Help Me Understand So I Don't Be A Fudd

[USAF_Vet]

Michigan has a whole host of "pistol free areas", including Schools, Hospitals, Casinos and some taverns.

But surprisingly enough, you can carry concealed in a bank, which was one of your main argument points.

Let me take a minute to educate you on a bit of Michigan firearms laws.

You can carry a gun in pistol free zones, including schools, hospitals and some (all) taverns. You obviously don't live here, so your ignorance of the laws is somewhat forgivable, until you try to use them to help give credence to your poorly thought out argument.

Then you would have a group of people spouting "hey, let's lower that age to 12". After all. nothing in the 2A defines an age, right?

Who, exactly, is advocating this?
As it stands, I have no problem with 12 year olds possessing guns. My 11 year old step son has had a .22 for a few years now. The fact that I bought it for him notwithstanding, it is his to be used, under supervision. I don't know of a single gun owner who does not advocate personal (or parental) responsibility.

Everything comes with limits, you can't drive 120 mph in a 65mph zone. You can't drive with a BAC over .08 in my state.

Sure you can. It's entirely possible for my vehicle to achieve that speed under my control. The fact that it's dangerous and illegal does not prevent the act from occurring. I can also drive drunk if I so choose. Again, dangerous and illegal, and rife with penalties and consequences, but no law will prevent an illegal act from occurring if the perpetrator of the act so choose.

Now I'm not saying "let's add limits to the 2A", but there are currently a list of limits that are legally set in place. Why aren't people complaining about those?

Oh boy, believe me, people are complaining about them.

Why can't I take my loaded gun in my pocket to work?

You can, I sure do. Just understand there are consequences to the act if discovered, as I do. I know I can be fired on the spot. But it's not against the law, it's against company policy and regulation. You apparently do not understand the difference. Most employers restrict guns on company property because it's private property, they can make all the rules they want. You may be terminated for violating them, but you won't go to jail over it.

Why did I have to be 21 to buy my gun?

Because people who came along before you and I felt compelled to "do something".

Why can't I take my gun into my local bank?

You can, legally, unless you live in the two states that do not allow it by law.

Why can't I shoot a deer with my gun out of my car?

Again, you can, if you are willing to risk the consequences of your actions.

All of those infringe the rights by the 2A.

No, they really don't. The 2A is about the right to keep and bear. You don't understand what the 2A covers, and it does not over rule other rights. Read the Federalist Papers

 

[USAF_Vet]

I didn't want to say this until now but I feel like it was needed to be said.

I had a cousin, 20 years ago, at the age of 16, he gets bored... looks around at stuff in his Dad's bedroom. He happened to find a gun in his dad's night stand.

His dad was a LEO.

Before you know it, he's dead. It killed him so quick there wasn't even blood loss.

This kid was perfectly "sane", never was depressed, so suicide was ruled out.

Now, do you suppose, if at some point in this kid's life, he had a basic firearms training course, say in the 8th grade, would of it prevented his death?

I can't go back in time and change things, but I have a good feeling had this kid learned about guns in school, it might of saved his own life.

As I said earlier...I think firearms safety should be taught in school if states want to go to permit-less cary.

There are 89 guns per 100 people, that means a lot of kids are exposed to firearms. I really think education about them should be a lesson plan in every school in America.

You've missed a very important part of this. The kids dad was a LEO, but failed to instruct his kids on safe gun handling. If his dad had instructed his kid, he'd still be alive.

Your problem is you think government holds the answer, and that's simply not the case. As government usurps more control over our lives, people get dumber and feel less responsible for their actions. And you for some reason want more government intervention to mandate safe gun handling. SMDH.

 

[lxd55]

I agree that a license should be needed to carry a firearm in public.

Why?

Being an idiot on your own property will most likely only injure yourself.

Being an idiot in public can injure yourself and others around you.

It comes with great stupidity to let just anyone carry a firearm in public, and not expect them to have a good deal of safety training along with it.

Not ONE STATE in the US allows someone to drive a car without being trained on how to do so, because then you raise the possibility of someone killing another motorist due to now knowing how to operate their car.

The same can be said for a pistol or revolver.

Putting a device that has the power to take another one's life, into the hands of a untrained moron, is just asking for trouble.

I fear the actions of untrained firearm holders would cause more movement from the anti's than safely giving licenses to people who have proved they can safely use a firearm.

spoken well. your anti training is complete. move along. next.

 

[Old Fuff]

As I said earlier...I think firearms safety should be taught in school if states want to go to permit-less cary.

They're might be some advantages to this, so why don't you take it up with your local school board and see what the reaction is?

My limited experience has been that they are totally disinterested or absolutely opposed to the idea. The NRA has been trying to get its Eddie Eagle program into schools for decades with very little success.

As it is sometimes said, "you can lead a horse to water, but not make it drink."

They're few professions that as a body are more against guns and gun rights then educators. Some individuals of course are exceptions to the rule.

 

[thirty-ought-six]

You've missed a very important part of this. The kids dad was a LEO, but failed to instruct his kids on safe gun handling. If his dad had instructed his kid, he'd still be alive.

No, you missed the important part.

His Dad was a LEO, and failed to to instruct his kid.

If the government mandated gun training, he would of been instructed.

Now I'm not going to call my own Uncle "stupid"...but you see the point I just made.

Government mandating is a result of stupid people. Where do you get off thinking that the government regulates things just for the hell of it?

Government regulation exists because factories decided it would be ok to dump poisons into our water, that financial institutions could rip people off, that car manufactures could make unsafe cars, etc.

The FTC, FDA, FAA, FCC, FTA, FWS, FDIC and all other 3 letter bureaus exist today because PEOPLE DO STUPID STUFF.

If you want to live in a country where there is little government regulation, pack your bags and move to Somalia.

You can then witness what a crap hole our country would be in if the government came forth and said "Ok people, just do whatever the hell you want".

 

[USAF_Vet]

There is a thread where someone mentions a Special Ops guy shoots off his own finger. Another thread where a cop in a gun store shoots off his own finger.

Instruction and training do not eliminate the stupid and careless and irresponsible. Dumb will still be dumb.

Not saying your uncle, or the kid who shot himself were dumb, but it may be that is the case, and no amount of training or education will prevent it in some cases.

I'm not saying training isn't a good idea. But to mandate it then dumbs it down, as government tends to do, like educating to pander to the lowest common denominator. Then move the goal posts when dumb people still can't meet the standard.

So, in your utopia of formal gun training for all, provided by the government, who sets the acceptable standard for training? What happens to those who still can't meet the standard? Are they considered a lower caste, a third class citizen one step up from livestock and deemed too stupid to own a gun? Not to mention, this isn't free. A lot of us spend good money on formal education. Who funds this? More taxes? Great idea. This all coming from the government who spent three years and close to a billion dollars on a website that barely functions when experts in the field say it could have been done in a tenth of the time for a hundredth of the cost.

I get it, you're young, inexperienced, blissfully ignorant and unaware of it, and think you are capable of solving the worlds problems... or the countries problems at the very least.

But what it boils down to is: Liberty is a dangerous thing, and not all men are up to the challenge. Too many are willing to sacrifice their liberties, and those of others in the process, to purchase a little security and comfort from their government. Government, which was once a servant of the people, is all too willing to accept this power and forget their place, and try to be masters of us all, rather than the weak pathetic few who beg for them as a safety blanket.

Yes, people do stupid things, greedy things, that may put others at risk. That's why we have regulatory commissions, bureaus, agencies and advisers. But that's life. And let's face it, no amount of rules or laws will change stupid. People are still going to dump their oil in the crick.


And I hate to burst your bubble, kid, but factories still dump poisons into the water, banks still rip people off, and the auto industry still makes unsafe products. They get away with it now, with fees and fines they pass off to the end user, in spite of the regulations.

And I'm pretty sure I've been to a lot more crap hole countries in my life than you, young man. I've seen it first hand, and guess what, it isn't like what you see on TV.

 

[Davek1977]

If the government mandated gun training, he would of been instructed.

Just like mandating we don't drink and drive has eliminated drunken driving, or the mandate to send your kids to school has eliminated truancy....right? I mean, if the government says we have to do something, it will surely have 100% compliance right? Or maybe, the 20% you referred to earlier that wouldn't educate their kids on guns STILL won't educate their kids on gun or have them exposed to people that will. Believe it or not, some people completely ignore the law and do as they please. You are advocating that we create laws specifically for these sorts of people that aren't likely to comply regardless. Do you see the futility in that? Giving the government more authority, while ranting against 2A restrictions, is counterproductive in every way. All you are essentially saying, it seems, is that restrictions you find persnally agreeable are "reasonable" and anything else is an "infringement" all the while failing to understand some basic concepts of Constitutionality and the how the legal system works. I am rather amazed people have shown this much restraint in trying to reason with you actually

 

[orionengnr]

If the government mandated gun training, he would of been instructed.

Just like the government mandates that we possess insurance before we drive. And they mandate that people do not murder one another, or steal from each other, and so on, and so forth.

How is that working out?

In my opinion (and experience) it is the ever increasing over-reach of the government that encourages people to take less responsibility for themselves.

In my own lifetime, personal responsibility has all but vanished from this society.

The one thing I agree with you on, is that firearms safety training should be conducted in school. Good luck getting that one going. As previously stated, between professional educators and soccer-moms, that is a non-starter.

 

[DT Guy]

All this faith in governmental mandates and agencies...you want to actually learn something? Look up how many meat packing plants are actually inspected by the FDA every year.




Yep, the government shall save us!!

You can then witness what a crap hole our country would be in if the government came forth and said "Ok people, just do whatever the hell you want".

Oh, that's CRAZY talk; folks deciding for themselves what they ought to do, and how they ought to behave? Gasp! Imagine the carnage, the insanity, the......freedom.

Scary for some, I realize. But they eventually grow up, sometimes.



Larry

 

[jcwit]

OK, so lets take it completely the other way.

Being as stupid things will still happen, careless acts will still occur, banks will still rip people off "no idea why that is here" spec. op's guys will still injure themselves, etc., etc.

How bout we do away with any and all instruction and training, anyone, anywhere, for ay reason can carry whatever they so desire. No limits whatsoever.

Chaos shall reign supreme through the land.

 

[Sam1911]

How bout we do away with any and all instruction and training, anyone, anywhere, for ay reason can carry whatever they so desire. No limits whatsoever.

Well, that's what we're fighting for, isn't it?

Surely we DO NOT believe the fiction -- the child's bedtime story -- that laws keep BAD people from having deadly weapons or carrying them around us every single day anywhere they want?

Ergo, laws keep GOOD people from doing stuff, because they follow the law. They also tend to follow laws like, you know, not killing other folks.

Chaos shall reign supreme through the land.

Yeah, sure. Heard that before many times. "Blood in the streets." "Wild west."

Yawn.

WE HAVE SEVERAL STATES PROVING YOU WRONG, every single day... Vermont's been disproving your position for TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FOUR YEARS.

 

[jcwit]

Sam I'll just say Thank God you are not controlling the strings of state law, in closing we shall just agree to disagree.

Good people do not necessarily obey the law, ever roll thru a stop sign, ever speed, the list is endless.

Good people just don't get caught.

Blood in the streets? Already have that with drug dealers, drive by shooters, folks texting/talking on the phone while driving, this list is also endless.

No I do Not agree with you.

Ya, Vermont is a poor example, total population is 626,630, the capital of my state exceeds that by 200,000.

 

[Davek1977]

I just find it amazingly humorous that there are those that think criminals...who by definition of the word itself commit crimes....will stop committing those crimes because of a law. Gun control laws are a burden to the lawful, and are by and large ignored by those outside of the law. No argument will ever change this simple fact, IMO.

 

[Sam1911]

Sam I'll just say Thank God you are not controlling the strings of state law, in closing we shall just agree to disagree.

And I'll thank god that YOU don't control the strings of state law in MY state and many others like it. How about that?

Seems more and more folks who think the way I do are gaining power as the number of "Constitutional Carry" states continues to grow across the nation.

Good people do not necessarily obey the law, ever roll thru a stop sign, ever speed, the list is endless.

Good people just don't get caught.

Oh good grief. So good people are just bad people who haven't been caught yet, and still the fact that we don't have these problems you say we surely must have means that those good/bad folks AND the bad/bad folks together in all the states that don't require training, and the handful of states which don't require licensing, don't cause increased rates of the problems you say they'll cause.

Blood in the streets? Already have that with drug dealers, drive by shooters, folks texting/talking on the phone while driving, this list is also endless.

Just throwing out random junk now? Smokescreen to cover your retreat?

No I do Not agree with you.

I picked up on that.

Ya, Vermont is a poor example, total population is 626,630, the capital of my state exceeds that by 200,000.

Ok, let's add in then Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Wyoming, and Oklahoma. They've all gone "no license required."

Idaho, Montana, New Hampshire, and New Mexico have some version of Constitutional Carry as well.

And ... whooo boy, better run! ... similar laws have been introduced in EIGHTEEN other states. Look out!

 

[morcey2]

Good people do not necessarily obey the law, ever roll thru a stop sign, ever speed, the list is endless.

Good people just don't get caught.

That's got to be just about the dumbest thing I've read on here. To you, the only difference between a guy that has spent more of his adult life in prison than out and the average "law abiding citizen" is the fact that the the 'LAC' hasn't been caught. The LAC has broken into just as many houses, stolen just as many guns, raped just as many women, molested just as many children, and robbed just as many banks as the convict. He just "didn't get caught.".

I don't speed. I like low insurance rates.

I don't roll through stop signs. I've seen too many accidents happen that way.

Plus, the way my luck works, if I did, I'd get caught. That's my luck.

I park on the street and lock up my gun in the car when I go into a Post Office.

I go out of my way to obey the law, even the ones that I don't agree with such as the restriction on carrying in a Post Office.

Now, if you're talking about the many laws and regulations, especially at the federal level, that are very obscure or vague, I may agree with you. Have you ever used pesticide "in a manner inconsistent with the labeling", you've likely committed a federal crime.

The difference between the "good people" and the "bad people" is that the good people don't go out of their way to see what they can get away with before they get caught. They try to obey the law. I firmly believe that most of the people in this country are good people. The vast majority. They aren't perfect people, but they are striving to obey the law.

I'll just say, jcwit, that I'm glad that you're not controlling the strings of state, or federal, law.

Matt

 

[Chemistry Guy]

My apoligy for not reading all the comments in this thread before posting. I'm just a little to ill at the momment to take the time.

OP said :
Quote:
Why encourage Bubba
I got this far in the OP's post before my aggrivation kicked in.

So a few questions for him:

1.) Who do you define as Bubba ?
2.) Why do you assume that Bubba knows less than you regarding the matter ?
3.) Why should Bubba not have constitutional rights ?

I work at a university and I am surrounded by anti firearm ideology on a daily basis. I think the particular 'flavor' that I find most offensive is the snobbery. In the eyes of the academic 'elite', everyone who shoots guns is some kind of uncivilized uneducated redneck. Despite extraordinary evidence to the contrary, they feel that firearm ownership is a lower class characteristic.

I don't want to be a hypocrite, so I am also offended when some one on my side of RKBA issues invokes some sort of class presumptions to justify an argument. Part of living in the USA is that poor people, even those in poverty, have the same fundamental rights as everyone else, even when it is inconvenient. A homeless person has the same right to own an old Hi-Point as the country club pheasant hunter has to own his Holland and Holland. I find that many 'common sense' or 'gun safety' regulations are really just thinly veiled attempts to suppress the rights of the poorest and most vulnerable citizens. The only way I could ever support a training requirement is if the training was free and available 24-7.

 

[jcwit]

I don't want to be a hypocrite, so I am also offended when some one on my side of RKBA issues invokes some sort of class presumptions to justify an argument. Part of living in the USA is that poor people, even those in poverty, have the same fundamental rights as everyone else, even when it is inconvenient. A homeless person has the same right to own an old Hi-Point as the country club pheasant hunter has to own his Holland and Holland. I find that many 'common sense' or 'gun safety' regulations are really just thinly veiled attempts to suppress the rights of the poorest and most vulnerable citizens. The only way I could ever support a training requirement is if the training was free and available 24-7.

Excellent!

 

[jcwit]

The difference between the "good people" and the "bad people" is that the good people don't go out of their way to see what they can get away with before they get caught. They try to obey the law. I firmly believe that most of the people in this country are good people. The vast majority. They aren't perfect people, but they are striving to obey the law.

Haven't driven on a 4 lane lately have you?

I'll just say, jcwit, that I'm glad that you're not controlling the strings of state, or federal, law.

Not to worry, I do not want the problems at my age.

 

[hso]

I've noticed that TSA waives me through the lines more often without the no shoes rigmarole and I don't believe it's a coincidence.

Coincidence isn't causality. If you're going through the TSA Pre line without having jumped through all the hoops of the Trusted Traveler program then that's because of your airline choices and the frequency you fly. Do a bit of research on the TSA Pre program and airline involvement. TSA has no way to know if you have a permit to carry.

Truthfully, I don't mind knowing that 10 people around me in a crowd might be carrying concealed, but I also appreciate the peace of mind knowing that at least the majority, those carrying legally, have had some extra training and has some demonstrated knowledge of the pertinent laws and when firearms may and may not be used legally.

That's a false assumption based on limited experience. Two points can lay this idea to rest. States with permit systems do not have the same training programs or even any training program. Some states with "Constitutional Carry" have voluntary permit systems for citizens that want that permit to show in other states that honor every state carry. You have no idea if a permit holder has any training at all or if they were required to take training if they paid any attention to the any of the training. Basing an opinion that permit holders are somehow better informed or skilled is a grossly false assumption.

I'm worried that permitless carry here and in other states will hold up any national reciprocity legislation....if there are no permits in more and more states, will others be less likely to recognize carry rights across borders?

My state recognizes all carry systems, even those without requirements for carry. Others do as well. A federal law requiring national reciprocity is very unlikely, and unlikely to withstand a court challenge on the basis of violating the right of a state to regulate carry. More, there's no reason to think that having 40 states with regulated carry requirements and 7 with unregulated carry would have any impact on pro national reciprocity politics. Hanging onto such a pipe dream that has nearly no chance of coming about and basing your desire to prevent constitutional carry on the possibility that an improbable event will come about isn't very reasonable when you dissect it.

I don't have access to the full text of the bill, but currently, with a CCH, I can bypass the NICS check here when purchasing firearms. I'm afraid this bill will change that convenience.

That's just selfish, but also doesn't mean that a voluntary permit system with background check that you want to pay for couldn't be continued. Why is your convenience of having to bypass a 5 minute instant check worth telling people without the income to easily afford to pay for a class and the permit AND a handgun that they simply have to break the law to exercise their right to protect themselves. Pizza delivery guy, too bad. Avon lady, too bad.

 

[jcwit]

That's got to be just about the dumbest thing I've read on here. To you, the only difference between a guy that has spent more of his adult life in prison than out and the average "law abiding citizen" is the fact that the the 'LAC' hasn't been caught. The LAC has broken into just as many houses, stolen just as many guns, raped just as many women, molested just as many children, and robbed just as many banks as the convict. He just "didn't get caught.".

That was not what I was referring to, as you well know if you would read my posts. And your assumption as such is just as dumb.

Ever take a payment from a neighbor for any reason and not report it as income?
Ever speed?

All us break laws every day, many on purpose, if perhaps you don't you are the exception.

Nothing wrong with training.

Heck, your even trained how to eat and go to the can.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Jcwit, more straw man arguments. No one has said training is bad. No one. Not. One. Single. Person. What we are saying is that a government mandate for that training is a Charlie Foxtrot in the making.
That your momma taught you how to poo in the potty has got ziltch to do with this subject.

Speeding is also not a criminal offense in the majority of cases. It's a civil infraction, punishable by a reasonable fine, not jail. Same as most traffic offenses. So it's not even close to the same category as rape and murder.

 

[kwguy]

Blood in the streets? Already have that with drug dealers, drive by shooters, folks texting/talking on the phone while driving, this list is also endless.

Gee, maybe the govt can pass a law making that stuff illegal.

Heck, your even trained how to eat and go to the can.

Yeah, and I don't know how that happened without govt help.

It amazes me to no end how some people have the gall to think they know what's best for other people at the expense of their freedom 'for their own good'. It's the ultimate in hypocrisy. Person A spouts off 'the govt should provide and mandate training for blah blah blah'. Of course, the cutoff will be just below the level at which the 'nanny instigator' has been trained. Well, what if some other 'nanny instigator' decides that person A's level of training isn't good enough, how would person A feel about that? See how that works?

Here's a crazy idea: let's let people be responsible for their own actions (training, whatever). Let's also accept that people will either be idiots, make mistakes, or choose to break the law. You will never stop that. Accept it, quit trying to impose your will on other people for their own good.

Of course, we can help others, and encourage others to better themselves on their own, whether it's training to carry or use a firearm, or 'putting the fork down' as some have stated (because apparently that's a huge problem that needs to be solved too, but we certainly don't need laws and legislation for that. Pretty soon, you wind up with silly laws that regulate the size of sweetened beverages (oops, too late: NYC.)

 

[hso]

thirty-ought-six

You're using anecdotes instead of data to support your argument for regulation. Individual instances don't constitute a population of data that calls for involvement of the government (with the expense to the tax paying public and the question of whether government has been given the role by the constitution). Until you can present data supporting your arguments instead of feelings you aren't going to be able to get very far in the face of decades of Uniform Crime Report data and studies by the CDC and National Science Foundation saying your feelings are important, but not relevant in the face of the data.

 

[Master Blaster]

The LEO Dad in 30.06 post is unfortunately an all to common occurrence here int the Philadelphia/ Wilmington DE area. Last week a NCC PD detective shot himself in the leg as he re-holstered (finger on the trigger). LEOS have extensive firearms training and yet they still do stupid things like leaving a loaded gun accessable to an untrained (basic safety not formal training) family member. Not doing basic safety training with their family when they have guns in the house. Violating the three basic safety rules routinely even when they have been trained and drilled on them.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Ever take a payment from a neighbor for any reason and not report it as income?
Ever speed?

All us break laws every day, many on purpose, if perhaps you don't you are the exception.

Don't really understand tax code, do ya?