soon enough...
"The point being that if this becomes a reality and someone does something like happened in Sandy Hook the hammer will fall harder than ever."
There aren't many zero-sum games in the world, but politics is certainly one of them. We have been eating away that sledge hammer for over two decades, now; there is very little left they can do, nationally. There is nothing left for them to do in more states every year, it seems. There are still front lines, though, so we still suffer occasional local losses, but there are few places where they are capturing territory*. Sandy Hook was the last chance they had for the foreseeable future, unless we can conceive of something truly more horrifying (which would likely be on such a scale as to provoke some other societal changes far more alarming than gun restrictions, a la Reichstag)
"And in todays world there are way to many kids growing up with little to no parental guidance."
*sigh* culture warriors... What aspect of a person's life don't you want some say in? Seriously; go on and tell us.
TCB
*Washington State wasn't nearly as pro-gun as all the alarmists on our side like to believe. You can't own any part of a machine gun, for instance (meaning no parts kits allowed until you convert the pieces to semi-auto outside the state, even if you lack the means/intent to create a machine gun; an even higher bar than is set by the ATF). They just had such a large rural/outdoor scene that the issue hadn't been aggressively targeted before. Seattle/Portland have dominated the state forever, and both have always been very anti gun; Bloomberg finally paid them off to exert that authority outside their county lines (I got the feeling from living there, that a lot of the people in the urban areas aren't even aware of the rest of the state, hence the lack of meddling compared to, say, NY). I honestly wonder if, absent his cash, the urban legislators won't rapidly become bored looking outside their Shining Cities and fail to carry on the agenda unassisted.
Back on point:
"I view licensing of firearms the same way I view another right: voting.
Lots of stupid people vote. When stupid people vote, sometimes we get bad leaders, and sometimes as a result people are killed in the cogs of history.
Should citizens study before they vote? Absolutely.
Has it been ruled in court that we do not need tests and licenses to keep people from voting? Yes.
A good citizen studies, but he doesn't try to take rights from others without due process."
A very good point, this. Think about it; if you can't restrict voters or gun owners from free exercise of their rights, your only alternative is to convince them to willingly adopt practices you deem beneficial to them/everyone. No use of force necessary. Unable to restrain the many because of the actions of the lowest common denominator, the only other option is to work toward elevating more individuals to a higher standard. In short, real social progress rather than domestication of humans.
So very much of modern so-called "progressive" ideology is founded in laziness; people are assumed to be lazy and therefore require direction, and convenient solutions are erected ad hoc to address the solution as a result of lazy thinking. It's hard to trust complete strangers, and it's hard to have faith in the abilities of others to do right instead of wrong. It's the hardest when that trust and faith are betrayed, and both individuals and the system suffer harm from it. A lot of work must be performed by all involved to maintain that faith and trust, and repair the occasional breach. But the rewards reaped when, the vast majority of the time, we are able to pursue our mutual interests together without conflict, far surpass the inevitable black mark or tragedy. Far from denying these occasional trials, to work in spite of them gives the struggle for progress meaning; I will not accept that we should forsake our responsibilities as men because of a few individuals unworthy of the term.
It ultimately comes down to whether you believe Man is destined for greatness or barbarity. The funny thing is, that logic dictates any system erected by men destined for barbarity should be likewise doomed, so how could they ever possibly govern themselves? And how could they have ever built what we have today, were they at their core irredeemable wild animals? The only way to square the philosophical circle is to change human nature, or accept that there are greater and lesser forms of human (and expunge the latter). Though vehemently denied after the logical conclusion of this train of thought was reached in the 40's, there remains a recurring thread of forcible "improvement" or purification of mankind inherent in so many of the statists' ambitions.
"And there was no law requiring anyone to teach me to eat."
Don't worry, obesity will compel statists to pass those laws soon enough...
"The point being that if this becomes a reality and someone does something like happened in Sandy Hook the hammer will fall harder than ever."
There aren't many zero-sum games in the world, but politics is certainly one of them. We have been eating away that sledge hammer for over two decades, now; there is very little left they can do, nationally. There is nothing left for them to do in more states every year, it seems. There are still front lines, though, so we still suffer occasional local losses, but there are few places where they are capturing territory*. Sandy Hook was the last chance they had for the foreseeable future, unless we can conceive of something truly more horrifying (which would likely be on such a scale as to provoke some other societal changes far more alarming than gun restrictions, a la Reichstag)
"And in todays world there are way to many kids growing up with little to no parental guidance."
*sigh* culture warriors... What aspect of a person's life don't you want some say in? Seriously; go on and tell us.
TCB
*Washington State wasn't nearly as pro-gun as all the alarmists on our side like to believe. You can't own any part of a machine gun, for instance (meaning no parts kits allowed until you convert the pieces to semi-auto outside the state, even if you lack the means/intent to create a machine gun; an even higher bar than is set by the ATF). They just had such a large rural/outdoor scene that the issue hadn't been aggressively targeted before. Seattle/Portland have dominated the state forever, and both have always been very anti gun; Bloomberg finally paid them off to exert that authority outside their county lines (I got the feeling from living there, that a lot of the people in the urban areas aren't even aware of the rest of the state, hence the lack of meddling compared to, say, NY). I honestly wonder if, absent his cash, the urban legislators won't rapidly become bored looking outside their Shining Cities and fail to carry on the agenda unassisted.
Last edited:
USAF_Vet
Member
Tends to happen when the topic is the absurdity resulting from government intervention in the free market.
CFL and LED bulbs exist because of the free market. Incandescent were already on the way out. Government forced the issue, removing our freedom of choice.
Imagine the result of Government removing our freedom of choice when it comes to guns and education.
buckhorn_cortez
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 532
I live in a state that allows open carry, and to conceal carry I needed to take a 16 hour course.
I find that to be contradictory to say the least. Why can I open carry with no training yet concealed carry (wearing a shirt over the open carry gun) requires training?
More to the point, the state mandated training must be provided by a Department of Public Safety approved trainer with the trainer's course approved by the DPS. There are state mandated topics that must be covered, but in no case, does the mandated training include how to use the gun.
Safe gun handling - Yes. Legal issues surrounding carrying and use of the gun - yes. etc. etc.
But actual gun training? - NO. How to use and shoot the gun? - NO.
Do you have to pass a shooting test? - Yes - but, nobody every flunks the shooting test.
So, that's what you end up with when a government agency gets involved with the right to carry a gun - a lot of study of laws and the legal use of guns - and nothing on the practical aspects of gun handling or use.
And I can still open carry with ZERO training requirements.
As to the government being a panacea for everything - don't get me started. I've worked on federal government projects and they don't have to follow (as examples) local building codes, the National Electric Code, or any other code that may impede the progress of their federal government project.
They can pretty much ignore whatever they want to with impunity as there is no other entity above them to force them to comply.
The federal government plays by its own rules which they often make up along the way to make whatever they're doing as convenient for them as possible.
All you would have to do is look at the project cost and the glowing press release that touted how the project was under cost and on schedule versus the FACTS that they had to go to Congress to get another $41M to finish it 20 months late...fact is whatever you can make from fiction when it comes to the federal government.
And you want these people in charge of gun training.....?
I find that to be contradictory to say the least. Why can I open carry with no training yet concealed carry (wearing a shirt over the open carry gun) requires training?
More to the point, the state mandated training must be provided by a Department of Public Safety approved trainer with the trainer's course approved by the DPS. There are state mandated topics that must be covered, but in no case, does the mandated training include how to use the gun.
Safe gun handling - Yes. Legal issues surrounding carrying and use of the gun - yes. etc. etc.
But actual gun training? - NO. How to use and shoot the gun? - NO.
Do you have to pass a shooting test? - Yes - but, nobody every flunks the shooting test.
So, that's what you end up with when a government agency gets involved with the right to carry a gun - a lot of study of laws and the legal use of guns - and nothing on the practical aspects of gun handling or use.
And I can still open carry with ZERO training requirements.
As to the government being a panacea for everything - don't get me started. I've worked on federal government projects and they don't have to follow (as examples) local building codes, the National Electric Code, or any other code that may impede the progress of their federal government project.
They can pretty much ignore whatever they want to with impunity as there is no other entity above them to force them to comply.
The federal government plays by its own rules which they often make up along the way to make whatever they're doing as convenient for them as possible.
All you would have to do is look at the project cost and the glowing press release that touted how the project was under cost and on schedule versus the FACTS that they had to go to Congress to get another $41M to finish it 20 months late...fact is whatever you can make from fiction when it comes to the federal government.
And you want these people in charge of gun training.....?
busdriver72
Member
I don't know for sure....but the true "idiots" who "shouldn't" be carrying a gun probably already are regardless of what the law does or doesn't say.
Allowing everyone to carry might simply "level the playing field" which already exists.
But, I also think that everyone who is going to carry should have training. Perhaps rather than denying the right to those who haven't had the training, could there be a way to provide a positive incentive that would incline most gun owners to get training? A small discount on ammo when proof of training is shown? A 5% discount when buying a firearm? Nothing that stops anyone from doing it, but something that rewards them if they do.
Allowing everyone to carry might simply "level the playing field" which already exists.
But, I also think that everyone who is going to carry should have training. Perhaps rather than denying the right to those who haven't had the training, could there be a way to provide a positive incentive that would incline most gun owners to get training? A small discount on ammo when proof of training is shown? A 5% discount when buying a firearm? Nothing that stops anyone from doing it, but something that rewards them if they do.
Red Wind
Member
buckhorn cortez said:
Certainly not I,Sir!
But as we see from several threads running at this very moment, there are several THR members who believe in government mandated firearms training programs along with many other government interventions in our lives.As Uncle Walter Cronkite use to say, "And that's the way it is, on January 23,2015".
- Status
