No permit, training needed for concealed carry of guns under bills passed by House

originally posted by: seasonal

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: CriticalStinker

edit: Do you think that is mandated?


The hurdles get added on and on.

My point of view is that you (not you) can't put any restrictions on the right to carry a concealed weapon. The good training to you is crap to some.
If we trust a person to carry-we must trust that they are practiced up and can put the lead where they point the gun.

I can understand your apprehension. But this freedom is not to be infringed.

That money you have to spend to prove you know how to use a firearm helps weed out irresponsible individuals.

If you want a concealed weapon, pay and learn.

Just like everyone has the right to have a car, you have to prove you can operate it.

I'm very pro gun, and very anti dumbasses. I don't trust many people with guns. Sure it's a right, but it's also a privilege.

Should felons have them, or have they lost their privilege?

Nope not a privilege.
A car is a durable good. The second amend is a right. The comparison seems to discount what God wants us to have.
Felons cannot own guns-against the law. For a good reason.

A law made after the amendment. When the law was made it was muskets. And people needed them for food as much (rifles still require minimal licensing ing most states).

The right to bear arms is an interpretation. We can't have cannons, or rpg's.

Its easy to get arms,and concealed. Look at the rest of the world, we are not firearm oppressed.

I can tell you've never been in a firearms encounter. Because if you had, and had muscle memory with said firearm you'd know adrenaline acts as an intoxicant in that scenario.

Ask any law enforcement or many soldiers who've had to and they'll say the same.

That being said it's not a lot to ask people shoe they know how to know a weapon they can conceal in public.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: seasonal

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: CriticalStinker

edit: Do you think that is mandated?


The hurdles get added on and on.

My point of view is that you (not you) can't put any restrictions on the right to carry a concealed weapon. The good training to you is crap to some.
If we trust a person to carry-we must trust that they are practiced up and can put the lead where they point the gun.

I can understand your apprehension. But this freedom is not to be infringed.

That money you have to spend to prove you know how to use a firearm helps weed out irresponsible individuals.

If you want a concealed weapon, pay and learn.

Just like everyone has the right to have a car, you have to prove you can operate it.

I'm very pro gun, and very anti dumbasses. I don't trust many people with guns. Sure it's a right, but it's also a privilege.

Should felons have them, or have they lost their privilege?

Nope not a privilege.
A car is a durable good. The second amend is a right. The comparison seems to discount what God wants us to have.
Felons cannot own guns-against the law. For a good reason.

A law made after the amendment. When the law was made it was muskets. And people needed them for food as much (rifles still require minimal licensing ing most states).

The right to bear arms is an interpretation. We can't have cannons, or rpg's.

Its easy to get arms,and concealed. Look at the rest of the world, we are not firearm oppressed.

I can tell you've never been in a firearms encounter. Because if you had, and had muscle memory with said firearm you'd know adrenaline acts as an intoxicant in that scenario.

Ask any law enforcement or many soldiers who've had to and they'll say the same.

That being said it's not a lot to ask people shoe they know how to know a weapon they can conceal in public.

The 2nd amendment is not to hunt squirrels-it is to defeat an oppressive govt.

Muskets, facebook or home/apartment makes no diff on our rights being applied. (2nd, 1sh and 4th amend)

You have no idea on my mil/fire arms experience-thanks for the interest though.

We are not talking about RPG's-we are talking about licensed legal fire arms.

For me I would continue the training I am currently doing-and this would meet any qualifications. But mandating my training would infringe on others rights.

Why would you need a permit and class?

A simple directions for use from manufacturers is good enough.

Funny my chainsaw didn't come with permit and classes.

Now why do you think that is?

a reply to: seasonal

For me I would continue the training I am currently doing-and this would meet any qualifications. But mandating my training would infringe on others rights.

Hence why I said a proficiency test should be able to obtain a license.

You argued that though.

Again, we have the most accessible firearms of most of the free world.

We also have a lot of dumbasses, so forgive me for believing we should have zero regulation.

That being said, I'm pro firearms.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Did I give you impression that I agreed with my training being applied to others to exercise their rights. I did not.

Hence why I said a proficiency test should be able to obtain a license.

I feel if the person is in legal standing should be able to handle their rights the way they see fit.

I must have missed the "dumb ass" clause in the 2nd amend.

"shall not be infringed"

(unless you commit one of the crimes we make up)
(unless you don't pass a background check we make)
(unless you don't pay a license fee)
(unless you don't pass a test)
(unless your in our constitution free zone)
(unless you use lead)
(unless whatever we think of next)

I mean wtf people, time to revisit the constitution and assess it's compliance, then arrest anyone in a position of power trying to circumvent it with this "it's for YOUR saftey" BS

Hunters safety isn't a bad class, but shouldn't be mandated to hunt for food.

a reply to: Mandroid7

I guess we would have to start the arrests with local law enforcement and work our way up.

We will need a lot of body bags and bigger prisons.

It would be nice to be able to carry my pistol under my windbreaker when I go picking berries. I wouldn't mind the law being passed. I could get a conceiled weapons permit, I had one in the past. It sucks that I need to go to class now to get a permit, but it isn't all that bad for cost. I may get one if this takes a while, I would like to carry my pistol when berry picking without having it hang on my side. I do not like to scare people with an exposed gun., especially one that is like the one on robocop.

I actually think that to carry a pistol in public you should be required to take some training. I wouldn't want someone shot for helping up someone who just fell. Someone needs to verify that the person carrying a gun is able to think correctly in a situation. A person trying to protect someone and emptying their clip on a person robbing a store can hit innocent bystanders, killing way more than the person they are shooting at.

a reply to: seasonal

Nah, law enforcement enforces laws, and certain laws are needed.

The people making the "unlawful" laws need to be arrested

No need for body bags, just make them work for once.

They could clean up road debris for their community service as penance for being shady.

I mean, why would you want to disarm everyone, unless you knew you were up to no good and were going to continue?

a reply to: rickymouse

Well....knowing that there are bears and mountain lions and the occasional moose...I'd carry anyway!

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: rickymouse

Well....knowing that there are bears and mountain lions and the occasional moose...I'd carry anyway!

My Desert eagle weighs about six pounds, it would intimidate a bear.

I'm not too worried about 2nd amendment gun rights with NRA backing us americans. all though... Why was my spring field 45 acp xds illegal in the state of california lol. Guess i'll just never go there.

a reply to: rickymouse

Maybe, but my rifle would actually put it down, not just make it mad.

The 2nd Amendment is a right ENUMERATED ( not granted ), in the U.S. Bill of Rights.

To lose a right, it has to be proven that you can't bear the responsibility of exercising that right.

This is why violent felons can't own guns.
This is why mentally incapacitated people can't own guns.
This is why domestic abusers can't own guns.

A lot of the laws/restrictions on guns are really just pointing out that an individual cannot exercise the right responsibly.

Classes should be encouraged, but not required. The only permit needed is the 2A.

*looks at laminated copy of 2A in wallet*, I'm good.

A side note, concealed carriers, while exercising their 2A rights, should also be mindful of private property owners' rights and not trespass where guns are specifically prohibited by the property owner. Your right to self-defense doesn't trump their right to control their private property. I'm sure a property owner who welcomes guns would prefer your money anyway.

a reply to: Bankaikiller

If you think the NRA is "backing" you, you're confusing "backing" with "bending you over a barrel and selling you out to the highest bidder."

Those turncoats don't get a dime from me.

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Outlier13

Since the 2nd Amendment is applicable to every US Citizen then the solution is quite simple.

Teach it in schools. Simple. Then everyone will have the required training.

The Federal Government could help by paying for the classes.

Win win.

P

If the feds paid for it then they effectively have a partial gun registry which is something we don't want. A better option would be for the gun manufacturers to offer a class with the purchase of their gun. It would incentivize novice gun owners and sell more guns for that manufacturer. That's a win win.

a reply to: Outlier13

If the feds paid for it then they effectively have a partial gun registry which is something we don't want.

Your nation has the 2nd Amendment. Teach the whole nation gun safety ... one class at a time.

If you have a great many guns in society ... and you do ... then everyone should know how to handle one safely.

Even if picking up a gun from the sidewalk, you need to know how to make it safe.

Teach everyone!

Then ... no partial registry!

P

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: seasonal

Perhaps he should be reminded of the above statement before he picks up his pen. Would also want to consider if he wants a 2nd term.

Wouldn't do any good, sounds like he wants permits etc. in that statement of rich BS. He is playing both sides but in the end, he will say how he believes the second amendment is about hunting.

Wasn't it NJ or NY where there was a politician that said you don't need ten bullets to kill a deer? lol that's the level of BS that was in your senators statement.

I hope it goes your way though.

a reply to: Mandroid7

There is zero % chance you could or would be able to get the people who make the laws do what you wrote. It would cause the LEO to get involved. This would lead to the local LEO stopping you from applying constitutional law. This is what most call pucker time-how far are you willing to go?

They (think) they are the masters-we are the servants.

Mr. Snyder is already in his second term - Thank the Heavens! I cannot stand the way he speaks down to the public. He speaks to us like Mr. Rogers reading a story book. a reply to: JinMI

a reply to: normajean

Oh, god. You're right. Time flies.