Mandatory Training for OC and CC

[Dreamer]

we have the right to practice any religion we want as long as it doesn't harm or restrict others in their belief. examples of certain religious stipulations would be no polygamy, no live sacrifices, and no underage marriage

Please explain to me, without using pseudo-intellectual Judeo-Christian "women as chattel" contract law moralistic mumbo-jumbo, exactly how consensual polygamy violates ANYONE'S human rights, and should therefore be banned?

As for live sacrifice, I think there are a WHOLE lot of Jews, Santeria, Muslims, and "Indigenous Religion" practitioners who might object to you wanting to ban "live sacrifice". Please explain how "live sacrifice" violates another human beings rights, and therefore should not be allowed as a religious practice?

What next, are you going to add Tantric practices to your list? Ritual use of mind-altering sacraments? Worshiping a deity you don't like or understand? Where does it stop?

But I'm sure you have NO problem with male circumcision? Yeah, that's not cruel, and doesn't do ANY sort of long-term mental or emotional or physical harm to a human being--we should definitely keep that one on the "OK list"...

<sarcasm OFF>

 

[RyanC1985]

Who said I accept those so-called rules? FYI, the age limit to carry is as low as 14 in some states. Might want to educate yourself before you spout off.

As for felons, I believe that if a person is too dangerous to own a gun, he is too dangerous to walk freely in the places my family goes. He is much too dangerous to have access to a motor vehicle, power tools, potentially poisonous or explosive household chemicals, etc. Execute or keep in prison until the threat is neutralized (this is assuming that the person committed an actual crime against persons or property). Once free, a man should have all the rights of any other free citizen.



Cite, please.



You just contradicted yourself. If age doesn't determine whether a person possesses safe gun handling skills, but knowledge and training do, who are you to say that, categorically, all twelve year-olds should not be openly carrying weapons? Are you able to somehow psychically assess the maturity level of every twelve year-old in America?

That being said, there is a time and place for everything. For my own children, I could maybe see a twelve year-old carrying a gun on his hip on the hunt, but not in the street. However, it is not my place to judge another person's parenting style (or anything else, for that matter) so long as it does not injure nor present a direct threat to my life, liberty and property. School shootings have taught us that those "children" who have malicious intent will act upon it, regardless of the laws. They have cast their lot; and just as with any other criminal, that is why we carry.

I didn't contradict myself, I don't believe 12 year olds have the maturity and presence of mind to safely carry a gun especially without an adult present, (I agree with juvenile superivsed hunting, I'm referring to open carry)...and if there were 12 year olds carrying weapons in public it would directly affect my safety as well as the safety of other children if they would misplace the gun, have it taken from them, or have an AD that results in the child or one of his friends getting hit....

Keep in mind people, i'm not saying that citizens shouldn't carry...i'm just saying with that right comes responsbility.

Just like i expect a doctor to have a baseline of proficiency in order to practice medicine on patients, I expect all gun owners to have a baseline of proficiency with their firearm....otherwise buy a taser...just as effective, not as permanent if you make a mistake.

 

[Dreamer]

My post wasn't directed at you. It was directed at donny's statist and elitist answer the question posed in the OP. Lol.

Oops. sorry about that...

Redirect my response to "donny" then...

 

[RyanC1985]

It does infringe on the right since it would be the government who decides the level of safety and proficiency needed to pass the required training. You are correct about the limitations placed on the other rights you listed, but you fail to see that they are infringements. The only protected right enumerated in the Constitution Of The United States is the Second Amendment, because it specifically states that the right shall not be infringed(read limited).

Also Sir, please show me anywhere in the COTUS were it says I have to be responsible. People like to throw the word responsible around alot, but generally what they really mean is, others acting in a manner they agree with. Just because someone isn't holding themselves to a standard I hold myself to doesn't mean they are any less "responsible" than I. Society defines what it deems to be acceptable behavior with laws, and I can live with that. I will choose what is legal over what is considered responsible any day.

Are you arguing that gun owners shouldn't feel a responsibility for safety when it comes to carrying firearms?

 

[ManInBlack]

I agree completely....notice the section where is says "well regulated" (trained) and "trained to arms."

Your interpretation of "well-regulated" does not agree with that of most scholars and the U.S. Supreme Court.

The phrase "trained to arms" does not appear in the Dec. of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.

Do you also make up complete B.S. in your LEO job? Maybe claimed you caught a whiff of marijuana, when you smelled no such thing, if you thought it would get you into a car you wanted to search?

We weren't born yesterday, and this isn't our first rodeo. Your second-rate misrepresentations fool no one.

 

[SavageOne]

You already accept some rules as to who should and shouldn't carry. Examples would be age requirement of 21 or 18 years old depending on where you are. You can't be a felon, you could never have belonged to a hate group (whether you commited a crime on the hate group's behalf or not).

I think we all agree that 12 year olds should not be walking around with a gun on their hip...I just believe age doesn't make you a safe gun handler, knowledge and training does.

You are wrong about the law in my state. In MO there is no age requirement for a person to carry a gun. There is an age limit for the purchase of a gun and for a conceal carry permit, but no requirement for the owning or carrying openly of a gun. It would be perfectly legal and acceptable for a 12 year old to walk around with a gun on their hip and I have known some who have.

As far as felons go, It was not illegal until 1968 for felons to own and carry guns. Why do you wish to continue to punish someone AFTER they have paid their debt to society? You are punishing someone for a crimes they might commit in the future, while denying them the right of self defense in the present. If a felon commits a crime with a gun then punish them for that crime, then, not now because they might commit another crime sometime in the future.

 

[RyanC1985]

Please explain to me, without using pseudo-intellectual Judeo-Christian "women as chattel" contract law moralistic mumbo-jumbo, exactly how consensual polygamy violates ANYONE'S human rights, and should therefore be banned?

As for live sacrifice, I think there are a WHOLE lot of Jews, Santeria, Muslims, and "Indigenous Religion" practitioners who might object to you wanting to ban "live sacrifice". Please explain how "live sacrifice" violates another human beings rights, and therefore should not be allowed as a religious practice?

What next, are you going to add Tantric practices to your list? Ritual use of mind-altering sacraments? Worshiping a deity you don't like or understand? Where does it stop?

But I'm sure you have NO problem with male circumcision? Yeah, that's not cruel, and doesn't do ANY sort of long-term mental or emotional or physical harm to a human being--we should definitely keep that one on the "OK list"...

<sarcasm OFF>

ummm, first off its is considered animal cruelty to sacrifice a live animal, as far as polygamy, I didn't make the law nor do I care if anyone breaks it, it was an example of a limitation of religion 1A, and i have no idea why circumcision was brought up....step back, breathe, opposing views to any debate is good and healthy...helps to avoid group think

 

[RyanC1985]

Your interpretation of "well-regulated" does not agree with that of most scholars and the U.S. Supreme Court.

The phrase "trained to arms" does not appear in the Dec. of Independence, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.

Do you also make up complete B.S. in your LEO job? Maybe claimed you caught a whiff of marijuana, when you smelled no such thing, if you thought it would get you into a car you wanted to search?

We weren't born yesterday, and this isn't our first rodeo. Your second-rate misrepresentations fool no one.

I'm not the one that posted the second amendment earlier...someone else did, I was simply pointing out what he posted....why not ask him?

 

[ManInBlack]

I didn't contradict myself, I don't believe 12 year olds have the maturity and presence of mind to safely carry a gun especially without an adult present, (I agree with juvenile superivsed hunting, I'm referring to open carry)...and if there were 12 year olds carrying weapons in public it would directly affect my safety as well as the safety of other children if they would misplace the gun, have it taken from them, or have an AD that results in the child or one of his friends getting hit....

Newsflash, genius: twelve year-olds are already carrying weapons in public, there are already laws against it, and they are ineffective. I'd rather take my chances with legally allowing younger citizens to carry rather than maintain the status quo where ONLY malicious juveniles carry.

Keep in mind people, i'm not saying that citizens shouldn't carry...i'm just saying with that right comes responsbility.

No, like any typical wannabe dictator, you just feel that you have the right to determine which other citizens have measured up to your expectation of responsibility. Get a grip. You are no better than anyone else. Why do you believe yourself to be so self-righteous as to expect the government to enforce, through threat of lethal violence, your opinions on others' suitability to exercise their God-given rights?

Just like i expect a doctor to have a baseline of proficiency in order to practice medicine on patients,

Expect what you want; you could still die on the table.

I expect all gun owners to have a baseline of proficiency with their firearm

As pointed out before, your expectation will never be met, because laws regarding your petty opinion of who is suitable to carry a weapon are already being broken by those who are unsuitable. Get it yet?

....otherwise buy a taser...just as effective, not as permanent if you make a mistake.

Fail on so many levels...

Not nearly as effective in some important aspects: range, termination of threat for a victim who has no means of escape or of securing the offender, etc.

And, tasers have killed plenty of people. They are not toys that one can cavalierly make mistakes with. In fact, when tasers were first introduced, the public was promised that they would only be used in situations where a firearm would otherwise be authorized. In other words, it was simply a less-lethal step introduced in the force continuum. Unfortunately, however, they are now routinely used by criminals wearing government-issued costume jewelry as a means of pain compliance aka torture.

 

[ManInBlack]

Are you arguing that gun owners shouldn't feel a responsibility for safety when it comes to carrying firearms?

"Feeling a responsibility for safety" is completely different from your insane proposition that your precious government should, on threat of lethal violence, enforce your opinions on what is responsibility for safety.

 

[SavageOne]

Are you arguing that gun owners shouldn't feel a responsibility for safety when it comes to carrying firearms?

I'm saying that I don't need your definition of "responsibility" used as a standard for what I do or don't do. I go to the range regularly, I act in a manner to do what I feel is the most effective way of minimizing the chance of causing harm to myself or others by my actions. I do this not just because I am a gun owner, but because I am a human being and that's the way I want to be treated. No offense to Dreamer, but I think "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a damn good motto. I also think that legally if I didn't do these things I would be held accountable by society, I don't do them because it's "responsible".

 

[xd shooter]

I agree completely....notice the section where is says "well regulated" (trained) and "trained to arms." Our founding fathers knew the importance of arming the people. They also knew the importance of knowing how to handle those weapons.

umm...

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.[138][139]
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.[138][139]

If I intend to use a Baseball Bat to defend my self and my home, should I also show the ability to hit home runs?

By the way, your "training" doesn't seem to be helping LAPD...

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/17/local/me-guns17

Since 1985, there have been more than 350 accidental discharges by LAPD officers. There also have been more than a dozen so-called friendly fire incidents.

 

[RyanC1985]

Newsflash, genius: twelve year-olds are already carrying weapons in public, there are already laws against it, and they are ineffective. I'd rather take my chances with legally allowing younger citizens to carry rather than maintain the status quo where ONLY malicious juveniles carry.



No, like any typical wannabe dictator, you just feel that you have the right to determine which other citizens have measured up to your expectation of responsibility. Get a grip. You are no better than anyone else. Why do you believe yourself to be so self-righteous as to expect the government to enforce, through threat of lethal violence, your opinions on others' suitability to exercise their God-given rights?



Expect what you want; you could still die on the table.



As pointed out before, your expectation will never be met, because laws regarding your petty opinion of who is suitable to carry a weapon are already being broken by those who are unsuitable. Get it yet?



Fail on so many levels...

Not nearly as effective in some important aspects: range, termination of threat for a victim who has no means of escape or of securing the offender, etc.

And, tasers have killed plenty of people. They are not toys that one can cavalierly make mistakes with. In fact, when tasers were first introduced, the public was promised that they would only be used in situations where a firearm would otherwise be authorized. In other words, it was simply a less-lethal step introduced in the force continuum. Unfortunately, however, they are now routinely used by criminals wearing government-issued costume jewelry as a means of pain compliance aka torture.

Tasers were never intended to be used when only firearms would be authorized. It is considered an intermediate weapon, less than lethal, tool used to gain compliance of a subject who is actively resisting a lawful order of a police officer with the threat of harm to self or others. The taser, although painful, results in fewer injuries, and reduces the risk for catastrophic injury (breaking bones) and fewer deaths than other intermediate weapons such as OC spray and baton.

 

[ManInBlack]

Tasers cop b.s....

Thanks for your thoughtful response to the meat of my posts. See ya, troll.

 

[RyanC1985]

"Feeling a responsibility for safety" is completely different from your insane proposition that your precious government should, on threat of lethal violence, enforce your opinions on what is responsibility for safety.

So its ok to expect a reasonable amount of proficiency at driving a car, driving a boat, motorcycle, but take hunter's safety test in order to hunt, but asking someone to be able to prove they can use their firearm proficiently is asking too much? Keep in mind to, this is my opinion for carrying of firearms...I don't believe home defense firearms should be held to a less standard because it is private property. However, while carrying a firearm on public property, there should be a responsibility on the part of the carrier to be able to wield and fire the weapon to a certain degree of proficiency

 

[RyanC1985]

Thanks for your thoughtful response to the meat of my posts. See ya, troll.

Its funny how you are quick to recite freedoms and amendments to me, but its seems that if anyone expresses an opinion contrary to yours you get angry...isn't that a bit contradictory. I've been respectful the entire time simply offering another viewpoint, and yet you can't seem to debate without getting angry and resorting to name calling....like I said earlier...debate is healthy, take a step back, breathe...its going to be ok

 

[ManInBlack]

So its ok to expect a reasonable amount of proficiency at driving a car, driving a boat, motorcycle, but take hunter's safety test in order to hunt, but asking someone to be able to prove they can use their firearm proficiently is asking too much? Keep in mind to, this is my opinion for carrying of firearms...I don't believe home defense firearms should be held to a less standard because it is private property. However, while carrying a firearm on public property, there should be a responsibility on the part of the carrier to be able to wield and fire the weapon to a certain degree of proficiency

I don't agree with any of the B.S. restrictions you mention. They are unnecessary and arbitrary restrictions on behavior that, by itself, does not pose a threat to anyone.

Driving in such a manner that it endangers other? Boating while wasted and crashing into an occupied dock? Shooting at a deer across a highway with vehicles zipping past? Lock 'em up. That is behavior that constitutes actual crimes against persons and property, and the liberty to enjoy such.

Again, why are you so arrogant as to believe you are qualified to determine what constitutes a certain degree of proficiency to exercise an inalienable right, and would take away a citizen's liberty if he did not meet your criteria and exercised his right anyway?

 

[xd shooter]

So its ok to expect a reasonable amount of proficiency at driving a car, driving a boat, motorcycle, but take hunter's safety test in order to hunt,

Last I checked, these weren't enumerated anywhere in our Constitution. IOW, they are not RIGHTS.

 

[RyanC1985]

I don't agree with any of the B.S. restrictions you mention. They are unnecessary and arbitrary restrictions on behavior that, by itself, does not pose a threat to anyone.

Driving in such a manner that it endangers other? Boating while wasted and crashing into an occupied dock? Shooting at a deer across a highway with vehicles zipping past? Lock 'em up. That is behavior that constitutes actual crimes against persons and property, and the liberty to enjoy such.

Again, why are you so arrogant as to believe you are qualified to determine what constitutes a certain degree of proficiency to exercise an inalienable right, and would take away a citizen's liberty if he did not meet your criteria and exercised his right anyway?

I never said I was the one qualified to determine who is proficient and who isn't. I just said there should be standard in order to ensure they can carry safely. Just curious, are you a member of the sovereign citizens movement, you remind me of a guy I talked with about similiar issues, just wondering.

 

[RyanC1985]

Last I checked, these weren't enumerated anywhere in our Constitution. IOW, they are not RIGHTS.

Right but I'm not proposing disarming the people, just believe with certain rights come certain responsibilities.