Hard core 2nd. amenders

[Sgood]

I have just been on this sight for a few days now and the first day. I was tongue lashed for having the opinion that a person should have some kind of training before allowed to carry in the general public.

Boy was that the wrong thing to say, i was bashed and schooled in the 2nd. amendment ( didn't really need it, I have a firm understanding of it) And I know to mandate a training course would go against your rights as pointed out in the second. But, it is still my believe!

During this lecture I was told everyone has the right to bear arms to include a man just released from prison, no matter the crime he was there for. I find this just ridiculous to think there are people out their so afraid of the government taking away their guns they are willing to say everyone has a right. So, they themselves do not have to draw lines.

I mean really you are okay with a man incarcerated for rape and murder coming out to load up (legally) so he can go out and do it again. Dont get me wrong I dont believe that he will not anyway but, at least it is illegal.

Bottom line is laws change everyday to compensate for the times we live in. Yes, there was crime back in the BOR days but, back then they would just hang you for such offenses not lock you up and let you out 20 years later to do it again.

Just like we like to use the seat belt line to back carrying......you still wear it to because it is the law and laws change and I would not be opposed to requiring a safety course before approving a ltch!!!

So let the bashing and neg rep begin!!!

 

[indykid]

You could make a case that a well regulated militia, meaning well trained or well schooled could be taken to mean that it is not a stretch to ask that people wanting to exercise the main part of the second, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed allow for some for of schooling in special weaponry but not all.

I do firmly believe that the second part of the second amendment take precedence over everything.

 

[Brandon]

 

[Cru]

 

[Sgood]

Oh before I am asked again, he is my experience and training.

Range Safety
Pistol Shooting Course
Personal Protection In The Home Course
Personal Protection Outside The Home Course

All NRA courses taught in Ohio along with hunters ed taught in Indiana.
Plus 30 years of hunting and Being around guns since I was old enough to pull a trigger.

Oh and I was a troll for having an opnion to, and people wandered why I was on the offense after being attacked. but no one seemed to think that was an attack, It was okay.

I almostdidnt some back to this sight because of the dumb sh** but realized it is not the masses of this sight, just a few.

 

[edporch]

I have just been on this sight for a few days now and the first day. I was tongue lashed for having the opinion that a person should have some kind of training before allowed to carry in the general public.
-Snip-

There shouldn't a law mandating training, because it would be used as a means to restrict our rights.
Look at Chicago, IL for example since they lost the Supreme Court case.

BUT anybody who carries in public needs to be able to safely handle the weapon they carry, or they ARE being irresponsible.

 

[Sgood]

Did everyone get this upset when they passed that anyone born after December 31, 1986 had to go through a hunter ed course in order to hunt??

Or in reality did you think that was a good idea??

 

[Sgood]

come on guys don't hold the popcorn, pass it around and chime in with your thoughts.

 

[Brandon]

I would be willing to bet your argument of the 2a being so old was a big part of your problem in your last thread.

 

[Brandon]

I can't share my popcorn right now. I am hungry.

 

[KG1]

For reference this is just a rehash of what happened in this thread https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry_issues_and_self_defense/155865-monon_trail_rant.html and you were'nt bashed or neg repped for your opinion. It was because of how you delivered it with the name calling and personal attacks and inferring that someone who brought up an historical reference to militias and 2A rights is just looking for"skinheads" to join their militia. You just wanna play the innocent victim card and everybody was out to get you.

 

[ryknoll3]

I have just been on this sight for a few days now and the first day. I was tongue lashed for having the opinion that a person should have some kind of training before allowed to carry in the general public.

Boy was that the wrong thing to say, i was bashed and schooled in the 2nd. amendment ( didn't really need it, I have a firm understanding of it) And I know to mandate a training course would go against your rights as pointed out in the second. But, it is still my believe!

During this lecture I was told everyone has the right to bear arms to include a man just released from prison, no matter the crime he was there for. I find this just ridiculous to think there are people out their so afraid of the government taking away their guns they are willing to say everyone has a right. So, they themselves do not have to draw lines.

I mean really you are okay with a man incarcerated for rape and murder coming out to load up (legally) so he can go out and do it again. Dont get me wrong I dont believe that he will not anyway but, at least it is illegal.

Bottom line is laws change everyday to compensate for the times we live in. Yes, there was crime back in the BOR days but, back then they would just hang you for such offenses not lock you up and let you out 20 years later to do it again.

Just like we like to use the seat belt line to back carrying......you still wear it to because it is the law and laws change and I would not be opposed to requiring a safety course before approving a ltch!!!

So let the bashing and neg rep begin!!!

I have a question for you. Can you show any evidence or proof of states that have training having less "trouble" with their permit holders than states without training, or without permit requirements at all? Can you prove that their are fewer murders, accidental shootings and a higher percentage of justified shoots amongst training states? If you are going to advocate restricting the rights of others, you had better have airtight proof that your position holds merit. An argument based on emotion or opinion and not based in fact is a ****-POOR reason to put restrictions on someone's rights.

Should there be similar restrictions on the rest of our Bill of Rights? Should someone take a training class before they are allowed to speak in public? Libel and slander can be AWFULLY dangerous things. Should they have to have a permit to practice their religion?

Do you believe that someone who has served his time for his crime and is supposedly rehabilitated has the right to defend themselves/their family? I don't think anyone here thinks a murderer/rapist should be out on the street with a gun, because I don't think anyone here thinks the murderer/rapist should ever see the light of day again! Where is this magic line that YOU draw? At what point does someone forever lose the right to defend themselves or their home? How about going down to the gunshop and buying a foregrip for your AR pistol because you thought it looked cool or made it easier to handle? Did you know this is felony possession of an unregistered NFA firearm and is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in jail and some huge fine? Do you think someone who does this should never be allowed to arm themselves in self-defense for the rest of their lives? Because as the law is written now, they can't. Where is the line... in your mind? If someone has done their time and are no longer a danger to society, their rights should be restored. If they are still a danger to society, they should be locked up!

Do you think it's much comfort to a family of a second victim of your hypothetical murderer to tell them, "Sorry about your family member. Such a shame! Well, at least it was illegal for him to have a gun! We'll show him. He's going back to jail for felony possession!"

I really have a problem with people who make an argument that our rights need to be limited for the "protection" of the public, yet the argument they make has NO basis in fact, but rather just an emotion-based opinion.

Again, please show us where those who carry firearms in states that have no permit requirement or no training requirement are more dangerous than those who carry in states that make you sit through half a day of classroom training and shoot 20 shots at a silhouette.

 

[NYFelon]

Please point out where the 2A makes any exceptions as to who "the people" whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed are. What limitations or qualifications does it assert? Or does it simply state that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?" The 1934 NFA, 1968 GCA, now expired "Brady Ban " (though not in my state, they adopted the exact wording of the federal legislation as state law), and any and all other laws are entirely unConstitutional. The federal government is expressly prohibited from writing any laws abridging the right of all people from owning arms. What's so hard to understand about that?

 

[Sgood]

For reference this is just a rehash of what happened in this thread https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry_issues_and_self_defense/155865-monon_trail_rant.html and you were'nt bashed or neg repped for your opinion. It was because of how you delivered it with the name calling and personal attacks and inferring that someone who brought up an historical reference to militias and 2A rights is just looking for"skinheads" to join their militia. You just wanna play the innocent victim card and everybody was out to get you.

Are you really gonna jump in again with the smart a** Sh**. Not playing innocent and back all that I said in that thread. That is why I have not went in and changed or deleted.

But you seem to have a hard on for me....just want to let you know I am a top!!!!

 

[Brandon]

Are you really gonna jump in again with the smart a** Sh**. Not playing innocent and back all that I said in that thread. That is why I have not went in and changed or deleted.

But you seem to have a hard on for me....just want to let you know I am a top!!!!

how is being a smart ass by posting that?

also read the faq about word filters. you should let them do the work for you and not put the ** in yourself

 

[Lucas156]

Here is the reason Im against training-you can't fix stupid. If someone is stupid with firearms before taking a class I would venture to guess they will be stupid with firearms after taking a class too. Plus it will give the government more leeway to restrict our rights. Id rather die on my feet than live on my knees

 

[KG1]

Are you really gonna jump in again with the smart a** Sh**. Not playing innocent and back all that I said in that thread. That is why I have not went in and changed or deleted.

But you seem to have a hard on for me....just want to let you know I am a top!!!![/QUOTE]
I don't need any further proof to back up my position..you just made it right there. Amazing You opened the door when you posted this thread and I just gave alittle further background so other people can get everything in context.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

you can't fix stupid. If someone is stupid with firearms before taking a class I would venture to guess they will be stupid with firearms after taking a class too

Exactly. Some people are simply careless. Those who aren't careless, but are ignorant of gun safety...well...they'll understand the potential danger of their firearm & seek instruction on their own. We don't need Big-Nanny to hold our hands when it comes to fundamental rights.

 

[91FXRS]

So I dont have to put the *** they will do it for me?

 

[Sgood]

I have a question for you. Can you show any evidence or proof of states that have training having less "trouble" with their permit holders than states without training, or without permit requirements at all? Can you prove that their are fewer murders, accidental shootings and a higher percentage of justified shoots amongst training states? If you are going to advocate restricting the rights of others, you had better have airtight proof that your position holds merit. An argument based on emotion or opinion and not based in fact is a ****-POOR reason to put restrictions on someone's rights.

No I can not but can you show where it doesn't. Just because I cant find it doesnt mean it, it is not true

Should there be similar restrictions on the rest of our Bill of Rights? Should someone take a training class before they are allowed to speak in public? Libel and slander can be AWFULLY dangerous things. Should they have to have a permit to practice their religion?

The rest of our BOR does not pertain to something with such a complete end to it. Meaning Accidently call someone a bad name (they live) accidently shoot osmeone (they dead)

Do you believe that someone who has served his time for his crime and is supposedly rehabilitated has the right to defend themselves/their family? I don't think anyone here thinks a murderer/rapist should be out on the street with a gun, because I don't think anyone here thinks the murderer/rapist should ever see the light of day again! Where is this magic line that YOU draw? At what point does someone forever lose the right to defend themselves or their home? How about going down to the gunshop and buying a foregrip for your AR pistol because you thought it looked cool or made it easier to handle? Did you know this is felony possession of an unregistered NFA firearm and is a felony punishable by up to 10 years in jail and some huge fine? Do you think someone who does this should never be allowed to arm themselves in self-defense for the rest of their lives? Because as the law is written now, they can't. Where is the line... in your mind? If someone has done their time and are no longer a danger to society, their rights should be restored. If they are still a danger to society, they should be locked up!

A felon as the law is now, Commit a felony and forever loose your right to carry and bear arms

Do you think it's much comfort to a family of a second victim of your hypothetical murderer to tell them, "Sorry about your family member. Such a shame! Well, at least it was illegal for him to have a gun! We'll show him. He's going back to jail for felony possession!"

No, I do not but in your example he is free to do so. Not so sure they will be alright with that either

I really have a problem with people who make an argument that our rights need to be limited for the "protection" of the public, yet the argument they make has NO basis in fact, but rather just an emotion-based opinion.

No emotion just think a public with traing and knowledge is power

Again, please show us where those who carry firearms in states that have no permit requirement or no training requirement are more dangerous than those who carry in states that make you sit through half a day of classroom training and shoot 20 shots at a silhouette.

Probably not but it just cant hurt, either and just may safe a live in the long run but who cares as long as your rights are not infringed upon