Lone_Gunman
Member
Do you also think literacy and spelling tests should be required to exercise freedom of speech?
Should a shooting test be a requirement for concealed carry?
- Thread starter heavyshooter
- Start date
- Status
Do you also think literacy and spelling tests should be required to exercise freedom of speech?
I would not regulate open carry.
I would regulate the private sale of guns, since it makes it even easier for criminals to purchase firearms. And there's no way for the seller to "know" the person is a criminal.. so the "cannot sell to them if they're a known criminal" is a waste in most cases.
The bottom line is this:
We can talk all we like about each other's rights, but we get on a VERY slippery slope.
We can talk about tests for this or that, and other requirements. Soon, we are not far from those countries that mandate that in order to have a firearm, it must be stored in certain places, you must belong to a "gun club," etc. etc. etc.
Is shooting tests REALLY a major issue?
I am FAR more worried that we have people out there that are having babies who are completely unfit to raise or support a child.
That does FAR more harm to society than this issue.
I am imagining the outrage if we started requiring a license to have a child....
-- John
EDIT: BTW... I thought you left, zammyman.
We can talk all we like about each other's rights, but we get on a VERY slippery slope.
We can talk about tests for this or that, and other requirements. Soon, we are not far from those countries that mandate that in order to have a firearm, it must be stored in certain places, you must belong to a "gun club," etc. etc. etc.
Is shooting tests REALLY a major issue?
I am FAR more worried that we have people out there that are having babies who are completely unfit to raise or support a child.
That does FAR more harm to society than this issue.
I am imagining the outrage if we started requiring a license to have a child....
-- John
EDIT: BTW... I thought you left, zammyman.
Lone_Gunman
Member
So is that a yes or no?
Should all rights be restricted in the name of public safety?
I am not twisting anything around. Why cant you answer the question?
Should all rights be restricted in the name of public safety?
I am not twisting anything around. Why cant you answer the question?
General Geoff
Member
They're completely related and relevant, because both the first amendment and second amendment are rights. Tests are not required to exercise rights, period.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Do you really think misspelled words are not life threatening?
Errors in medication orders at hospitals are often the result of misspelled words. These have resulted in many deaths over the years.
Errors in medication orders at hospitals are often the result of misspelled words. These have resulted in many deaths over the years.
Lone_Gunman
Member
You have never heard of medication errors causing death???
You might want to try googling the subject, but here is one to start:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11623
I know you are just a troll trying to stir things up around here, but you aren't doing a very good job. The better trolls are all able to argue points fairly well. Its what makes them entertaining. You don't seem to be able to do that.
You might want to try googling the subject, but here is one to start:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11623
I know you are just a troll trying to stir things up around here, but you aren't doing a very good job. The better trolls are all able to argue points fairly well. Its what makes them entertaining. You don't seem to be able to do that.
And then a pharmacy tech fills the prescription wrong.
I worked as a Pharmacy Tech at a major hostipal through college. I could tell you some stories.
You have a LOT more to worry about with precriptions than you do with "shooting tests." Do some research and you will see how many pharmacy errors occur in a DAY in the USA.
-- John
General Geoff
Member
A shooting test failed won't necessarily cause somebody's life to be in danger either. People who carry sidearms do not need to use them on a regular basis. Shall we require safety tests before allowing someone to own a fire extinguisher? After all, they can be deadly if misused. How about kitchen knifes?
Lone_Gunman
Member
Zammy,
Sorry I called you a troll. You are right, it was not nice of me to call you that.
Sorry I called you a troll. You are right, it was not nice of me to call you that.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Zammy has a point, and he is not a troll.
Lone_Gunman
Member
Oh, you are quite welcome, Zammy.
Bailey Guns
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 381
Well then say what you mean. Words have meaning. No one is "twisting" anything you say. Rather, they're basically proving you wrong time and again and you don't seem to like it. You brought up the tool analogy and it was promptly proven wrong and, quite frankly, pointed out how foolish your tool statement was. Now you're whining that someone is taking your statements out of context and twisting your words. Sorry...that's just lame.
Bottom line: those of us in the "no shooting required for permit" camp have repeatedly offered solid evidence to back up our positions through facts and verifiable statistics. The other side has offered nothing except fear of potential problems that have, as of yet, never materialized.
Still waiting for a valid reason from the other side...not just your "feelings" or you "think" that's the way it should be. That just doesn't cut it.
Ok Bailey, how's this:
If a person wants to carry a concealed weapon they have a responsibility to be accurate and competent with it. If they feel the fact it's their right is enough reason to completely throw out the thought of requiring a test to ensure they can shoot properly, they are placing their rights before the responsibilities of their rights.
People are trying to drag other questions in here, hammers, writing, etc... that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the need for people to be competent before they carry a firearm. The fact so many of you want to personally attack me because you feel I am a push away from the second amendment really exposes how rude and pushy many people in this forum are. This was my first posting:
I'm also very pro first amendment, at the same time, it's like a drivers test: How would you feel if a drivers license was given only from your results on a written test, no driving test required? I don't think any score should be given for a CC shooting test, just a pass/fail. A specific target set at a specific range- can you hit it? If not, get ready for a later retake. Let's be honest if, if a person cannot shoot straight and pulls out their gun in self defense, who knows who else will get hit? It's not unreasonable to want people who carry to shoot well, and I certainly don't expect navy seal level shots... but at least a reasonable (standard half sized silhoutte) target at say... 10 yards.
Did I jump on anybody? no. Did I attack anybody? no. But you're not offering me the same respect.
If a person wants to carry a concealed weapon they have a responsibility to be accurate and competent with it. If they feel the fact it's their right is enough reason to completely throw out the thought of requiring a test to ensure they can shoot properly, they are placing their rights before the responsibilities of their rights.
People are trying to drag other questions in here, hammers, writing, etc... that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the need for people to be competent before they carry a firearm. The fact so many of you want to personally attack me because you feel I am a push away from the second amendment really exposes how rude and pushy many people in this forum are. This was my first posting:
I'm also very pro first amendment, at the same time, it's like a drivers test: How would you feel if a drivers license was given only from your results on a written test, no driving test required? I don't think any score should be given for a CC shooting test, just a pass/fail. A specific target set at a specific range- can you hit it? If not, get ready for a later retake. Let's be honest if, if a person cannot shoot straight and pulls out their gun in self defense, who knows who else will get hit? It's not unreasonable to want people who carry to shoot well, and I certainly don't expect navy seal level shots... but at least a reasonable (standard half sized silhoutte) target at say... 10 yards.
Did I jump on anybody? no. Did I attack anybody? no. But you're not offering me the same respect.
The pen is mightier than the sword. This was said because historically writings (a form of speech) has caused nations to go to war and resulted in more deaths than swords, firearms or bombs.
It was speech, both oral and written, which agitated for the American Revolution. Many people were harmed.
The linking of the 1st and 2nd amendment is entirely valid. Both are rights protected by the Constitution, the exercise of both can be dangerous to individuals and governments.
Your fears that someone may harm you does not create the constitutional power in the government to act. Only in the event that you are harmed, after the fact, may they act.
Remember it is the nature of government to empower itself at the expense of those that are governed. 130 years ago when there were fewer laws and restrictions there was less crime. People did not lock their doors. You could leave your transportation on the street and it would remain undisturbed until you got back. More government is the problem not the solution.
It was speech, both oral and written, which agitated for the American Revolution. Many people were harmed.
The linking of the 1st and 2nd amendment is entirely valid. Both are rights protected by the Constitution, the exercise of both can be dangerous to individuals and governments.
Your fears that someone may harm you does not create the constitutional power in the government to act. Only in the event that you are harmed, after the fact, may they act.
Remember it is the nature of government to empower itself at the expense of those that are governed. 130 years ago when there were fewer laws and restrictions there was less crime. People did not lock their doors. You could leave your transportation on the street and it would remain undisturbed until you got back. More government is the problem not the solution.
Treo
member
Why not ? What's the difference between an untrained shooter OCing & the same guy Concealing?
Would you be as good as to provide some examples of this? I don't own a single gun on paper & all but 2 of mine were purchased as private sales am I a criminal
Lone_Gunman
Member
This statements demonstrates the error in your thinking. Most self defense shootings occur in far less distance than 10 yards. In fact, you could make a case that if you have 10 yards between you and an adversary you should attempt to flee rather than engage. Most self defense shootings occur at a range of less than 7 feet.
Shouldnt you make the range of your test at least coincide with the mostly range at which a self defense situation is likely to occur?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
