Concealed Carry Myths - Page 2
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Concealed Carry Myths

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    and the press cannot print or report lies.


    Someone needs to tell the press that because they haven't received the message.
    Well, they aren't supposed to. :hilarious: I guess I need to change cannot to shouldn't.

  2.   
  3. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    and the press cannot print or report lies.


    Someone needs to tell the press that because they haven't received the message.
    boy wouldn't it be great if they did...
    You can have my freedom as soon as I'm done with it!!!

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,650
    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    I agree with the author's training requirement based on this limitation. I really don't care what you do in your home or on your property with guns. I think anyone should be able to have agun in their home and that 2A covers this completely without any kind of registration, or other restrictions. However once you walk out on the street in the public interacting with others then a different set of rules apply. Your rights end where mine begin and vice-versa. One's rights do not override those of another.

    You cannot go up and down the street shouting through a PA system at 2 am waking everyone up no matter what 1A says. You cannot peacebly assemble where my group has already assembled and the press cannot print or report lies. there are restrictions when it comes to the rights of others. 2A does not override the rights of others and once you step out of your house you then give up some of your 2A rights like it or not.
    You're absolutely right that having rights does not mean that someone can't be punished for using them irresponsibly or in a manner that harms others. However, I am still against a training requirement being required to exercise 2A. Look at Vermont and Alaska; has the lack of a training requirement ever made a difference in those states? What about the states that allow unlicensed open carry; has the lack of a permit or training requirement for open carry ever made a difference in those states?

    The point I'm trying to make is that, yes 2A is not absolute, but only insofar as long as the right is not abused; a law abiding citizen with no training who is carrying a concealed handgun hardly fits this definition. Everyone knows that RKBA does not give anyone the right to commit armed robbery, or the right to murder someone simply because you don't like them. A training requirement for law abiding citizens is not either in the word or the spirit of the Constitution; it is nothing more than an infringement, much like a training requirement for exercising free speech. Yes, acquiring training, whether in a formal classroom setting or with the help of a knowledgeable friend or relative, is always a good idea, but one's right to keep and bear arms, whether at home or out in public, should never be denied due to a lack of it.
    Last edited by tattedupboy; 05-28-2008 at 05:01 PM.

  5. I can see your point with the training requirement however if it is not a requirement in the state I see no reason th change it. In WA state it is not a requirement and in my case I have been shooting guns my whole life. I have served 22 years in the Marines and been in a couple of wars even had to put rounds down range on occaision so I would not feel I needed to take a course. However if I was required to by law I would. I guess I am just saying I'd do it if I had to but would rather not have to.
    ["Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
    - Ben Franklin
    FONT]

  6. #15
    Gunny - People get all upset any time you mention training or certification requirements and start to state all kinds of objections and rights. I was in a CWP certification course with two ladies that when we had to demonstrate our proficiency at the range, out of 50 rounds each at 3 yards, together they hit the target (full size silhouette) 3 times. That is 3 out of 100 rounds. Neither one could ever fire the gun without closing their eyes and looking away. I don't care about what they do in their home but I really do not want to be near them in a Wal-Mart if they decide to try to take out a BG.

    There is a difference between training and certification. Most people have no idea of the laws, I mean everyone knows if you shoot someone outside your house you are supposed to drag them back inside. Just some kind of certification that you know the difference between murder and self-defense, and which end of the gun the bullet comes out of is all I care about if you are going to be out in the public with your gun.

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    +1 I feel that due to ever changing laws that gun owners should get some type of training on the law on a regular basis. A good example would be the state of NV. Up until January of this year, you needed a NV CFP if you wanted to carry a concealed firearm in NV. Nevada didn't recognize carry permits from other states. As of January of this year, NV recognizes many carry permits from out of state. The "big 3" used to be FL, NV and UT. Now it's down to the "big 2".

    My point is that laws change, so some formal training wouldn't be a bad idea.



    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  8. #17
    I was in a pawn shop looking their guns and started talking to this lady. She said that her nephew had given her a shotgun for protection and showed her how to fire it. I asked if she had ever shot it and she said no and that she really didn't need to because her nephew was going to trade teh shotgun for a Glock. I sort of nodded and she then asked "What is a Glock"? I said it was a brand of pistol. She said "What do you mean pistol?"

    I really hope her nephew takes her out to the firing range before she decides that she needs to carry it to Wal-Mart for protection.:icon_cry:

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Honolulu, HI & Salt Lake City, UT
    Posts
    2,797
    Too scary! This is a sure way of getting into trouble REALLY fast!





    gf
    "A few well placed shots with a .22LR is a lot better than a bunch of solid misses with a .44 mag!" Glock Armorer, NRA Chief RSO, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Muzzleloading Rifle, Muzzleloading Shotgun, and Home Firearm Safety Training Counselor

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Иєш Лєяжşєşŧăŋ
    Posts
    1,084
    Forgive me for butting in, but I've been following this thread for a bit, and I think there's a basic misunderstanding at work.

    There is no...and there should BE no...restriction on a "Right". It's yours, a gift from God, to do with as you please, just because. No tests, no qualifications, and no further requirements.

    However...

    While everyone has (or SHOULD have) the Right to own and wear a firearm if they so choose (in my opinion), that doesn't mean that everyone should exercise it. Some people shouldn't be driving a car. Certainly some people shouldn't be voicing their poisonous, vile opinions to the public. Some people shouldn't vote! In fact, some people shouldn't even PROCREATE!!

    But they have that right (or 'privilege' in the case of driving). If someone demonstrates while being trained that they have zero aptitude for a certain activity...shooting, driving, whatever...they should be councelled that they should perhaps abandon their efforts and told why.

    Yes, my Rights stop where your begin, but which of your Rights is abridged because I choose to wear a sidearm, concealed, while walking down the same street with you? How are you to even know I'm wearing it unless conditions dictate that I have to employ it, either for my own safety or, perhaps, yours?

    Sorry, but I have to echo Ted Nugent: "The 2nd Amendment IS my Concealed Carry permit." I need no other.
    NRA Life; GOA Life; CCRKBA Life; Trustee, NJCSD; F&AM: 32 & KT
    The Only Answer to a Bad Guy with a Gun - Is a Good Guy with a Gun!
    When Seconds Count...The Police are only MINUTES Away!

  11. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Ektarr View Post
    Forgive me for butting in, but I've been following this thread for a bit, and I think there's a basic misunderstanding at work.

    There is no...and there should BE no...restriction on a "Right". It's yours, a gift from God, to do with as you please, just because. No tests, no qualifications, and no further requirements.

    However...

    While everyone has (or SHOULD have) the Right to own and wear a firearm if they so choose (in my opinion), that doesn't mean that everyone should exercise it. Some people shouldn't be driving a car. Certainly some people shouldn't be voicing their poisonous, vile opinions to the public. Some people shouldn't vote! In fact, some people shouldn't even PROCREATE!!

    But they have that right (or 'privilege' in the case of driving). If someone demonstrates while being trained that they have zero aptitude for a certain activity...shooting, driving, whatever...they should be councelled that they should perhaps abandon their efforts and told why.

    Yes, my Rights stop where your begin, but which of your Rights is abridged because I choose to wear a sidearm, concealed, while walking down the same street with you? How are you to even know I'm wearing it unless conditions dictate that I have to employ it, either for my own safety or, perhaps, yours?

    Sorry, but I have to echo Ted Nugent: "The 2nd Amendment IS my Concealed Carry permit." I need no other.
    Hello Ektarr, no one butts into a conversation here and I believe you and I may have discussed this before. While rights are God given, no right is unlimited each comes with an equally great responsibility. Since there are many who abuse rights, this is where laws come into play. An example would be the right to peacefully gather. The limits on this would be not blocking a public road or doing so on private property, etc. Free speech limits would be no slander, no inciting a group to a riot or lynching, etc. We all believe in the 2A and some are very passionate about it. While I believe all law abiding citizens have the RKBA, there are some limitations on that right just as any other. God gave us those rights but he also gave us free will and that's where problems arise.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

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