But finding the money to pay for the ballot is not the problem and we all know it.
But finding the money to pay for the ballot is not the problem and we all know it.
Possibly not, but, it would prove a point.. If "someone" would declare that they have the money, for the ballot, and be prepared to introduce it..
Would put the ball back in the court of the individuals not interested in allowing "the people" to govern themselves.. Is what I'm getting at.
And identify the holes in thier proclomations of how complex, legislating the republic, does not have to be.
I'm in a rare mood of playing devils advocate and presenting in questions..
forgive me.. lol
A2 says what it says.
BTW.... I am on record in this forum, willing accept last years vetoed bill or this years SB129 as an interim solution until the People of Oklahoma finally stand up for their rights.
Right now most of us play along and are willing to pay to keep a weapon within reach.
If that card makes you feel better it should. We get investigated harder than most small town cops are. Many of us pay for firearms training that exceeds CLEET standards also.
All y'all need to show me what's so scary . The blood in the streets you fear is always caused by criminals committing crimes in OC states.
BTW.... I am on record in this forum, willing accept last years vetoed bill or this years SB129 as an interim solution until the People of Oklahoma finally stand up for their rights.
Right now most of us play along and are willing to pay to keep a weapon within reach.
If that card makes you feel better it should. We get investigated harder than most small town cops are. Many of us pay for firearms training that exceeds CLEET standards also.
All y'all need to show me what's so scary . The blood in the streets you fear is always caused by criminals committing crimes in OC states.
It's not the "blood in the streets" argument for me. I just happen to believe that it is better to carry concealed and that the CCW law doesn't go far enough in terms of training requirements for those who want to carry. And again, I will freely admit that my own personal experience brought me to that opinion. I STILL have nightmares about the SDA classes I helped run. No kidding.
That said ... I do very much understand and sympathize with those of you who believe that the fact that there is even a law regulating carry AT ALL is not right. There was a time when I agreed completely with you. Then I worked at a gun range ... good golly ...
I will be the first to admit there is no easy answer to all this mess. In a perfect world I would LOVE to be able to buy what I want, when I want, and carry it however I want and just leave each to their own. Unfortunately there are too many idiots and power mongers out there and the rest of us are caught in the crossfire between the two.
Pfft ... the politicians would NEVER stand for it.
Oh shi---, did my thread start something?
lol ... nothing like good old internet butt hurt ...
Ehhhh ... I don't see it changing that drastically in my lifetime ... time will tell though, I guess.
Part of the problem is that our society as a whole has been convinced that the 2A is obsolete. That we have a standing military force to replace the militia and that the common man thus has no need for arms.
The words above in bold are rarely discussed these days. The founders wrote extensively that they were against having a standing military with the sole exception of a navy, which by virtue of it's design, would be hard pressed in that era to move inland where the people abided and thus less of a threat than a standing army. The founders viewed the militia as the body of people holding their privately owned arms. The militia was to be regulated... made regular and uniform for cohesiveness... and seperate from government until such a time they might be needed for defensive purposes.
As our society has become less inclined to own firearms, so has the desire of the people to maintain their role in the militia system. As a result, we now have a standing military and "select militias" (state run military forces) which our founders feared. And which we know would be called upon to suppress any of us who exercised our right to carry as affirmed by the 2A.
There are plenty of folks who shouldn't carry a firearm until properly trained. Because we no longer use the militia system (it's demonized by the media, politicians and ignorant citizens), the proper training of arms is becoming a lost skill for the vast majority of citizens. I view my involvement in the shooting sports as a means of increasing my skills and in a round about way this is in a sense a means of militia training.
Anytime we allow the state to mandate training of arms then we give up a part of our right to carry arms. Eventually, politicians being the scum they are, they'll usurp all the gun rights we have in order to achieve their goal of power and control of the people. And then move onto the other unalienable rights.
Training in the use of arms is a common sense idea. However, I don't believe for a minute it is the place of government to provide that training. It's up the fathers, brothers, husbands, sister, daughters and mothers who already know how to handle firearms safely to pass this knowledge onto the next generation. Keep government out of the equation entirely so that no free citizen has to bow to government nor ask for government's blessing. It's been done with public education with piss poor results which we are payinf for today and for generations to come.
BB.... Travel in those less restrictive states a while. You won't see an open gun outside of hunting season, a cowboy at Walmart, or a jacketless man in a barbers chair.
About as many folks use the OC right as Ccw people dont exercise theirs after paying for the privilege.
