Treo
member
The second ammendment does not all by itself fully define gun law
No it doesn't but it very clearly states that any citizen has an individual right to own and carry a weapon
The second ammendment does not all by itself fully define gun law
I want everyone to have to take a class to get a carry license and I want him to take a proficiency test a part of that class.
Actually, I think that the answer is pretty self-evident.one has to wonder just how much of this is responsible concern, and how much is smug superiority.
The second ammendment does not all by itself fully define gun law any more than the first covers slander, copyright and harassment law.
The true measure of how much you love freedom is not measured by the freedoms you agree with, it is measure by the freedoms you defend, even though they repulse you. Popular freedoms do not need to be defended. The COTUS is there to enshrine and defend unpopular freedoms.
I don't want to read the whole thread, but there is a distinction between making sure people know how to shoot their guns without blowing their own toes off, and making the requirements so restrictive as to be unattainable by the average shooter, such as, "You must complete a week at Thunder Ranch before you know enough to carry."
I do remember reading an article about this debate when Utah was considering "Shall Issue" many years ago, the advocate said something to the effect of; "If there is a shooting competency requirement, it must be a test that an 80 year-old woman with arthritis can pass with a gate-loading revolver, because she is the one who needs this option at least as much as everyone else."
My issue W/ the permit requirement is all it does is empower the state. It's a ridiculous law. Many states that don't regulate open carry require a permit to conceal the same weapon. Example : In Co Springs I can walk down the busiest street in town openly displaying a handgun ( for that matter I could sling carry a rifle W/ out breaking any laws. Someone would call the cops but I would be W/in my rights ) completely in compliance W/ State Law. No Permit, no fee, no class and no background check.
But, if I were to conceal the same weapon without a permit under similar circumstances I'd be guilty of a 2nd degree misdemeanor.
Now if someone can explain the logic behind that or tell me why empowering the state to require a permit makes everyone safer, I'll show up at Barack's inauguration in a klan robe
Nope.
Add one requirement that someone else gets to control and pretty soon, you'll have a whole list of requirements.
My point is, there used to be a test for voting in some states, a literacy test. That was struck down as unconstitutional.
Hence I say, "The test for carrying a firearm should be exactly the same as the test for voting."
We're in the same camp, we just disagree on this one issue.
Literacy is not necessary for understanding and voting. Practical experience with your weapon is a necessity for gun safety.
A poor vote is not immediately deadly. Poor shooting from a well intentioned shooter is.
I think this is an issue we best leave alone now on a thread best left for dead. A lot of people (myself included) have posted wayyy too many times here. Let's go leave comments on the 9MM versus 45 and the Glock versus 1911 threads instead!We're in the same camp, we just disagree on this one issue.
I think this is an issue we best leave alone now on a thread best left for dead. A lot of people (myself included) have posted wayyy too many times here. Let's go leave comments on the 9MM versus 45 and the Glock versus 1911 threads instead!
Literacy is not necessary for understanding and voting.
A poor vote is not immediately deadly. Poor shooting from a well intentioned shooter is.
A poor vote is not immediately deadly. Poor shooting from a well intentioned shooter is.