SC CWP range test question - Page 4
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: SC CWP range test question

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    If there was an amendment in the Constitution that said "the right of the people to own and drive cars shall not be infringed", them yes I would find licensing drivers ridiculous. Yes there are safety concerns, but that's why rather than REQUIRING people to get training, make it an everyday part of society to educate children and adults about the proper use of firearms. When you give the states the ability to require permitting, you allow them to be able to pick and choose who has the ability to take advantage of their 2nd amendment right. What if you had a single, underclass mom or dad who works 2 jobs and between those jobs he worked 7 days a week. They do not have the time nor the money to take a day off and spend $50 plus the cost of the class to go through that process. The state is then denying them of their right to bear arms based on their current situation. How do you justify that?
    Good argument, although my example of some of the people out there who have no idea about what they are handling and even less about what they are shooting is very scary. Your idea that every part of society should somehow educate is just a lot of words that dismiss reality of gun ownership, particularly as it relates to this thread, which is dealing with concealed carry. I sure hate to use this argument since I find it salacious when used in the context of dismissing 2A with the "colonial times and long rifles mean nothing these days" crap, but I have serious doubts that our founding fathers, when using the language "shall not be infringed", meant that anyone who is incompetent, ignorant or stupid in firearm usage should be allowed to CC a firearm. Own one on their property--yes. Find it necessary to throw out the garbage we have now in DC--yes. Just walk the streets--no.

  2.   
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by kelcarry View Post
    Good argument, although my example of some of the people out there who have no idea about what they are handling and even less about what they are shooting is very scary. Your idea that every part of society should somehow educate is just a lot of words that dismiss reality of gun ownership, particularly as it relates to this thread, which is dealing with concealed carry. I sure hate to use this argument since I find it salacious when used in the context of dismissing 2A with the "colonial times and long rifles mean nothing these days" crap, but I have serious doubts that our founding fathers, when using the language "shall not be infringed", meant that anyone who is incompetent, ignorant or stupid in firearm usage should be allowed to CC a firearm. Own one on their property--yes. Find it necessary to throw out the garbage we have now in DC--yes. Just walk the streets--no.
    What do you think they meant with the second amendment? It seems pretty clear to me, and the gun grabbers seem to interpret it in a completly different way. What do you think it means?

    Also, I realized I hadn't quoted your post with my rebuttal above. Apologies if it wasn't clear that my questions were directed at you.

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Greenville SC
    Posts
    1,086
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by John Canuck View Post
    The easy answer is to remove the requirement to "qualify" to exercise a basic, inalienable right. Lot's of states allow the carry of a firearm with no training, permit or nannying and it works for them. Let's get SC with the program.
    I could agree with that. Provided there are stiff penalties for killing or injuring someone due to negligence. If you hurt someone and can't demonstrate proficiency, let there be harsh punishment.

    Sent from my Xoom using Tapatalk 2
    Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

  5. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by kerb View Post
    I could agree with that. Provided there are stiff penalties for killing or injuring someone due to negligence. If you hurt someone and can't demonstrate proficiency, let there be harsh punishment.
    What should the penalty be for being negligent and killing someone? Should it be the same now even though there is an 8 hour course required to exercise a right, or should you get a pass because you took that course?

    Remember Crystal Smith? Woman Released From Hospital After Shooting At CWP Class | WYFF Home - WYFF Home

    Apparently, being a teacher of this fantastic course doesn't make you any less negligent.

  6. Quote Originally Posted by kelcarry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    If there was an amendment in the Constitution that said "the right of the people to own and drive cars shall not be infringed", them yes I would find licensing drivers ridiculous. Yes there are safety concerns, but that's why rather than REQUIRING people to get training, make it an everyday part of society to educate children and adults about the proper use of firearms. When you give the states the ability to require permitting, you allow them to be able to pick and choose who has the ability to take advantage of their 2nd amendment right. What if you had a single, underclass mom or dad who works 2 jobs and between those jobs he worked 7 days a week. They do not have the time nor the money to take a day off and spend $50 plus the cost of the class to go through that process. The state is then denying them of their right to bear arms based on their current situation. How do you justify that?
    Good argument, although my example of some of the people out there who have no idea about what they are handling and even less about what they are shooting is very scary. Your idea that every part of society should somehow educate is just a lot of words that dismiss reality of gun ownership, particularly as it relates to this thread, which is dealing with concealed carry. I sure hate to use this argument since I find it salacious when used in the context of dismissing 2A with the "colonial times and long rifles mean nothing these days" crap, but I have serious doubts that our founding fathers, when using the language "shall not be infringed", meant that anyone who is incompetent, ignorant or stupid in firearm usage should be allowed to CC a firearm. Own one on their property--yes. Find it necessary to throw out the garbage we have now in DC--yes. Just walk the streets--no.
    Well the fact of the matter is the founding fathers aren't here to defend or explain "what they meant". So we can sit here and "I think they meant this" and "I think they meant that"-"" day long, but in my opinion it should be "interpreted" just as it reads. Because when you start interpreting, everyone is going to have a different interpretation. Who's right? I say me, and you say you, and everyone else is going to say they are.

    But my fiancé had pretty much the same concerns you do. She didn't think just anyone should be able to carry a gun. She's not very fluent on how to use a lot of guns and she's not near as involved in the recreational or political aspect that I am. So I asked her "would you carry a gun around with you right now?" She said no, and when I asked why, she said because she would not feel comfortable since she probably wouldn't even know how to use it. So then I just explained to her why she just proved my point that there would not be any more danger in letting people carry without training than with. Because the fact of the matter is, the majority of people who want to take on that type of responsibility are interested in learning as much as they can about it. And most people who are not comfortable or competent in using a gun will most likely choose not to carry one.

    A lot of people have this notion that we are trying to "force" guns on people by passing this type of law. All I want is for people to have the CHOICE...the right to choose self defense over vulnerability. I still have respect for anyone who does not want to carry a gun or does not want to own one. However I have zero respect for anyone that does not want me to carry or own a gun of any type.

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,388
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    Because the fact of the matter is, the majority of people who want to take on that type of responsibility are interested in learning as much as they can about it. And most people who are not comfortable or competent in using a gun will most likely choose not to carry one.
    I disagree. That is not "the fact of the matter". You are making a very big assumption that you cannot prove in any way, shape or form. Look I agree with you on 2A, but there has got to be some way to (and I hate to use the word control just like you) to control the ability of the totally irresponsible and mentally incompetent from just walking around among us with concealed weapons under a CCWP. I see what is happening in NY, where this "CONTROL" is, in and of itself, out of control and I guess I am agreeing with you in the end--there may never be a way to have some control that does not involve those very people 2A is trying to eliminate from our lives. It just scares me to see some people out there and have thoughts that they are a mini-second away from killing me because "they heard a voice" or did not know their was a cartridge in the chamber when they pulled it out to show someone.

  8. #37
    The open list of question with regard to flawed premises continues to grow.

    How are the people controlled in states where the government doesn't do it?

  9. Quote Originally Posted by kelcarry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    Because the fact of the matter is, the majority of people who want to take on that type of responsibility are interested in learning as much as they can about it. And most people who are not comfortable or competent in using a gun will most likely choose not to carry one.
    I disagree. That is not "the fact of the matter". You are making a very big assumption that you cannot prove in any way, shape or form. Look I agree with you on 2A, but there has got to be some way to (and I hate to use the word control just like you) to control the ability of the totally irresponsible and mentally incompetent from just walking around among us with concealed weapons under a CCWP. I see what is happening in NY, where this "CONTROL" is, in and of itself, out of control and I guess I am agreeing with you in the end--there may never be a way to have some control that does not involve those very people 2A is trying to eliminate from our lives. It just scares me to see some people out there and have thoughts that they are a mini-second away from killing me because "they heard a voice" or did not know their was a cartridge in the chamber when they pulled it out to show someone.
    The answer to that is you will never control the irresponsible and mentally unstable. But does that mean that if you can't come up with an effective method to do so you should restrict the people who are responsible and mentally stable? And I think you missed my point about people wanting to educate themselves on gun safety. In my opinion it is a sense of responsibility that drives the majority of people people who carry a gun to do so. A responsibility to do what is necessary to defend myself, my family, my friends, and others who may not be able to defend themselves. I think the people who lack the responsibility to educate and train themselves on proficient and safe gun use probably also lack the responsibility to carry in the first place. We need to lose this concept that the people who carry do so because they have this fantasy of getting in some sort of "wild west shootout". Rather than putting so much effort into trying to "control" who can get a gun, put that effort into prosecuting and burying those who misuse them.

  10. #39
    You shoot 50 rounds total. [email protected] feet, 10 @10 feet, [email protected] feet, [email protected] feet, and [email protected] feet. 5 rounds at a time and there isn't any time limit. You're also told to aim for high 8's. I scored a 96 in the range and a 96 on the written. You must score at least a 70 on each portion. The high 8 was obliterated, hanging on by a thread lol. Hope this helps. Good luck

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

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