Would you support Required Testing?

[karlsgunbunker]

NO!

I don't need a test to exercise my right to free speech.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to free religion.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to a free press.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to vote.

Why should I need a test to exercise my right to keep and bear arms?

AMEN!

 

[melensdad]

Is there more responsibility tied to the right to bear arms than is tied to:

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Press

The Right to Vote

Freedom of Religion

yes, stupid people with the other rights can do little harm.

Please don't take this as an argument but I totally disagree with you in the strongest ways.

Are you saying that a liberal press that pushes a liberal agenda is causing very litter harm to this nation? Seems to me that Freedom of the Press & Freedom of Speech is one of the most abused and misused freedoms we have, unfortunately stupid people then use their Freedom to Vote and misuse it based on lies perpetuated by a liberal media.

No sir, the press and speech are very powerful and can wreak havoc on our society in ways that a madman with a gun cannot. Sure, a madman with a gun can kill a bunch of kids in an Amish schoolhouse, or on a college campus, but society moves on without skipping a beat after those events. We grieve, we pray, we complain but the reality is we all still go to work, we still pay our bills, we still have our property, our economy is still free, our speech is not restricted, etc.

However, distort the truth and get someone like Obama elected and we can expect 'Truth Squads' to shut down media critics (oh wait that is already happening) and we can get history rewritten (hmmm, he's doing that too with the help of the press as Bush is being blamed for Clinton's C.R.A. loan program that destroyed our economy) . . . yup you are correct, can't do much harm with the other freedoms

 

[USMC_0311]

Is there more responsibility tied to the right to bear arms than is tied to:

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Press

The Right to Vote

Freedom of Religion

If the right to bear arms is God given or inalienable how did we in this country get to this position where it is so restricted?

I think there is or should be more responsibility tied to the right to bear arms then the others but how that is accomplished I don't know.

I don't disagree with you I just want to know how we keep firearms from the criminal insane or mentally challenged. Seriously, you got to know one person that has no business carrying a gun.

I believe it is a right bear arms but with responsibility.

 

[USMC_0311]

After reading melensdad post maybe responsibilty goes with all those freedoms. I am really geting confused now....think I quit reading and typing for awhile...my head hurts, don't usually work it like this. Somebody give me the answer please....lol

 

[NateIU10]

I think there is or should be more responsibility tied to the right to bear arms then the others but how that is accomplished I don't know.

I don't disagree with you I just want to know how we keep firearms from the criminal insane or mentally challenged. Seriously, you got to know one person that has no business carrying a gun.

I believe it is a right bear arms but with responsibility.

Sounds like you're for the "common sense gun laws." Who is to determine who can use their god-given rights? Why do they have that right? While I agree that mentally unstable people and SOME felons should not be allowed possess firearms, there should be no restrictions on anyone else. When you start saying it's OK to group people and take away an entire right, you are asking for trouble.

I'm under 21, should I be allowed to protect myself and my family? Some would think not, and that regulating me into that "people that have no business carrying a gun" category is 100% acceptable. Enforce laws, stop making new ones and taking from the law-abiding.

 

[4sarge]

NO!

I don't need a test to exercise my right to free speech.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to free religion.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to a free press.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to vote.

Why should I need a test to exercise my right to keep and bear arms?

NUFF SAID

 

[Wabatuckian]

I would not support a mandatory training program. I would, however, support a voluntary training program sponsored and paid for by the State, ammo included.

Josh <><

 

[Soundslikejosh]

Josh Smith, I like the way you think!

 

[munky_3434]

no, not at all. i'm just saying all politics, and commie news network (cnn)bs aside and every politicians attempt to sway all non gun voters bs.

there are some people who are just dumb. and while the pen may be mightier than the sword, a bullet can do more harm than a nasty word. you can get bashed by the media and save face, but you can't recover from being dead.

i absolutley see your point and respect it, just with my line of work i have to deal with all the guys who talked with a pistol.

 

[USMC_0311]

Sounds like you're for the "common sense gun laws." Who is to determine who can use their god-given rights? Why do they have that right? While I agree that mentally unstable people and SOME felons should not be allowed possess firearms, there should be no restrictions on anyone else. When you start saying it's OK to group people and take away an entire right, you are asking for trouble.

I'm under 21, should I be allowed to protect myself and my family? Some would think not, and that regulating me into that "people that have no business carrying a gun" category is 100% acceptable. Enforce laws, stop making new ones and taking from the law-abiding.

depends oh who version of "common sense gun laws."

You basically said the same thing I did but you did not answer how we stop the mentally unstable people and the "SOME felons" that should not be allowed possess firearms.

I believe the age should be lowered but to where....you would want a 6,7,8,9, year old to protect themselves too, wouldn't ya. So third graders should carry? Whereas the common sense in that?

 

[Soundslikejosh]

 

[Turtle]

Umm Turtles dont walk backwards. Its against nature. In other words NO. Next will be registration then confiscation. I know this sounds extreme. But you give em an inch they will take a mile.

 

[melensdad]

Let me ask 1 question:

Can any of you show me where, after 70 years of experience in Indiana with carry laws, Indiana is less safe than a state like Florida that requires training to get a carry permit???​

​

 

[turnandshoot4]

No

 

[G McBride]

I do not believe that we need to make it any more restrictive to own a handgun and to be able to carry it for personal protection. I do believe that our LTCH should be accepted by all states that allow licensed carry of firearms just as they honor our drivers license in their state.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Maybe we need a National test that if you are certified by this test, your states license would be honored by every state that allows carrying. They could just issue a card that says you took the training.

I agree that we should not take a step backward but we need to have more states honor our LTCH. Any suggestions to make that happen. I know there are work arounds but wouldn't life be easier if Handgun permits and licenses worked like our drivers licenses.

When passed, such a test could be "Fire three rounds and hit the paper at 10 yards." We've just granted the federal government the power to regulate the issuance of this certification. The next step is that this test is too lax, so it must be made more strict: Now you must score at least ten points in that test-again, three rounds at ten yards. Soon, the test could easily be amended to the example I've used many times: 50 rounds through the bullseye at 50 yards with both the target and the shooter moving. While such a test is possible to pass, Jerry Miculek would have difficulty doing so. Of course, LEOs would have the same testing they have now, once or twice a year to "qualify", and politicians would need no qualifications at all.

When the camel sticks his nose under the tent, that nose needs to be kicked back out hard unless you want to give up the tent to the camel.

Blessings,
B

 

[Bill of Rights]

I do not believe that we need to make it any more restrictive to own a handgun and to be able to carry it for personal protection. I do believe that our LTCH should be accepted by all states that allow licensed carry of firearms just as they honor our drivers license in their state.

True, although the idea of CCWs, LTCHs, etc., is still flawed.

I look at the 10 states that recognize some states' residents but refuse to recognize Hoosiers' right to carry (unless we change our laws to meet their standard) much as I do other countries who support Obama for president: While we will be happy to have you recognize our RTC and/or our LTCH, we will not accept your dictates that our standards must change. While other countries may wish to have one person as president of the US, they have only their own interests at heart, not ours.

Let their laws cover their own states. I'd like to be able to carry nationwide under Full Faith and Credit, but until this is addressed by SCOTUS, it will never happen. If we use DC as the example, it may not happen even then.

Blessings,
B

 

[obijohn]

NO!

I don't need a test to exercise my right to free speech.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to free religion.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to a free press.

I don't need a test to exercise my right to vote.

Why should I need a test to exercise my right to keep and bear arms?

i agree, sir, you do not. although there are scores of people that should have to be trained to exercise their right to free speech. it is not you of which i speak.

 

[right winger]

Only if they lightend up on the no gun zones. Like schools, parks, goverment buildings. I think if they go to through the trouble to background check, testing, classes or whatever. Then we should be trusted anywhere. (airports and court rooms only exceptions)

But I think the whole idea of a license is complete bull anyway and so does the 2nd Admendment

I think if they allow the no gun zones then the zones should be required to provide security and checkpoints also private or public. just my

AMEN! And Semper FI!

 

[jeremy]

Not just NO, But OH HELL NO!

Personally I think I should not need a little piece of paper to exercise my GOD GIVEN RIGHTS. ANYWHERE! Airport, courthouse, park school, wherever be damned.