How many pro-gun people think that there should not be any CCW training required?

[VoteProgressive]

I got my combined Utah/Kansas license in central Kansas last year. And my CCW class was a complete joke. Only three of us in the class. One woman who had her husband talk her into the class. And the instructor actually said "Obama is a Muslim" during the first hour of "Open Discussion" and the other two agreed with him. Maybe they were like me and just nodded to shut him up. The requirement was to shoot 50 rounds. I shot 15 and was done. The instructor did not care.

But the instructor gave some great "real life" advice on CCW. I liked him (have a beer, with no politics) and thought he was a qualified shooter. Funny.

His right-wing ideas came, he admitted, from talk radio and right wing web sites. He thought the gun movement was moving AGAINST the gun owners and not for it. When I pointed out how many more states were pro-CCW and gave examples he said I needed to read and listen more to right wing radio and web sites. I asked for an example of a major move to ban guns and he had no example except ILL and talked about Obama wanting to cancel federal contracts with companies that produced civilian ammo. I could find no proof of this.

I was a reserve police officer for a mid-sized Missouri City from 1982-1985. We had to do 8, 4 hour sessions at the range. 32 hours. This is for a RESERVED police officer. Not a full time officer. Now you might argue that a cop has more chances of meeting a gun encounter but I would argue that a citizen has a good chance also under the same circumstances. And it only takes one encounter.

My point is that this training either needs to be much better or just eliminated. It is really just a money making scheme for instructors. The Utah requirement is almost nothing. No shooting required. Just $60 for Utah.

The discussion of knowing what is behind where you are shooting is way to short. The woman in the shooting part took all the instructors time (nothing about being a woman, just never shot a gun much) and she was NOT EVEN CLOSE to being ready to get a CCW license after her shooting. I would not want be be in the same zipcode of her when holding a gun. Maybe she will not really carry.

The TEST was open book and open discussion. All three of us got 100%. I am not sure if it was a Utah test or a Kansas test as he never said. The other guy was getting a Florida license, which he said gave him two more states that Kansas and Utah did not. He took the same test so I am not sure what the test was for.

I think Kansas should just have you read a booklet on CCW, go to the drivers license office and take a test like you do a drivers license test (at least it is not open book). If you pass you get your license. Because the alternative is to have 3 or 4, 8 hour classes and no one will go for that I am sure.

What are the feelings of the other CCW members here? Do you really think class does much to make it safer?

[rfranklin]

1. No, it's an infringment of our Second Amendment rights...

Guns for everyone!

[VoteProgressive]

Serious or sarcasm?

[speltwon]

2. I am not "pro-gun" I am pro RKBA

with that understanding, I do not think such training should be mandatory. I think there should be numerous incentives for such training.

[provis99]

29. pro-gun and pro-rkba are exactly the same thing.

I don't see a lot of pro-2nd amendment people arguing for people's rights to carry a knife or a billy club. All they care about is guns, guns, guns.

[speltwon]

30. does pro-choice = pro--abortion?

no. Same distinction. Many people pro RKBA may not even OWN a gun. I support the CHOICE to carry or not carry, as in "shall issue", just like I support the choice of a woman to get an abortion. It does not therefore follow that I necessarily own a gun or would seek an abortion if pregnant. It's about the CHOICE to exercise a right.

[VoteProgressive]

38. I imagine the NRA membership is 95% gun owners. Just a guess.....

but maybe there are some just doing it for principal.

[speltwon]

42. Wouldn't surprise me

but I don't think it takes away from the underlying point. I was pro RKBA long before I purchased a gun, and frankly gun laws don't affect ME at all. It's about freedom for others.

[provis99]

43. yes pro-choice DOES mean pro-abortion.

Do you think it means anti-abortion?:eyes:

[speltwon]

45. No, it doesn't

And many others will make the same distinction. I am pro-choice. I am not "pro-abortion". I don't advocate FOR abortion. I don't think abortion is a good thing. I think it is, and should be a choice that is available to women who are pregnant.

There are numerous others, who will make the same distinction. Usually, it's the anti-choice folk who will claim people that are "pro choice" are pro abortion.

Here's a test. Do you want, ceteris paribus, abortions to be legal, safe and rare a la the famous Clinton comment? I do . If through education, birth control availability (and improved technology), etc. we can make abortion more rare, that's a GOOD thing.

Thus, I am NOT pro abortion. I am pro choice. I 100% support the right to choose, but I also hope to see education, technology, etc. to result in fewer abortions. If I was pro abortion, I'd want to see more abortions, or at least wouldn't want to see less.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

50. Please take a logic class

Pro choice is just that, CHOICE. It is not necessarily pro abortion, it is supporting the right of women to choose. To say pro choice means you are pro abortion is Right to Lifer lingo.

Words and language matter...

[smoking357]

57. Have you ever asked us?

I'll eagerly argue for the right to keep and bear those arms, too.

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. K&R

You may as well have taken a nap and avoided listening to his RW BS. You were sure to pass anyway.

[Hangingon]

4. In Texas, CHL range time is Qualification and not training

You demonstrate basic shooting ability. It is not training. Any shooter who acquires a CHL should learn to shoot, practice shooting at targets and consider responses to various attack situations. A CHL holder should practice reloading techniques and stoppage clearing drills. The CHL training does not teach gun maintenance either. The CHL course covers the law for use of firearms. Texas also includes conflict resolution.

[oneshooter]

33. The course of fire is 50rds...........

Course of Fire:

3 yard line - 20 shots:

1 shot in 2 seconds, 5 times
2 shots in 3 seconds, 5 times
5 shots in 10 seconds, once

7 yard line - 20 shots:

5 shots in 10 seconds, once
1 shot in 3 seconds, 5 times
2 shots in 4 seconds, once
3 shots in 6 seconds, once
5 shots in 15 seconds, once

15 yard line - 10 shots:

2 shots in 6 seconds, once
3 shots in 9 seconds, once
5 shots in 15 seconds, once


All are timed, 70% to pass.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas


Note, Mom passed it with a 87% with a 3" S&W revolver. At the age of 73.

[Hangingon]

46. Nice going Mom!

[oneshooter]

52. She is even better with a rifle and shotgun! n/t

[Hangingon]

58. Go ahead - break my heart.

Tell me she is a great cook too!

[oneshooter]

63. Yep! n/t

[SlimJimmy]

5. If that was the training, then it was a joke and not worth the time and effort

to attend. I don't have an opinion one way or the other, but wouldn't raise a whole lot of hell if they did require formal training first.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. personally, I think gun education and safety classes should be taught

in the public school system,,,,kind of like sex ed but, thats just me.

Abortion and Guns have this country locked down. Time to move on, people.

If you don't want one or the other then don't have one.

let the flames begin.

[VoteProgressive]

7. Maybe you are right but parents would throw a fit about either.

[doc03]

9. There you have a dilemma, right wingers are all for

gun ed but sex ed is out of the question.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

36. yeah.

what he said.

[doc03]

8. Same here only ours was a bigger joke. I live in Ohio but

took my CCW training in WV. The training was the NRA handgun safety course and same as you we took an open book/discussion test and everyone passed. In the shooting range part all 8 of us qualified in about two hours. The qualifications were hitting the target I think 5 times and some took twice that many to put 5 shots in the target. Same as your trainer he seemed like a nice enough guy but was a brainwashed right winger that thought Obama was out to take our guns.

[VoteProgressive]

10. Yep, sounds like mine. Your shooting was better.....

no one checked my target at all.

[Kennah]

11. I have lived and carried in four states (FL, NC, PA, and WA)

FL allows pretty much anything printed on paper that says gun or firearm--including a DD-214, and I'll never get how that is "firearms training". I used my NRA Basic Handgun course certificate.

PA and WA have no training requirement.

NC had the most onerous requirement. Had to be a NC certified instructor teaching the "official curriculum", and the training was a sad joke. The video from the state was monotonous, of extremely poor audio quality, and it had information that ranged from misleading to wrong.

The training is little more than CYA for the state.

I have been through over 100 hours of advanced training, but not even that amount of training is going to prevent stupidity induced tragedies.

[spin]

64. I used a DD-214 to prove that I had firearms training ...

in Florida. I had received training on how to shoot an M-16 assault rifle and a M1 carbine in the Air Force. I'm not sure what that has to do with carrying a concealed handgun in public.

I knew several people who taught the course and had often discussed the issues and the law with them. I had also had more than 20 years experience shooting handguns regularly when I decided to get a concealed weapons permit. I could have taught a concealed weapons class with just a little preparation and probably have done a better job than some of the instructors I knew.

I saved a little money but I often advise people who have served in the military as I did to take the course.

[Glassunion]

12. Here in PA, there is no training requirement.

On a personal level I think there should be.

My VP just asked me today about a firearm for personal protection. I recomended her to an apropriate firearm, but I insisted that she get training before making the purchase. She whole heartedly agreed. I offered to accompany her.

[VoteProgressive]

18. Just curious what gun you suggested. Curious myself.

[Glassunion]

24. Kimber Solo

#1. American Made
#2. Felt great in the hand
#3. Safety and Mag release work for both lefties and righties
#4. American Made

http://www.kimberamerica.com/solo

[VoteProgressive]

37. Friend is thinking of a Ruger LC9......

I'll tell him about the Kimber Solo. Seems more expensive but maybe justified.

[doc03]

27. That's strange PA requires no training for a CCW yet they

don't recognize the Ohio CCW. Is it because Ohio is Republican and you figure we are all nuts?

[Glassunion]

28. Did you see our last election? You would think we were a red state.

Ohio will not accept ours because we don't require training. We don't accept yours because you don't accept ours.

Sort of a Nah nah nah... nah... nah. nah. Thing going on. IMHO.

[doc03]

32. The same thing goes on with hunting license WV and PA

made an agreement that they would both charge the same non-resident hunting fee but OH wouldn't go along with them and charges more. So a resident of PA and WV have to pay more to get a license in OH and an OH resident has to pay more in WV or PA then they do between each other.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. WA requires no test, no training.

I've been carrying 9 years. My wife for 7. Mom about the same length of time. My brother for 12 years.

None of us have taken any classes at all. (outside a strip/clean clinic for my AR)

Nobody's been accidentally shot. Nobody's been unlawfully shot. I doubt a class would help. We have a good grasp of what constitutes legal self defense, and illegal vengeance/vigilanteeism. We spend enough time at the range to be proficient with our carry weapons.

[VoteProgressive]

19. I see your point. That is why I think every state should eliminate it. Or REALLY have a real test.

[markpkessinger]

14. Acronyms -- PLEASE identify!

The OP throws out the acronym "CCW" repeatedly in this post without ever identifying what the acronym stands for. I still don't know.

As a general rule, it is always best to identify at least once any acronyms used in a post, even if you think they are universally known. Sometimes that knowledge is not as universal as you might think.

[Glassunion]

15. Concealed Carry Weapon(s)

Generally a permit to carry concealed weapon

Some states have different names for it(LTCF"License to Carry a Firearm" in PA), but generally it is refered to as a "CCW".

Thanks

[markpkessinger]

22. Thanks! n/t

[VoteProgressive]

16. Sorry, next time I will.

[markpkessinger]

23. Many thanks! n/t

[oneshooter]

17. Concealed Carry Wisence ?? n/t

[jeepnstein]

25. Only if you're this guy.

[oneshooter]

51. CCL= Concealed Carry License

CHL (Texas)= Concealed Handgun License

LTCC = License to Carry Concealed

There are more.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[YllwFvr]

20. Training should be strongly suggested

But not mandatory in my opinion.

Our police qualification training isn't anywhere near that intensive. An hour our two per year

[VoteProgressive]

21. I meant during the initial training period. Before we were sworn in.

[YllwFvr]

31. ah, gotcha

40 hours firearms training for municipal police initial training here. Im not sure about reserve, Im not aware of such a thing, doesnt mean we dont have it though

[VoteProgressive]

35. They stopped the program in the 90s where I was.

[jeepnstein]

26. It should have mandatory training.

Open carry should be available to all lawful citizens and concealed carry licensed with some training on the use of force and safety. My only thinking about this approach is it promotes education and safety. Open carry should be a fully legal option.

[VoteProgressive]

39. I think open carry hurts more than it helps.......

hurts the gun cause overall.

Just my opinion.

[jeepnstein]

44. Open carry to the 2nd Amendment...

is the same thing as Larry Flynt with the 1st. It's not something I'm into but I'm not willing to stifle it to suit my own sensibilities.

[VoteProgressive]

48. I see the point but.....

it wins the battle but can hurt the war.

Just like wearing a shirt that says "Fuck You Assholes, go to hell". It might be a valid 1st amendment statement, but does not help matters.

And in my opinion a worthless asset for defense. And nutjob is going to kill the open carry guy first. The CC is the best surprise asset anyone can have.

[mvccd1000]

53. "And a nutjob is going to kill the open carry guy first" - I disagree.

That sounds like the stories of, "But someone will see your gun and take it away!" Sure, it COULD happen... it's just that you can never find an example of it ACTUALLY happening.

Please show me just one example of a nutjob shooting an open carrier first so he can go on and commit his intended crime and I'll revise my opinion. Until then, let's look at a more reality-based scenario:

You and I are both out working on a project in the garage or around the yard when we suddenly realize it's almost midnight and we didn't get cash out of the ATM for lunch at work tomorrow. We each drive up to our respective banks and get out to use the walk-up ATM. I've got a pistol visible on my hip, while yours is safely concealed.

If some tweaker is driving around looking for an easy target, which one of us do you think he'll choose? I'm willing to bet you that 99.9% of the time, he's going to choose the one who appears to be unarmed. It doesn't matter that you actually DO have a gun - you APPEAR not to, so you look like the easier target. He'll drive right by me and keep looking until he finds someone who looks like you.

I've always thought that concealed carriers hope the bad guy will choose them so they can "come out blasting," so to speak. (This is backed up by your statement, "The CC is the best surprise asset anyone can have.")

Open carriers, on the other hand, would prefer not to be involved in the altercation at all. I'm never even going to encounter the guy - he sees me and sees a gun and he keeps on driving (or hiding in the bushes, or whatever he was doing as he looks for a target).


You can apply the scenario to just about any activity that puts you in the path to encounter a criminal. You're in a gas station or 7-11 and someone is cruising around looking for the store he's going to rob tonight. If he sees you walking in with a pistol on your hip, do you think he'll go in and shoot you first, or drive a mile up the street to the next store where he hopes he WON'T encounter an armed victim? You're in line at the bank and someone comes in planning to rob the place. Does he shoot you and go on with his robbery, or turn around and walk out of the bank?

CCW has zero deterrent value. Me? I'd rather deter the potential criminal than "get my chance" to use a gun on him.

[VoteProgressive]

55. Ok, I disagree....

I need to find more examples. But cops shot in the head while eating last year proves their open carry did not help. I think three were killed. Maybe four. Sure he was targeting cops. But open carry could be targeted as easy.

Most the people I have seen that complain about guns discuss the open carry people. It might not be logical but it is real.

There people carrying open close to Obama last year seemed like idiots to me. And come across that way to many Americans.

It does nothing to help the cause, only hurts it. I am sure you disagree so we can agree to disagree.

[jeepnstein]

56. That police shooting is a different thing.

When you put on the uniform you are placing a huge target on your forehead for all the haters, criminals, and nutjobs of the world. You have to have a mindset of constant vigilance. Those murdered officers were relaxing, letting down their guards, and doing it in public. Open carry has very little to do with it.

My only objection to open carry is it calls attention to ones self. I don't care to draw that kind of attention. In some settings it's not a big deal but in my area it would be. I open carry as a Deputy Sheriff but when off-duty, which is most of the time, I must conceal my weapon as a matter of department policy.

Open carry as a means of political speech is another animal altogether. We've seen examples of that lately and I just don't care for the tone of it. That doesn't mean I want to limit anyone's 1st or 2nd Amendment rights but I find it counterproductive.

[mvccd1000]

65. Not completely.

I'm up in the air about whether open carry helps or hurts the cause. I agree that the sheeple can't be scared of the guns they don't see. On the other hand, open carry is common and practically unnoticed in Arizona - it's not doing much harm there.

As far as the "tactical advantage," I still don't buy it. Yes, police are sometimes targeted because they are police. I would submit that the officers in your example could have been in plainclothes with concealed pistols. If they'd parked an obvious cop car outside and sat inside with badges hanging around their necks, they would have been targeted just as surely. (In other words, they weren't targeted because they were obviously armed; they were targeted because they were obviously police.)

Going back to my original proposition, if you can find even one instance of a normal open carrier being "shot first" (or shot at all) by an assailant who then went on to commit his intended crime, I'll revise my viewpoint. Until then, I'm going to say that particular bogey man is not a realistic expectation. Deterrence, on the other hand, IS a realistic expectation by an open carrier.

I've got one story I like to use as an example, and one 2nd hand experience.

Example: I often post a story that appeared in the Arizona Republic about an Applebees waitress walking home in Gilbert after her shift ended at midnight. Two guys in a truck stopped and attempted to either grab her or rob her. She had seen them circling her and pulled a knife from her purse before they approached. She slashed one on the hand and managed to get away. When police stopped the two men about 20 minutes later, they admitted that they had been driving around for an hour looking for someone to rob. My question: had they seen a pistol on her hip, do you think they would still have chosen to attack her, or would they have kept on looking?

2nd hand experience: my dad used to have stores that closed at midnight, after which he would go and collect the cash for a bank run. He had a Michigan CPL and usually had a pistol with him during his cash runs. One night as he was preparing to leave the store, he noticed someone lurking outside. (Empty strip mall - no reason for anyone to be around.) He set his money bag on the counter and emptied his pockets as he pretended to look for his keys. In the process, he removed his holstered pistol and set it on the counter. By the time he "found" his keys, and got everything back in his pockets, the lurker was gone. His concealed pistol did nothing to deter a potential crime, but getting it out in the open for 30 seconds was enough to prevent a possible assault and robbery.

While I'm not convinced as to whether open carry does more good or more harm, I stand by my point that I'd rather use the deterrent value to avoid a crime than the surprise element of CCW to shoot a criminal.

[RSillsbee]

61. Wouldn't it be easier (and safer)

to leave a couple minutes early for work tomorrow and stop at the ATM then ?

[mvccd1000]

67. In that instance, yes.

What if you work 2nd shift? What if you're on the way to take your kid to an urgent care clinic with an ear infection and need cash? Driving home from class late at night and your car overheats, so you pull into a gas station? Going to visit an escort and didn't bring a tip? :)

Unless you're willing to say there is no reason for a non-criminal to be out after dark, then there are many possible reasons for the average person to find him (or her)self out and about during some fairly deserted hours of the day.

Sure, most of us probably try to avoid it, but if you do find yourself out there for some valid reason, do you prefer deterrence or confrontation?

I still vote for deterrence.

[RSillsbee]

62. Damn double tap

Self delete

[PavePusher]

69. Wearing a sidearm on your belt is in no way equivalent to unrestricted profanity.

If you think that open carriers are doing the equivalent of carrying a profane sign, they are not the problem.

As far as "kill the open carry guy first", cite to evidence, please...

[VoteProgressive]

73. I know MANY people who hate open carry and it turns them off. The "just because I can" argument....

is stupid and anti-productive.

Why do it unless you just want to piss people off? Just because you can?

The idiots carrying assault rifles around an Obama speech hurt the gun cause, not helped it.

You can disagree, my personal experiences puts me on the non-open carry side.

[mvccd1000]

77. Are you from a state that allows it?

It's common and accepted in Arizona, so you won't find many people getting pissed off when they see it.

[VoteProgressive]

78. I am not even sure about Kansas. I need to find out.

[PavePusher]

79. I do it for several reasons.

1. Comfort. Concealing a full-size 1911 can be done easily enough, but the physical discomfort level can be high, especially here in southern Arizona. Having a chunk of leather/plastic up against skin in 110+ deg. heat sucks. Not to mention the tugging at clothes, adjusting of shirts, etc.

2. Limits fashion choices to loose shirts and loose trousers/shorts.

3. Making a public statement that good people can carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

4. Deterence of criminal action. Hard to prove, as I don't have a large team of socio/political-specialists trailing along in my wake interviewing the bystanders.

Why do you instantly assume I want to "piss people off"?

"The idiots carrying assault rifles around an Obama speech" proved that one can exercise Civil Rights in many venues and situations without actually making threats or being a danger to those in the immediate vicinity. So many people seem to miss that completely. My Civil Rights do not cease because the President (or anyone) is 1/4 mile away. Or even in the same county. Note also that none of those firearms was an "assault rifle".

[ProgressiveProfessor]

34. Mixed feelings

Training makes a world of difference in safety for all concerned. That said, we do not require training to exercise other rights.

Would you settle for very strongly recommended but not mandatory?

[VoteProgressive]

40. Sure, makes sense. Not sure about the "no training for other rights" part....

since guns are more dangerous than speech, etc. But see your point.

[Oneka]

41. No training required, but very strongly suggested.

Personally i think that there should be no ,.gov issued permission slip, required for carrying.

That being said. strapping on a pistol with no formal instruction on its safe use, is a potentially dangerous thing for both the carrier and the general public.

I strongly suggest to anyone who asks me about CCW in general, to take all the training they can get.

[Euromutt]

47. In an abstract sense, I'm for it, but the devil is (as always) in the details

There's been a few too many occurrences of training requirements being subverted to impose de facto gun bans by making the training too onerous to acquire (not pass, but acquire) unless you have connections for me to be comfortable with the idea of mandatory training requirements.

Moreover, I have to wonder whether the amount of training you can require an applicant to undergo, and the amount of time and money you can require him to spend on it, before it starts to verge on the prohibitive is enough to take the applicant beyond the stage where "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." It's been pointed out about quite a few types of cursory classes in areas of self-defense that they may do more harm than good, at least for certain students, by giving the students an unwarranted level of confidence.

Living in Washington state, I had no training requirement to get my Concealed Pistol License (CPL), but I tried to gather as much information as I could about the laws regarding use of lethal force in self-defense before I ever put the permit to use. It has been my intention for some time, when I have the time and money, to take the defensive pistol class as the Firearms Academy of Seattle (http://firearmsacademy.com/DefHdgn.htm). In the interim, being an autodidact is the best I can do, but I would argue that, because I know I haven't had to meet any legally imposed training requirement, I'm not overconfident about my skills in dealing with "dynamic critical incidents."

[VoteProgressive]

49. Nice post!

[cleanhippie]

66. When are you thinking of going?

I have wanted to take a class like that too (and definitely want my wife to take one). The Arlington course is closest to me. You? maybe we could meet up and go together?

[Euromutt]

95. I hadn't even thought of the Arlington location

I used to live in Oly, so Onalaska was the obvious choice, but now that I live in south King Co., I see it's half an hour shorter to go to Arlington, which gives it a distinct advantage. Let me get back to you via PM.

[rl6214]

54. You've got to have some sort of training

at least on the laws.

[aikoaiko]

59. It not a burning issue for me either way.

[RSillsbee]

60. The following states

Alaska, Arizona, Vermont. Mississippi, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Washington, Alabama, South Dakota, Wyoming, And others I am sure Require no training what so ever before issuing a permit.

No blood in the streets that I am aware of

[mvccd1000]

68. Arizona does require proof of training before issuing a permit.

They just don't require the issuing of a permit before concealed carrying. :)

[Atypical Liberal]

70. I don't think it's really necessary

All it would do is increase the costs for the State to administer CCW permits.

All the data on CCW permit holders shows that they are hardly ever involved in crime, and they hardly ever get their permits revoked.

I think firearm training is a good idea for everyone, but until CCW permit holders show themselves to be reckless, I don't think there is a problem with the current system.

[DWC]

71. Any State

has the authority to require a reasonable level of proficiency prior to the legal use of anything that can be harmful to the public - guns, motor vehicles,...included.

Any prudent individual recognizes the need for training and practice to effectively and safely use anything that can be harmful to the public - guns, motor vehicles,...included.

I firmly support gun safety training and competency testing for those utilizing firearms.

Semper Fi,

[VoteProgressive]

74. It is harder getting a drivers license in kansas than a gun license. Not right.

[PavePusher]

80. May I see your Thirteenth Amendment proof-of-training and licence, please? n/t

[VoteProgressive]

81. Jesus, that shit gets old. And helps the cause NOT AT ALL!

[PavePusher]

83. So, you don't have it?

Please hold out your wrists for these chains....

But seriously, what other Civil Rights do we need to provide proof of "training" for, pay a fee for, have a back-ground check for, provide finger-prints and/or photo I.D. for, or in some locations, are so strangled with "regulations" as to be beyond the reach of even the average Citizen, AND CAN BE ARRESTED FOR INDIVIDUALLY AND PEACEFULLY EXERCISING THAT RIGHT IN PUBLIC?!

Serious question looking for serious answers.

[VoteProgressive]

85. I'll repeat this again.....

All the amendments have limitations. Maybe the 2nd should have a training requirement. Not saying it should but it is debatable. Just like you can't carry a grenade launcher!

I am pro-gun but so damn sick of the 2nd amendment being spewed forth for every question about gun laws.

[PavePusher]

87. Actually, you can carry a grenade launcher.

The Second does not restrict it, and I know of no laws saying you can't.

[VoteProgressive]

88. OK....

Try carrying one with live grenades. See how that goes for you! :-) I doubt the NRA will tackle that issue.

Also interesting quote from Scalia....

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote concerning the entirety of the elements of the Second Amendment; "We find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." However, Scalia also continued, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

I think the extreme gun owners forget about limitations.

[PavePusher]

89. My view is that the limitations are as follows:

1. No indiscriminate weapons, i.e. weapons of mass destruction (nukes, bio's, non-directed chemicals)

2. You can bar weapons in places where security is provided and the owners/providers are financially liable for any harm that then is caused to me while under their protection.


That seems fair....

[VoteProgressive]

90. Well, you are what I would call the extreme side of the pro-gun cause. To each their own.

[PavePusher]

91. Well, if the meaning and intent of the Second are "extreme"... then I wear the title with pride. n/t

[VoteProgressive]

92. Good for you.

[DWC]

72. Deleted

deleted

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

75. I feel that way. In Ohio, I need no permit or training to carry a weapon openly...

I can walk into a gun store never having owned a gun and walk out 15 minutes later with a gun strapped to my hip. How does untucking my shirt to conceal that gun, in any way make it more dangerous or lethal, warrant the receipt of training and license? In all instances, the gun must become visible or unholstered to cause any harm. Hiding it merely serves to make my choice to carry private. After all, I'm carrying for myself... not others.

If I can carry openly with no training...
I should be able to carry concealed with no training.

[lawodevolution]

76. in grades 1-12

That's where the training and learning gun safety should occur. At least one year in high school should require time in PE to involve learning how to shoot, handle a firearm and safety and most importantly they need to learn that guns are for sport and self defense, not for crime.

Education is meant to teach us to function in our society. The USA has more guns than people and we are the most heavily armed society on earth, which is very significant, so obviously education needs to help prepare the young to live in a heavily armed society.

[VoteProgressive]

82. Disagree, many families do not have guns or want kids exposed. teach more math instead.

[PavePusher]

84. Combine gun safety, math and physics (ballistics is facsinating stuff). n/t

[VoteProgressive]

86. LOL....good one!

[Flyboy_451]

93. regardless of anyones desire to be exposed to firearms...

Basic Safety training cannot be a bad thing. Rather than teaching kids how to shoot, whether for target events, hunting or any other activity, limit training to only the safe handling of firearms. There is no bad that can come from this, but there is large potential for good. It is likely that the youth of today will eventually find themselves in a situation in which a gun is present. By teaching safe handling and proper safety measures, we stand a much better chance of preventing accidents, and unfortunate events.

Wouldn't you rather have kids that have been given proper training in safe handling, rather than relying on what they learn on TV and in movies? This is a matter in which ignorance is not bliss, and knowledge holds great power to prevent tragedy.

JW

[Flyboy_451]

94. should have mentioned this in my first post...

I understand that there are parents that do not want their kids exposed to firearms, but simply not owning them and telling their kids (and anyone else that will listen) how bad, useless or evil guns are, does not prevent exposure. Odds are that they will be exposed to firearms in some manner or another. Let's encourage that exposure to be positive in terms of value, by educating them rather than pretending that they will not be exposed if we all just think happy thoughts. Let's educate our kids rather than ineffectively shielding them from something that they are likely to come into contact with.

This is similar to the sex education debate. Those that claim sex ed. contributes to underage sex are doing exactly what those who oppose firearms safety instruction are doing. They are all leaving our kids unprepared for the moment when they are exposed to something that is likely. Solutions come from education, not denial. Denial will only lead to more violence, accidents and tragedy.

I hate to say it, but liberals seem to be notorious for acting as if they can solve problems with happy thoughts, feel good speeches and policies that fail to address the root problem, with regard to firearms. It is time to face the problem in a way that produces results, rather than trying to find a way to make people "feel better" about it without addressing the issue in any effective manner. Educate, prepare and make ready, our kids for the world that exists, not the world we wished existed.

JW

[jacquelope]

96. I own guns. I believe there should be a credible amount of training.

You need training to drive a car, right?