manditory Basic Pitol? How about mandatory Basic Spelling, before P-i-s-t-o-l?Being from Ohio (manditory Basic Pitol NRA 12 hour class), I'm a little biased.
Oh really? Did you read and comprehend your own state constitution?Having just graduated with my Bachelor degree in Criminal Justice and debating pursuing Law School or a Masters degree in Criminal Justice, I'm a little biased. Having done over 180 hours of intern experience and 4 years as a police explorer, I'm a little biased. Also being a strong 2A supporter...
I voted yes, and if there were an "Absolutely yes" option I probably would have picked that too. In my class there were multiple people who almost got kicked out... One for pointing his loaded pistol in every direction with his finger on the trigger while at the range, and one for thinking he would be "legally" justified in killing someone only if he heard them break into his car in the middle of the night. It was an eye-opener to me to see that there are some downright STUPID people who should 100% NOT touch a firearm without some basic safety knowledge and education regarding their own state and local laws about firearms.
[STRIKE]Manditory[/strike] Mandatory training is not suggesting the government is trying to take guns away, or prevent someone from having a gun AT ALL. I truely believe it is a better system for everyone if an applicant gets some form of training. Just because you grow up around guns all your life and are "familiar with them" does not mean you are knowledgable about the laws too. Could you have both without the training? Absolutely. Does everyone have that training without taking the class? Absolutely not.
riiiiiiight.I just decided that I am against training. No one should get it.
Training should be required for someone who carries a concealed weapon but where does it stop once you start down that road.
How's about the state providing a $10.00** voucher to an NRA course to anyone applying for an LTCH?
No mandatory training required but the state is highly suggesting additional refresher training to anyone already familiar with firearms and primary training for anyone new to firearms.
**No, I am not seriously suggesting this. Even if it were a viable option, the state does not have the funds to promote something like this. Hence, the purple text above.
It is interesting that more than 1 in 3 people on this board are gun control advocates, judging by the poll response.
It is interesting that more than 1 in 3 people on this board are gun control advocates, judging by the poll response.
.
Truly an eye opening poll. Good thing America is not a Democracy. In theory, we are supposed to be protected by a "Constitution." Perhaps some of you have read it?
manditory Basic Pitol? How about mandatory Basic Spelling, before P-i-s-t-o-l?
Oh really? Did you read and comprehend your own state constitution?
Ohio Constitution Article I - Bill of Rights
§ 1.04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
Range safety violations and ignorance of the legal aspects of the use of deadly force is part of what they were supposed to be addressing in that type of course, and at any rate, when committed by one or a few individuals is never a justification for denying the rights of, or in this case increasing regulatory burdens on the privileges of, the entire adult population of a state. Such practices turn the idea of innocent until proven guilty on its head, and are repulsive to anyone who sincerely is, as you say, "a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment", let alone the entire Constitution.
The desire to control others, to force them to conform to ones own standards, and to preemptively punish or deny rights to those deemed unworthy, especially through the use of the machinery of the state, is very strong with some. The insertion of gun owner licensing and registration laws into state codes strips the people of their right, as a right, to bear arms - in this case, handguns or sidearms. It is from that point on, unless repealed, no longer a right but a privilege conditionally granted by the state. The conditions and restrictions are more numerous and violative of the peoples' rights in some, like Ohio, than in others, such as Indiana.
Most here value and seek professional training (not state-mandated feel-good training), and continue to do so on their own. Training is encouraged, but not forced as a precondition to the bearing of arms.
Training or not, those who commit actual crimes are charged and punished accordingly, after the fact.
snip
Look.... bottom line is that states which require some form of education are not stripping the rights of their citizens. Unless you are a total jack*** in the class, and can answer 20 basic questions, you will pass the class. The only peoples' rights being infringed upon are those rights of complete morons who can't pass the class. In passing the class, a newbie gun owner WILL be more proficient in basic knowledge of the law, and safety. Period.
No, it was done to make a point, since your introductory paragraph came off like you were throwing out academic credentials in an effort to impress people to somehow lend more weight to your opinion.Cute, you can correct my HORRIBLE spelling, and thus it must mean you are much much smarter than I
You do not, in fact, agree. You just redefined a right, and what it means to have a right. You are arguing not for the right to bear arms, but for the right to apply for permission to bear arms. Everyone agrees that it is each citizen's responsibility to know at least these laws, rules and principles. When you tell someone, however, "Sure, you have this right, as long as you pass my test to my satisfaction" you just denied them that right and rendered it into a privilege, conditionally granted. Those who continue to call it a right at that point are either being deliberately dishonest or never knew what it meant to have a right in the first place. At least get your definitions straight.I agree, people have the right to bear arms... and people certainly have the right to have a Concealed Carry Permit in Ohio, provided they take a basic class that goes over laws of carry, rules of engagement and when it is acceptable to use deadly force, and safety principles involved in carrying a firearm.
You just justified and rationalized the turning of what once was a right, and was meant to be a right as listed in our respective state constitutions, into a privilege, conditionally granted by the state. This same argument is made here and elsewhere to rationalize the existence of, and to keep from repealing, the gun owner licensing and registration laws we already have. You can make this argument all day long, but stop telling people you're a strong 2nd Amendment supporter, or that you agree that the people have a right to bear arms. By definition, you do not.Again, they are addressing those things (at least in the class I took and others that I've talked to who took the class). It is ABSOLUTELY a justification if people don't understand the laws and break them. Should people have to take driving classes to get a license just because a few stupid and uneducated teens roll their vehicle? It's the EXACT same scenario.
No, they weren't misspelled. "Gun owner" was crammed together as one word out of habit from visiting their websites, and "violative" is the correctly spelled but seldom used adjective of "violate".Words in red were misspelled in your original post, and I corrected them ... Although I have no idea how to correct the word "violative", "gunowner" is not a word.
Don't pull that crap with me. That's not what was said, or the way it was said. In any case, you seek more state control, and I believe in individual responsibility. Don't try to accuse me of advocating lawlessness, anarchy, and willful ignorance. I've heard and read every gun control argument there is.You're right, there should be no laws or restrictions at all. No one should receive instructions or advice, or be advised of their state's laws.
I shouldn't have to explain to you the concept of innocent until proven guilty."Actual crimes" meaning murder, carrying in places that are illegal and sometimes considered a felony, inducing panic, involuntary manslaughter, so on and so forth, which could be caused by someone who is not trained in proper safety techniques or advised of their state's laws regarding carry? I'm confused by what you mean by actual crimes, because in my state, we have laws and enforce them.
See Joe's comment above.Look.... bottom line is that states which require some form of education are not stripping the rights of their citizens. Unless you are a total jack*** in the class, and can answer 20 basic questions, you will pass the class. The only peoples' rights being infringed upon are those rights of complete morons who can't pass the class. In passing the class, a newbie gun owner WILL be more proficient in basic knowledge of the law, and safety. Period.
You're right, there should be no laws or restrictions at all. No one should receive instructions or advice, or be advised of their state's laws.
"Actual crimes" meaning murder, carrying in places that are illegal and sometimes considered a felony, inducing panic, involuntary manslaughter, so on and so forth, which could be caused by someone who is not trained in proper safety techniques or advised of their state's laws regarding carry? I'm confused by what you mean by actual crimes, because in my state, we have laws and enforce them.