i sent this letter my sheriff

[El Pablo]

The one thing about the internet and typing things is that some things get lost in between. It gets me in trouble all the time. How about a few quotes from famous twitts like our fraudulent fake commander in chief, Come on maaaaan. Or like the riot idol of 1992 Rodney King, can’t we all get along? Or like my favorite from Ron Burgundy of the Anchorman, I agree to disagree.

60% of the time it works everytime.

 

[El Pablo]

That's pretty much what a license is... permission from the government to do something. In the past, the government didn't DO the training, but they required it and defined it before they would issue the license.

You're obviously not alone in it, but you're probably in a minority on a gun forum at least as far as the government requiring it. I think almost, if not all of us would agree that training is an important part of ownership. As they said in my cc class years ago, "I'm absolutely in favor of training. Government regulated training, not so much."

Typically a license means you show minimum proficiency to do X. Gun owners don’t have the equivalent of the bar, etc. I wouldn’t use an unlicensed lawyer, dr, pharmacist, electrician…..

At church, I think I’m more likely to be shot in the back by ccw holders than a gunman, in the case of an active shooter. The number of people that don’t practice, aside from running their mouth or keyboard, is rather shocking.

(I see both sides of this argument, but don’t favor government mandated/controlled licensing. If it was a 3rd party… I’d at least consider it.)

 

[Aries]

The constitution doesn't say that your right to be a doctor, lawyer, or pharmacist shall not be infringed. The 2nd amendment was written so that in extreme circumstances the people would have the means to resist the government, but licenses mean that we must get permission from the government to be able to resist them. Therein lies the problem.

 

[JoeUSooner]

If this is off topic I apologize. But the story states,

"Troyke then armed himself with an AR-15 and ran towards the town square. A bystander, John Hurley, 40, drew a handgun and shot Troyke dead.
Hurley picked up Troyke’s weapon. The Arvada police chief, Link Strate, said what happened next was “tragic”."

Is there a reason for Hurley to pick up Troyke's AR? And then be holding it when other officers arrived? I'm not sure of procedure, but wouldn't it be better to just kick the weapon out of reach if you didn't know the person was dead or not.

Kick the firearm away, yes. If possible, have a trusted person step on it (to prevent anyone else from "acquiring" it).

 

[Chuckie]

Just wear a white cowboy hat so everyone knows you're a good dude. Only outlaws and bandits wear black hats right?

Yup, except for Hopalong Cassidy, Paladin (Have Gun Will Travel), Bat Masterson, 'Little Joe' (Bonanza), 'Billy the Kid', . . .

 

[Chuckie]

Hahahahaha. You must’ve taken a wrong turn and got me mixed up with someone else. The time to stand for freedom is always and now is one of those times. I love the fact that call me a troll and lib, yet here you are wanting to restrict a RIGHT on a FIREARM forum. That’s genuinely hilarious and a riot.

I fully agree with our Right to Constitutional Carry for the vast majority of gun owners, but I have to agree with 'cdschoonie' only in the sense that a very small percentage of people should not be allowed to carry weapons without having first gone through some type of hunter safety, firearm safety, or psylchological evaluation. Lets face it, not everyone is emotionally, psychologically, or physically capable of handling firearms safely.

 

[Chuckie]

I don't generally wish to go back to the 'old days' but in this instance it would be nice if we could go back to when firearm training was a providence of parents teaching their children.

 

[chuter]

Oh no, not what I suggested at all…The only thing I suggested the government be in charge of, is the requirement of the license, as they did up to a couple years ago. The training for ccw comes from licensed trainers, other experienced gun owners. I said people should get the training to know what they’re doing with a firearm, I stand by that. If I’m alone in that, which is unbelievable, so be it, but it’s shocking to think that’s the case.

I used to be licensed to teach the handgun license classes, but I let it lapse after only teaching a couple of classes for acquaintances.
I've sat through other classes where I know the people that left with a certificate were no better at gun handling than when they walked in the door.
Some instructors are just crappy.

The instructor is supposed to be the firewall between gun owners and the public; they're supposed to verify that people in the class don't graduate unless they demonstrate knowledge of gun safety (written test) and the ability to handle a gun safely (demonstrated at the range).
Some instructors and students just want to breeze thru the class and get it over with.

I knew I would flunk too many people.

My point is; those classes did not guarantee people "know what they are doing with a firearm".

 

[cdschoonie]

I fully agree with our Right to Constitutional Carry for the vast majority of gun owners, but I have to agree with 'cdschoonie' only in the sense that a very small percentage of people should not be allowed to carry weapons without having first gone through some type of hunter safety, firearm safety, or psylchological evaluation. Lets face it, not everyone is emotionally, psychologically, or physically capable of handling firearms safely.

This is what I meant

 

[MacFromOK]

And thus "shall not be infringed" becomes "just a little infringed" ...

I agree that some training is preferred, but I have a serious problem with the right to self-defense (acknowledged by the 2nd amendment) being subject to restrictions. Self-defense isn't a privilige (like driving), it's THE basic right of self-preservation to everyone in a free society.

As usual, just my 2¢ ...
-