Chicago's Next Move - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39

Thread: Chicago's Next Move

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088
    Quote Originally Posted by utimmer43 View Post
    Yes, the FFs did believe that all should (not must) be well versed in the use of arms. They would never have tolerated training requirements as a condition of ownership, or of carrying for that matter.
    Why wouldn't they have it as a requirement? They never gave a musket to anyone in the army who had not been trained in the proper use of that weapon. As with the citizens who were not part of the military the father was to teach his sons how to use a firearm. It was just a common thing to do and the founders did not see the reason to have it written down as a requirement.

  2.   
  3. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by bigrebnc1861 View Post
    Why wouldn't they have it as a requirement? They never gave a musket to anyone in the army who had not been trained in the proper use of that weapon. As with the citizens who were not part of the military the father was to teach his sons how to use a firearm. It was just a common thing to do and the founders did not see the reason to have it written down as a requirement.
    This is one of the Anti's favorite arguments in all the restrictions they wish to impose.

    A right is unconditional. You are born with it. You cannot relinquish it. It is God given (or "natural" for you atheists), and not subject to further regulations.
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  4. #23
    handgonnetoter Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by bigrebnc1861 View Post
    One thing I agree with is the gun training course, everybody should be educated on the use an operation of any firearm. And I think the founding fathers would also agree with that point.
    I agree with you on that one. I wish we had to do a class and shooting test, here in Indiana, to get our CCW. I think, not for sure though, that if we did then Ohio would recognize my Indiana permit. As it is Indiana recognizes Ohio's, but not the other way around. The Ohio thing is big to me because I belong to a club over there, and it sure would be easier to just carry my hand gun than to gun lock it and store it separate from the ammo just to go shoot.

  5. #24
    wolfhunter Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by bigrebnc1861 View Post
    One thing I agree with is the gun training course, everybody should be educated on the use an operation of any firearm. And I think the founding fathers would also agree with that point.
    I agree that firearms training is important and that every gun owner should have training, but NOT as a condition of ownership! If the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is actually a RIGHT, the government, at any level, can only restrict that right IF the citizens allow it. If we allow a prohibition on ownership based on a level of training, we leave a loophole in the middle of our Right in the determination of the level of training required. Is a Hunter Safety course sufficient? Does it have to be a State certified course? How many hours? What curriculum? By requiring training as a prerequisite to ownership, you'd turn a Right into a regulated privilege. Claiming the founding fathers would've agreed is a cheap shot for the uneducated. The Signers of our founding documents had a strong leaning toward behavior based on personal responsibility not government legislation.

    Gun ownership and responsible, trained behavior should be our society's norm. The peer group of our neighborhoods should encourage us to be familiar and proficient. Discussions in our break and lunch rooms should involve practice techniques, course availability, and range days, just like those fisherman who sit around discussing lures, baits, knots/rigs, favorite locations, and techniques.

  6. #25
    handgonnetoter Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfhunter View Post
    I agree that firearms training is important and that every gun owner should have training, but NOT as a condition of ownership! If the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is actually a RIGHT, the government, at any level, can only restrict that right IF the citizens allow it. If we allow a prohibition on ownership based on a level of training, we leave a loophole in the middle of our Right in the determination of the level of training required. Is a Hunter Safety course sufficient? Does it have to be a State certified course? How many hours? What curriculum? By requiring training as a prerequisite to ownership, you'd turn a Right into a regulated privilege. Claiming the founding fathers would've agreed is a cheap shot for the uneducated. The Signers of our founding documents had a strong leaning toward behavior based on personal responsibility not government legislation.

    Gun ownership and responsible, trained behavior should be our society's norm. The peer group of our neighborhoods should encourage us to be familiar and proficient. Discussions in our break and lunch rooms should involve practice techniques, course availability, and range days, just like those fisherman who sit around discussing lures, baits, knots/rigs, favorite locations, and techniques.
    Well, I know what you mean, and agree. If I had to take a course just to be able to carry in Ohio, then I would, wether or not I agree with having to do the class. I think that is what I meant.

  7. #26
    wolfhunter Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by handgonnetoter View Post
    Well, I know what you mean, and agree. If I had to take a course just to be able to carry in Ohio, then I would, wether or not I agree with having to do the class. I think that is what I meant.
    Oh, I would take a class if that's what was required, but I'd work to get that restriction lifted, too. When I was in school there were discussions about requiring attendance until age 16 (some said 18). Some of the arguments against it came from private schools and home school groups. They felt that setting an attendance rule might leave room to specify which schools and what curriculum would qualify. Now we have that age 16 requirement and the home schools are required to meet certain State-approved standards and continuing discussion on further specifications and requirements from the State.

  8. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by handgonnetoter View Post
    Well, I know what you mean, and agree. If I had to take a course just to be able to carry in Ohio, then I would, wether or not I agree with having to do the class. I think that is what I meant.
    If that's all you're trying to do, a Utah permit is easy enough to get (4 hours classroom time/ no live fire), relatively cheap ($65+/- up front, $10 every 5 years thereafter), and honored in Ohio.
    The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson

  9. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by utimmer43 View Post
    Yes, the FFs did believe that all should (not must) be well versed in the use of arms. They would never have tolerated training requirements as a condition of ownership, or of carrying for that matter.
    Back in those days, you didn't have a choice. You were schooled in the use and maintenance of a firearm. Your LIFE depending on you knowing how to use it! It was part of growing up...just like potty training. LOL!

  10. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088
    Quote Originally Posted by utimmer43 View Post
    This is one of the Anti's favorite arguments in all the restrictions they wish to impose.

    A right is unconditional. You are born with it. You cannot relinquish it. It is God given (or "natural" for you atheists), and not subject to further regulations.
    Yes people have a right to defend themselves, but with rights come responsibilities. You're not being responsible getting a gun without having some type of training. And yes you can relinquish any right. A person who commits a crime worthy of death has relinquished his right to live. That is if I am understanding what you are tring to say when you use the word relinquish

  11. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088
    Quote Originally Posted by gov5 View Post
    back in those days, you didn't have a choice. You were schooled in the use and maintenance of a firearm. Your life depending on you knowing how to use it! It was part of growing up...just like potty training. Lol!
    agreed.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Reporting move
    By OldOwl in forum Massachusetts Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-14-2010, 05:01 PM
  2. Anyone move whithin the state?
    By thedub88 in forum Massachusetts Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-09-2009, 10:42 AM
  3. Considering a move to Nevada
    By mini.ben in forum Concealed Carry Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-13-2009, 09:18 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-17-2009, 05:59 PM
  5. Thinking about a move
    By tcotariu in forum Washington Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05-12-2008, 11:35 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast