testtest

My understanding of the 2nd and my rights with it

Bassbob

Professional
2nd Amendment.jpg

Admin Note: This thread has been started from a conversation in another thread. The title has been given to best fit the general conversation topic. This thread is to only discuss the following topics (The 2nd Amendment Rights as they pertain to CCW and general laws) PLEASE keep this thread on this topic!!!!!
Thank you,
Forum Admin

I got my first and (only) concealed carry permit in Texas in 2015 at that time it was concealed carry only, on January 1st 2016 they passed the law that you can open carry only with a concealed carry permit which meant training was required. SMART!!
Of Course I was living in Kentucky officially as of 01/04/2016 which is a constitutional carry state which basically means anyone allowed by law even idiots can by a gun and a holster and open/conceal carry without any training whatsoever. STUPID.
Ok don’t get me wrong I believe in the right to keep and bear arms and will push/fight for the continuation of the those right but I do believe that training is paramount for that safe polite society.
I don't believe the 2A says anything even remotely like " The government can force you to pass a training course they design in order to defend yourself and your loved ones with a firearm." In fact, forcing people to meet criteria and then pay a recurring fee is not something you should have to do to exercise a constitutional right. That's paying the government for a privilege.

Like I said, Draconian.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

JCJ

Operator
I don't believe the 2A says anything even remotely like " The government can force you to pass a training course they design in order to defend yourself and your loved ones with a firearm." In fact, forcing people to meet criteria and then pay a recurring fee is not something you should have to do to exercise a constitutional right. That's paying the government for a privilege.

Like I said, Draconian.
2A is written in a very broad sense. When the Constitution was written, it had simple times in mind meaning a person that lived on a farm had the right to protect his family, chickens horses and goats. The authors of the that document didnt account for some idiot with an axe to grind taking shots at people in traffic because someone changed lanes without using a turn signal or some person looking for attention shooting up an elementary school. Not everyone is mature enough emotionally stable enough to responsibly bear arms if we truly honest with ourselves. Just like having a driver's license, being able to lawfully carry a weapon is a privilege. The bar is set pretty low to enjoy that privilege/right but there should be a bar of some sort.
 

Bassbob

Professional
2A is written in a very broad sense. When the Constitution was written, it had simple times in mind meaning a person that lived on a farm had the right to protect his family, chickens horses and goats. The authors of the that document didnt account for some idiot with an axe to grind taking shots at people in traffic because someone changed lanes without using a turn signal or some person looking for attention shooting up an elementary school. Not everyone is mature enough emotionally stable enough to responsibly bear arms if we truly honest with ourselves. Just like having a driver's license, being able to lawfully carry a weapon is a privilege. The bar is set pretty low to enjoy that privilege/right but there should be a bar of some sort.

Sorry but that's BS. Read the three drafts of the 2A that preceded the final draft. The 2A is NOT a privilege.

Don't misunderstand my position on this. I think all responsible people should be trained and should continually train, but I absolutely oppose any government mandate requiring it. The first amendment is pretty dangerous too. Should we have mandated training for that? The 2A is a constitutional right. Nothing in the bill of rights outlines what YOU are allowed to do. It mandates what the government is NOT allowed to do.

The 2A is in no way comparable to a driver's license. And no offense, but our founding fathers codified this sort of thing on purpose, so your opinion and Keystone's opinion have zero relevance on everyone else's rights.

Hell, it was written when muskets were the arms of the day. You selling all your guns and buying a flintlock?
 

papa

Professional
Founding Member
2A is written in a very broad sense. When the Constitution was written, it had simple times in mind meaning a person that lived on a farm had the right to protect his family, chickens horses and goats. The authors of the that document didnt account for some idiot with an axe to grind taking shots at people in traffic because someone changed lanes without using a turn signal or some person looking for attention shooting up an elementary school. Not everyone is mature enough emotionally stable enough to responsibly bear arms if we truly honest with ourselves. Just like having a driver's license, being able to lawfully carry a weapon is a privilege. The bar is set pretty low to enjoy that privilege/right but there should be a bar of some sort.
Just my honest opinion , if a person has been in jail / prison and has been returned to the general population then all rights should be returned to that person. If they are not safe enough to be allowed to own and carry a firearm then they should not be out among the general population.
 

jumpinjoe

Custom
2A is written in a very broad sense. When the Constitution was written, it had simple times in mind meaning a person that lived on a farm had the right to protect his family, chickens horses and goats. The authors of the that document didnt account for some idiot with an axe to grind taking shots at people in traffic because someone changed lanes without using a turn signal or some person looking for attention shooting up an elementary school. Not everyone is mature enough emotionally stable enough to responsibly bear arms if we truly honest with ourselves. Just like having a driver's license, being able to lawfully carry a weapon is a privilege. The bar is set pretty low to enjoy that privilege/right but there should be a bar of some sort.
With all due respect this is the kind of thinking that scares me to death. It's also the kind of thinking that gives liberals/anti 2nd amendment folks the boldness to do everything in their power to limit my/your 2nd amendment rights.

Nowhere in the 2nd does it say anything about a person protecting his chickens, horses and goats. Neither did it say anything about some idiot with an axe to grind or some mental case shooting up elementary schools. What it did say was the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms "SHALL" not be infringed. The founders knew there would be instances of which you speak, but the RIGHT of the people was far more important! Our constitution GUARANTEES our freedom, not our safety.

The only correct statement you've made was ..... "Not everyone is mature enough emotionally stable enough to responsibly bear arms if we truly honest with ourselves." Of course not everyone is not fit to exercise 2nd amendment rights, but that in NO WAY should be used as an excuse to limit and/or infringe on that right to others. Do we limit the 1st just because some idiot smears feces on a statuette of the virgin Mary? Of course we don't.

The answer is to take those others, whether violent criminals, crazies, or druggies out of our civilized society permanently, just like was done when the founders wrote the B of R's and the constitution. Jails, prisons, mental institutions, drug rehabs, etc. Slapping these offenders on the hand and turning them back onto society, otherwise called 'mainstreaming' them is in itself insane and should be a criminal offense.

And then this ....... "Just like having a driver's license, being able to lawfully carry a weapon is a privilege." Lawfully carrying a gun/weapon is in NO WAY just like a driver's license, or even a little bit like a driver's license. It's a guaranteed RIGHT where driving is a PRIVILEGE. Let me share with you how to determine a right ..........

There is a simple rule for deciding whether something is a right.

That is, if another human must provide it for you, then it is not a right. Based on that simple rule, the following are not rights — food, housing, education, medicine, medical care, medical insurance, cell phones, Internet, transportation.
By the same rule, here are some true rights — speaking, writing, worshiping, living, deciding how to utilize personal assets that have been lawfully earned through your own ingenuity or labor. (living would address self defense)

The founders wrote about true rights and that “governments are instituted among men to secure these rights.”

We have police departments to secure those rights from other individuals. We have a defense department to secure those rights from other countries. We have a Constitution to secure those rights from our own government.

Now everything I've written above in no way is to be fussing at you, only offering another point of view. A POV that has maintained this county's standing among all other countries of the world as the best, the most noble, the most giving, and without question the most FREE country on the earth.

And if I wasn't clear enough above let me offer this ...... I in no way approve of a society where we condone, coddle, and/or make excuses for those you and I both agree should not be allowed to 'keep and bear arms'. But those are the folks who have shown they're not worthy and have themselves forfeited their right to keep and bear. I've already said those should be taken out of a civilized society, and not returned, and if violent offenders, should never have their 2nd amendment rights returned.

All others, those of us who strive to live right and do the right thing, should take responsibility for themselves and their actions and get the proper training without being forced or mandated or having limits set. Once limits, or force, or a mandate is introduced, it's no longer a RIGHT because someone else is allowing it, regulating it, or providing it. What do you know ...... that's the very first sentence in the definition of a RIGHT above.

Hope you take this in the way it was intended, as another POV. Not as an argument.
 

jumpinjoe

Custom
Just my honest opinion , if a person has been in jail / prison and has been returned to the general population then all rights should be returned to that person. If they are not safe enough to be allowed to own and carry a firearm then they should not be out among the general population.
I can agree with this to an extent papa. If their conviction was for a non-violent crime, like embezzlement or something similar, then yes, when they've 'paid their debt to society' their rights should be restored. The hard part to that is that our constitution conditions how they will/can lose their rights but it doesn't condition how, or even if they should ever be restored. It's a hard argument to make that we adhere to the constitution on one condition but not the other.

What I'd like to see and what I think should happen is for our 'illustrious' congressmen/women get off their azzes and throw out about a million useless and unworkable laws, and then develop new, enforceable laws to address just this type of issue. If a felon's convictions were due to shootings, armed robbery, armed assault, drug dealing, or other violent offenses against other human beings or humanity in general, etc, etc, then not NO, but hell NO should their rights be restored. The key is whether their offense was violent or not. And included in those new laws should be one that allows us to unseat any judge who resorts to legislating from the bench instead of ruling from that bench.

As for the mentally defective and/or insane .... there should be some recourse towards anyone who accepts the responsibility of proclaiming when/if a mentally unstable person should ever walk among society again. The way it is today there is no reason for anyone who makes those decisions to feel any responsibility for what his/her decisions ultimately may lead to. I'm all for real mental rehabilitation, but not just to turn these folks out onto society with a 'hope and a prayer' they'll continue to take their meds and or continue their programs. That's not 'rehabilitation', that's 'mainstreaming'. It's sad there are these people with these types of afflictions, but it should not be dropped onto the rest of society.

I'm pretty sure you're thinking about the same as I've written here when you said "If they are not safe enough to be allowed to own and carry a firearm then they should not be out among the general population." and in all honesty it can't be said much clearer. The problem is who among us are in a position to make the decision as to when 'are they safe enough'? And especially with the weak, unenforceable, laws currently on the books, and so many judges who are ready, willing, and more than able to legislate from the bench rather than rule according to our laws..
 

JCJ

Operator
Sorry but that's BS. Read the three drafts of the 2A that preceded the final draft. The 2A is NOT a privilege.

Don't misunderstand my position on this. I think all responsible people should be trained and should continually train, but I absolutely oppose any government mandate requiring it. The first amendment is pretty dangerous too. Should we have mandated training for that? The 2A is a constitutional right. Nothing in the bill of rights outlines what YOU are allowed to do. It mandates what the government is NOT allowed to do.

The 2A is in no way comparable to a driver's license. And no offense, but our founding fathers codified this sort of thing on purpose, so your opinion and Keystone's opinion have zero relevance on everyone else's rights.

Hell, it was written when muskets were the arms of the day. You selling all your guns and buying a flintlock?
No, not selling my guns and buying a flintlock. We can agree to disagree on the points you raised. I am personally confident that the government will NEVER have us give up our guns. I don't lose sleep over that. That's just rhetoric.
 

JCJ

Operator
With all due respect this is the kind of thinking that scares me to death. It's also the kind of thinking that gives liberals/anti 2nd amendment folks the boldness to do everything in their power to limit my/your 2nd amendment rights.

Nowhere in the 2nd does it say anything about a person protecting his chickens, horses and goats. Neither did it say anything about some idiot with an axe to grind or some mental case shooting up elementary schools. What it did say was the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms "SHALL" not be infringed. The founders knew there would be instances of which you speak, but the RIGHT of the people was far more important! Our constitution GUARANTEES our freedom, not our safety.

The only correct statement you've made was ..... "Not everyone is mature enough emotionally stable enough to responsibly bear arms if we truly honest with ourselves." Of course not everyone is not fit to exercise 2nd amendment rights, but that in NO WAY should be used as an excuse to limit and/or infringe on that right to others. Do we limit the 1st just because some idiot smears feces on a statuette of the virgin Mary? Of course we don't.

The answer is to take those others, whether violent criminals, crazies, or druggies out of our civilized society permanently, just like was done when the founders wrote the B of R's and the constitution. Jails, prisons, mental institutions, drug rehabs, etc. Slapping these offenders on the hand and turning them back onto society, otherwise called 'mainstreaming' them is in itself insane and should be a criminal offense.

And then this ....... "Just like having a driver's license, being able to lawfully carry a weapon is a privilege." Lawfully carrying a gun/weapon is in NO WAY just like a driver's license, or even a little bit like a driver's license. It's a guaranteed RIGHT where driving is a PRIVILEGE. Let me share with you how to determine a right ..........

There is a simple rule for deciding whether something is a right.

That is, if another human must provide it for you, then it is not a right. Based on that simple rule, the following are not rights — food, housing, education, medicine, medical care, medical insurance, cell phones, Internet, transportation.
By the same rule, here are some true rights — speaking, writing, worshiping, living, deciding how to utilize personal assets that have been lawfully earned through your own ingenuity or labor. (living would address self defense)

The founders wrote about true rights and that “governments are instituted among men to secure these rights.”

We have police departments to secure those rights from other individuals. We have a defense department to secure those rights from other countries. We have a Constitution to secure those rights from our own government.

Now everything I've written above in no way is to be fussing at you, only offering another point of view. A POV that has maintained this county's standing among all other countries of the world as the best, the most noble, the most giving, and without question the most FREE country on the earth.

And if I wasn't clear enough above let me offer this ...... I in no way approve of a society where we condone, coddle, and/or make excuses for those you and I both agree should not be allowed to 'keep and bear arms'. But those are the folks who have shown they're not worthy and have themselves forfeited their right to keep and bear. I've already said those should be taken out of a civilized society, and not returned, and if violent offenders, should never have their 2nd amendment rights returned.

All others, those of us who strive to live right and do the right thing, should take responsibility for themselves and their actions and get the proper training without being forced or mandated or having limits set. Once limits, or force, or a mandate is introduced, it's no longer a RIGHT because someone else is allowing it, regulating it, or providing it. What do you know ...... that's the very first sentence in the definition of a RIGHT above.

Hope you take this in the way it was intended, as another POV. Not as an argument.
I think our 2A rights are safe. I don't myself see a training mandate as an infringement. I respect your opinion and I don't view it as an arugument, you are simply making a point.
 

jumpinjoe

Custom
I think our 2A rights are safe. I don't myself see a training mandate as an infringement. I respect your opinion and I don't view it as an arugument, you are simply making a point.
The respect is mutual but, am I understanding correctly then that you're OK with some infringements, just not others? A true RIGHT comes with no infringements, so how do we reconcile your assertions?
 

papa

Professional
Founding Member
I can agree with this to an extent papa. If their conviction was for a non-violent crime, like embezzlement or something similar, then yes, when they've 'paid their debt to society' their rights should be restored. The hard part to that is that our constitution conditions how they will/can lose their rights but it doesn't condition how, or even if they should ever be restored. It's a hard argument to make that we adhere to the constitution on one condition but not the other.

What I'd like to see and what I think should happen is for our 'illustrious' congressmen/women get off their azzes and throw out about a million useless and unworkable laws, and then develop new, enforceable laws to address just this type of issue. If a felon's convictions were due to shootings, armed robbery, armed assault, drug dealing, or other violent offenses against other human beings or humanity in general, etc, etc, then not NO, but hell NO should their rights be restored. The key is whether their offense was violent or not. And included in those new laws should be one that allows us to unseat any judge who resorts to legislating from the bench instead of ruling from that bench.

As for the mentally defective and/or insane .... there should be some recourse towards anyone who accepts the responsibility of proclaiming when/if a mentally unstable person should ever walk among society again. The way it is today there is no reason for anyone who makes those decisions to feel any responsibility for what his/her decisions ultimately may lead to. I'm all for real mental rehabilitation, but not just to turn these folks out onto society with a 'hope and a prayer' they'll continue to take their meds and or continue their programs. That's not 'rehabilitation', that's 'mainstreaming'. It's sad there are these people with these types of afflictions, but it should not be dropped onto the rest of society.

I'm pretty sure you're thinking about the same as I've written here when you said "If they are not safe enough to be allowed to own and carry a firearm then they should not be out among the general population." and in all honesty it can't be said much clearer. The problem is who among us are in a position to make the decision as to when 'are they safe enough'? And especially with the weak, unenforceable, laws currently on the books, and so many judges who are ready, willing, and more than able to legislate from the bench rather than rule according to our laws..
If they are a violent offender then they should be locked up away from the rest of us or they should face the death penalty as the law sees fit. They should not be a violent felon and then be turned loose to walk among the rest of us. Thus leading to my statement that if they are safe enough to walk among us then they should be given their rights back. Not safe to be trusted with firearms , they should not be walking the streets as free people.
 

JCJ

Operator
The respect is mutual but, am I understanding correctly then that you're OK with some infringements, just not others? A true RIGHT comes with no infringements, so how do we reconcile your assertions?
I guess the best way to sum it is this, in all facets of life in America, there are rules and regulations, acceptible and unacceptable norms that we live by. There aren't many aspects of our personal life, work life, and 2A life that don't include some proverbial fine print. So, where you say infringements, I just chalk it up as the cost of admission. I used the drivers license analogy earlier...I can own any car I can afford, but the cops and the laws say how fast I can drive it, where I can drive it and if I need a license to drive it. I own guns, but if I put muzzle on someone and or go next level and pull that trigger I gotta answer to someone. I don't see a training mandate as an infringement. RIGHTS come with caveats. I don't think RIGHTS mean we have absolute autonomy. That all I'm saying. Trust me, I value my rights and yours.
 

JCJ

Operator
Just my honest opinion , if a person has been in jail / prison and has been returned to the general population then all rights should be returned to that person. If they are not safe enough to be allowed to own and carry a firearm then they should not be out among the general population.
I guess for me it depends on what they did to land them in jail and how they conduct themselves while in jail. Jail is both disciplinary in nature and it is also billed as a rehabilitative process. But, not all parolees are rehabilitated or resocialized upon release. Recidivism is a real thing. So I am not sure I agree with just because they are released full (gun) rights should be restored. I think it should be a case by case type of thing.
 

jumpinjoe

Custom
I think our 2A rights are safe. I don't myself see a training mandate as an infringement. I respect your opinion and I don't view it as an arugument, you are simply making a point.
Taking you at your word, how then do I accept the infringement you're OK with but I'm not ...... and conversely how do we accept an infringement I'm OK with*** but you're not? Do we take a vote to see whose infringement is the least troublesome? Do we thumb wrestle for it? Or do we just accept them both and lose all the more of our guaranteed rights? *** I'm personally not OK with any infringement, no matter the reasoning.

That's what's been happening ever since the Gun Control Act of 1934. None of us saw it as a bad thing if we sat by and allowed the gov't to restrict our right to Thompson SMG's. We all saw that as 'well it only affects the gangsters, doesn't mean anything to me'. Well, we've seen over time just how those things do affect us all.

Now I personally do not have any inclination of ever wanting a SMG, but if I did I should have the non-infringed right to own one. And that's where, when, and how it all started. Since then there has been nothing but more and more restrictions, limits and regulations on our 2nd amendment rights instituted by those who are OK with some amount of infringement.

What it all boils down to is that it's the responsible, law abiding gun owners who are negatively impacted the most by any gun control legislation implemented ...... the criminals, crazies and druggies don't give a damn about them so are only negatively impacted if/when caught in violation of them. But then they get a slap on the hand and turned right back out onto the society to do it all again. If they knew they would serve some real time, more of them would think twice before doing the dirty deeds.

In truth, any gun control legislation that negatively impacts the law-abiding without negatively impacting the criminals, crazies and druggies is wrong intentioned to begin with. For example, when you're 1000' from a school with a CCW you are legal .... but if you take one step towards that school, now you're a criminal. Does that one step somehow change you to a criminal, in reality? Of course not. So you and I make every attempt to not violate that law, but do you really think the criminals, crazies and druggies give a damn about that law. Of course they don't, just ask Adam Lanza, or the Cruz kid in Florida. That's a perfect example of an infringement that makes absolutely no sense to any sane individual, and no insane individual is going to give a damn and will do it anyway.

I'm not Ok with it since I'd like to be able to pick up my grandkids from school without trying to remember to leave my CCW at home, which BTW means I won't have my CCW not only while I'm on school grounds, but all the way over there and back. And what if I forget to leave it home and only realize after I'm on school grounds that it's still in my waistband? You and I would have to make a decision...... do we run back home and leave the CCW, knowing the grandkids will have to wait at the school till we get back, or do we take the chance of not being found out with having it on us? If we choose the second option, we've immediately become a criminal. Are you OK with that infringement?

Or how about going into a gov't building? Do you automatically turn into a criminal, crazie or druggie simply by stepping across the threshold at the entrance to that building? Of course you don't. But I'll bet you make every possible attempt to not carry your CCW across that threshold, don't you? Is it necessary, does it provide even one bit of safety to anyone? Not as long as it's you and/or me. But it affects you and/or me negatively, not the criminals, crazies, and/or druggies. Are you OK with that infringement?

I'm not! I'm neither a criminal, crazie nor druggie and should not be treated as one unless and until I prove myself irresponsible and forfeit my own rights. If I'm considered a safe and responsible gun owner and CCW carrier on the street, I should be given that same consideration on a school campus, or in a gov't building, or anywhere else. I don't become a criminal, crazie or druggie simply by crossing a street, or turning a corner, or anything else, BUT, I do become a criminal according to law (these infringements) when I do any of those things.
 

jumpinjoe

Custom
JCJ, you said this " I don't think RIGHTS mean we have absolute autonomy" and I almost agree with that assertion. I think we simply disagree at just where that autonomy begins and ends, and whether it applies to our constitutional rights or our gov't approved, regulated and accepted privileges. Living by the law of the land and being responsible, law-abiding citizens is where your and my autonomy should have influence. Not the infringement of our constitutional rights by making you/me a criminal if you/I forget to take our CCW out and leave it at home.

And the law only stipulates what you can do and how fast you can drive on the public right away. If on your own property you can drive as fast, and as reckless as you want. And you don't even need a driver's license to do it. But then that's the description of a privilege, not a right.

And you've actually said it all with this "but if I put muzzle on someone and or go next level and pull that trigger I gotta answer to someone" ......that's my whole point. At that point you've shown yourself to be irresponsible and have chosen to be a criminal. That's the point at which your 2nd amendment right should be forfeited, not just on someone else's whim. Would/will any amount of 'mandated' training prevent you doing that? Of course not. You and your sense of responsibility are the only one/thing who can prevent you doing something like that
 
Last edited:

JCJ

Operator
Jumpinjoe, you raise some real world everyday scenarios that are valid. Criminals and crazies don't usually follow rule, law, policy or what's considered acceptable normal behavior. So when talking gun rights specific, we can't factor them into the equation. Taxes, rules and laws is for us law abiding citizens to worry about. But, in doing so we get to live a productive, healthy and stable life.

I agree, a person who's been cleared to have a CCW (like us) should be allowed to carry just about anywhere (i.e., school to pickup the grandkids, or a government building for a short visit). I work in a government building and I can't carry while at work, but thankfully, we have armed security onsite. I do wish I could carry at work for the reasons you point out. Yes, I want to be able to defend myself if the need arises. But do I see it as a rights infringement? No, not really. Minor inconvenience...maybe.
 

jumpinjoe

Custom
But you didn't answer the most important question........... "Would/will any amount of 'mandated' training prevent you doing that?" Your words.... "put a muzzle on someone and or go next level and pull that trigger."

We're discussing "mandated training".
 

JCJ

Operator
JCJ, you said this " I don't think RIGHTS mean we have absolute autonomy" and I almost agree with that assertion. I think we simply disagree at just where that autonomy begins and ends, and whether it applies to our constitutional rights or our gov't approved, regulated and accepted privileges. Living by the law of the land and being responsible, law-abiding citizens is where your and my autonomy should have influence. Not the infringement of our constitutional rights by making you/me a criminal if you/I forget to take our CCW out and leave it at home.

And the law only stipulates what you can do and how fast you can drive on the public right away. If on your own property you can drive as fast, and as reckless as you want. And you don't even need a driver's license to do it. But then that's the description of a privilege, not a right.

And you've actually said it all with this "but if I put muzzle on someone and or go next level and pull that trigger I gotta answer to someone" ......that's my whole point. At that point you've shown yourself to be irresponsible and have chosen to be a criminal. That's the point at which your 2nd amendment right should be forfeited, not just on someone else's whim. Would/will any amount of 'mandated' training prevent you doing that? Of course not. You and your sense of responsibility are the only one/thing who can prevent you doing something like that
When I say muzzle or pull trigger, I am talking about a scenario during which I am confronted with my life or my safety is at stake; even then, I will have to answer to someone. I am not stating or suggesting that I am doing so in a hostile, unprovoked manner. Please understand that. Regarding our rights, I don't think we will see a day when the government doesn't have a say in our 2A rights. Some form of infringement will continue to exist for those that look to abuse or break the law. I think the goal is to have more responsible guys/girls with guns than irresponsible guys/girls with guns.
 

JCJ

Operator
But you didn't answer the most important question........... "Would/will any amount of 'mandated' training prevent you doing that?" Your words.... "put a muzzle on someone and or go next level and pull that trigger."

We're discussing "mandated training".
No form of training will physically prevent or make you do anything. Training is designed to help you make an informed decision in the time you have (maybe just a few seconds), if that, to make a life altering decision. Training is a good thing because some people think just because once they obtain a CCW (prior to formal training) or posses a firearm they can go cops and robbers or vigilante on the street when we know that is not true.
 

jumpinjoe

Custom
OK, I'm sorry but I just have to ask ..... when you say this "Yes, I want to be able to defend myself if the need arises. But do I see it as a rights infringement? No, not really. Minor inconvenience...maybe." At what point does that "minor inconvenience" become a "rights infringement"? You seem to imply only when it becomes necessary to defend yourself. My friend, it's at that point it really doesn't matter whether an "infringement" or "minor inconvenience", now does it?

And good training is an invaluable asset to us all,
and as responsible, law-abiding gun owners we should accept that as a personal responsibility. It's the mandating it that becomes an infringement. That's making our constitutionally guaranteed right a conditioned privilege based on someone else's preferences.

It's been a good discussion and maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree for now. But it's almost 3:am and I need my beauty sleep. Have a good night and maybe somewhere down the line we'll pick it up again.
 

JCJ

Operator
But you didn't answer the most important question........... "Would/will any amount of 'mandated' training prevent you doing that?" Your words.... "put a muzzle on someone and or go next level and pull that trigger."

We're discussing "mandated training".

Lawfully carrying a gun/weapon is in NO WAY just like a driver's license, or even a little bit like a driver's license. It's a guaranteed RIGHT where driving is a PRIVILEGE.

I want to ask you this...you made the above statement earlier. Do you feel owning and carrying a gun are the same thing in the context of 2A? Just want to clarify.
 
Top