People Can Now Carry Guns Without A License In Half Of America's States

[Ray From Cleveland]

Flying isn't a Right....owning and carrying a gun is........and the democrat party is actively trying to end that Right, including the mere owning of a gun in the home.

Do you think you should have to pay a fee or tax to vote? Do you think you should have to pass a government test to vote, be an author, write a political pamphlet?


Owning and carrying a gun is no different from those Rights, and is, in fact, a Right targeted for destruction by democrats..who will use any training requirements as a way to keep Americans from exercising that Right...the same way the democrats used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep blacks and poor whites from voting.

I don't think there should be poll taxes, but I always thought there should be a simple test before being allowed to vote. We need to weed out those Obama Phone ladies from the rolls.

The Constitution says every American has the right to bear arms. If we are to take that literally with no strings attached, mentally retarded people should be allowed to own a gun. Same with felons. Same with people who have mental problems with violent tendencies. But we don't allow such people to legally have firearms because they are a danger to the rest of society. Therefore constitutional rights often have exceptions that we all created.

Now, I could care less about the license, but my only concern is that armed people have the ability to use that weapon. Unfortunately the only way to do that is for them to have some training and more importantly, testing to make sure they can use that weapon safely in public. It's the only thing I care about.

 

[2aguy]

I don't think there should be poll taxes, but I always thought there should be a simple test before being allowed to vote. We need to weed out those Obama Phone ladies from the rolls.

The Constitution says every American has the right to bear arms. If we are to take that literally with no strings attached, mentally retarded people should be allowed to own a gun. Same with felons. Same with people who have mental problems with violent tendencies. But we don't allow such people to legally have firearms because they are a danger to the rest of society. Therefore constitutional rights often have exceptions that we all created.

Now, I could care less about the license, but my only concern is that armed people have the ability to use that weapon. Unfortunately the only way to do that is for them to have some training and more importantly, testing to make sure they can use that weapon safely in public. It's the only thing I care about.

Sorry.....tossing out the felons and mentally ill issue is just weak. We are not talking about allowing felons and the dangerously mentally ill to own or carry guns....we are talking about normal people who have committed no crimes, and have not been adjudicated mentally dangerous..........

We do not have a serious problem of untrained people shooting each other.....we have a massive problem with criminals released by democrats shooting people.

I would like people to get as much training as possible...but I know and you know, that any training requirement will be used by democrats to ban the Right to own and carry guns.......

There is no way to implement training that doesn't keep the poor from being able to exercise their Right to carry a gun to save their life or the lives of family.....

 

[Failzero]

Sorry.....tossing out the felons and mentally ill issue is just weak. We are not talking about allowing felons and the dangerously mentally ill to own or carry guns....we are talking about normal people who have committed no crimes, and have not been adjudicated mentally dangerous..........

We do not have a serious problem of untrained people shooting each other.....we have a massive problem with criminals released by democrats shooting people.

I would like people to get as much training as possible...but I know and you know, that any training requirement will be used by democrats to ban the Right to own and carry guns.......

There is no way to implement training that doesn't keep the poor from being able to exercise their Right to carry a gun to save their life or the lives of family.....

Militias ( Made up of former LEOs & Military ) offer Range days for Non Militiamen & Women

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sorry.....tossing out the felons and mentally ill issue is just weak. We are not talking about allowing felons and the dangerously mentally ill to own or carry guns....we are talking about normal people who have committed no crimes, and have not been adjudicated mentally dangerous..........

We do not have a serious problem of untrained people shooting each other.....we have a massive problem with criminals released by democrats shooting people.

I would like people to get as much training as possible...but I know and you know, that any training requirement will be used by democrats to ban the Right to own and carry guns.......

There is no way to implement training that doesn't keep the poor from being able to exercise their Right to carry a gun to save their life or the lives of family.....

Fine, then have the state pay for all the training. Again, I don't care how it's done. All I care about is my safety around other people with a gun. And it doesn't even have to be training. I'd be fine with range testing.

I mean we see untrained and unlicensed people using guns all the time. These ghetto hoods have no idea what downrange is, nor any experience shooting a gun. So they go on these drive-by shootings and often end up killing some 10 year old girl watching cartoons on her couch. It's not intentional, they just didn't have the experience to understand most of your shots will miss your target, especially if you're in a moving vehicle.

The only reason I brought up felons and others is to point out that constitutional rights do come with exceptions. I don't want those folks I mentioned armed either.

 

[Flash]

I don't think there should be poll taxes, but I always thought there should be a simple test before being allowed to vote. We need to weed out those Obama Phone ladies from the rolls.

The Constitution says every American has the right to bear arms. If we are to take that literally with no strings attached, mentally retarded people should be allowed to own a gun. Same with felons. Same with people who have mental problems with violent tendencies. But we don't allow such people to legally have firearms because they are a danger to the rest of society. Therefore constitutional rights often have exceptions that we all created.

Now, I could care less about the license, but my only concern is that armed people have the ability to use that weapon. Unfortunately the only way to do that is for them to have some training and more importantly, testing to make sure they can use that weapon safely in public. It's the only thing I care about.

There are reasonable and unreasonable gun laws.

There is a world of difference between what Conservatives think are reasonable and what Liberals think are reasonable.

Hell, many Liberals think the Second should be abolished completely. Look at how unreasonable gun laws are in areas controlled by the bat shit crazy Democrats. For instance, if it was up to those assholes Dick Heller would not have been allowed to have a pistol in his own home and Otis McDonald would never be allowed to carry a weapon. New York would have prevented anybody from carrying a firearm out side their own home and someone would go to jail for having a standard 30 rd AR magazine. Bat shit crazy regs.

We have to be very cautious about allowing Liberals to infringe upon our Consitional rights. They hate individual rights because it interferes with their Socialists agenda of collective rights trumping individual rights.

 

[Failzero]

Fine, then have the state pay for all the training. Again, I don't care how it's done. All I care about is my safety around other people with a gun. And it doesn't even have to be training. I'd be fine with range testing.

I mean we see untrained and unlicensed people using guns all the time. These ghetto hoods have no idea what downrange is, nor any experience shooting a gun. So they go on these drive-by shootings and often end up killing some 10 year old girl watching cartoons on her couch. It's not intentional, they just didn't have the experience to understand most of your shots will miss your target, especially if you're in a moving vehicle.

The only reason I brought up felons and others is to point out that constitutional rights do come with exceptions. I don't want those folks I mentioned armed either.

Nor do I want the ones I mentioned

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There are reasonable and unreasonable gun laws.

There is a world of difference between what Conservatives think are reasonable and what Liberals think are reasonable.

Hell, many Liberals think the Second should be abolished completely. Look at how unreasonable gun laws are in areas controlled by the bat shit crazy Democrats. For instance, if it was to those assholes Dick Heller would not have been allowed to have a pistol in his own home and Otis McDonald would never be allowed to carry a weapon. New York would have prevented anybody from carrying a firearm out side their own home and someone would go to jail for having a standard 30 rd AR magazine. Bat shit crazy regs.

We have to be very cautious about allowing Liberals to infringe upon our Consitional rights. They hate individual rights because it interferes with their Socialists agenda of collective rights trumping individual rights.

I agree with everything you're saying, but I think it's really a matter of opinion of what rights are considered a violation. I don't think having to be licensed to carry a firearm in public is violating anybody's right no more than restricting mail-in voting is a rights violation because it would be hard for some people to get a ride to the polls.

Again, my only concern is the safety of myself and family. I'd hate to get a call that some citizen gunned down my sister at a mall because a criminal was there robbing a person nearby her, but never shot a gun before in their life.

 

[miketx]

Don't we do that already? If you are convicted felon, you are denied gun ownership. If you have experienced severe mental problems, you don't get a gun.

Let me ask, if a friend of yours invited you for a twin engine plane ride to the next state, would you go with him if you found out he was not a licensed pilot? How about a friend that wanted to drive to the next state but never had a drivers license in their life or drove a car before?

All I'm saying is that when you're out in the public with me, I want to be assured you're safe enough to be around while armed.

Lol with cc you don't know who is armed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Lol with cc you don't know who is armed.

Well yeah, that's kind of the idea. But if somebody is armed and pulls out that gun when I'm in the area, at least with a license requirement, I'm well assured they know how to use that weapon. Since we went constitutional carry, I have no idea if that person holding the gun even knows how to use it.

 

[Flash]

I agree with everything you're saying, but I think it's really a matter of opinion of what rights are considered a violation. I don't think having to be licensed to carry a firearm in public is violating anybody's right no more than restricting mail-in voting is a rights violation because it would be hard for some people to get a ride to the polls.

Again, my only concern is the safety of myself and family. I'd hate to get a call that some citizen gunned down my sister at a mall because a criminal was there robbing a person nearby her, but never shot a gun before in their life.

The threat to your family is from people that would do you harm.

The people that would do you harm could care less of any firearm law.

Yea, there would be the occasional dumbass that would do something stupid with a firearm but that risk is inconsequential compared to the criminal elements that do the real crimes.

 

[miketx]

Well yeah, that's kind of the idea. But if somebody is armed and pulls out that gun when I'm in the area, at least with a license requirement, I'm well assured they know how to use that weapon. Since we went constitutional carry, I have no idea if that person holding the gun even knows how to use it.

Just be afraid of everyone and stay home.

 

[Failzero]

Just be afraid of everyone and stay home.

Or carry two spare Magazines and a tourniquet

 

[2aguy]

Fine, then have the state pay for all the training. Again, I don't care how it's done. All I care about is my safety around other people with a gun. And it doesn't even have to be training. I'd be fine with range testing.

I mean we see untrained and unlicensed people using guns all the time. These ghetto hoods have no idea what downrange is, nor any experience shooting a gun. So they go on these drive-by shootings and often end up killing some 10 year old girl watching cartoons on her couch. It's not intentional, they just didn't have the experience to understand most of your shots will miss your target, especially if you're in a moving vehicle.

The only reason I brought up felons and others is to point out that constitutional rights do come with exceptions. I don't want those folks I mentioned armed either.

The ghetto criminals cant buy, own or carry guns in the first place so bringing them up as examples of bad gun handling isnt relevant. They cant get training at all

 

[B. Kidd]

Here's B. Kidd's 1st training lesson for new gun owners.
My ex-friend Pat Garrett told me once that Wyatt Earp favored accuracy over speed.
Many a new gun owner doesn't even know what eye is more accurate (dominant) when aiming. For most right handed it's the right eye and etc. for lefties.
But in some cases this doesn't hold up for all people. Some are cross-dominant.

To find out which one of your eyes is dominant, form a triangle with your hands using your index fingers and thumbs. Find an object about 20 ft. away and with both eyes open, center it. Now close one eye while looking at it, then do the same with the opposite eye. The eye that has the object closest to the center is your dominant one.

If you're lucky, my 2nd lesson will concern stance.

Adios!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The ghetto criminals cant buy, own or carry guns in the first place so bringing them up as examples of bad gun handling isnt relevant. They cant get training at all

Agreed, but the only point I was making as that they don't (or can't) get training and because of that, they have no conception of what gun will do when they aim at something and fire it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The threat to your family is from people that would do you harm.

The people that would do you harm could care less of any firearm law.

Yea, there would be the occasional dumbass that would do something stupid with a firearm but that risk is inconsequential compared to the criminal elements that do the real crimes.

Maybe. But the more people out there that have no idea how to handle a firearm, the more chances that they will be just as much of a threat as a criminal.

 

[B. Kidd]

Agreed, but the only point I was making as that they don't (or can't) get training and because of that, they have no conception of what gun will do when they aim at something and fire it.

Read, learn, practice. (You can Even dry-fire practice at home in urban areas).
Wash-Rinse-Repeat!!!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Read, learn, practice. (You can Even dry-fire practice at home in urban areas).
Wash-Rinse-Repeat!!!

Correct. But with no oversight on people to do that, then you can only hope those out there with a gun have done that.

 

[2aguy]

Fine, then have the state pay for all the training. Again, I don't care how it's done. All I care about is my safety around other people with a gun. And it doesn't even have to be training. I'd be fine with range testing.

I mean we see untrained and unlicensed people using guns all the time. These ghetto hoods have no idea what downrange is, nor any experience shooting a gun. So they go on these drive-by shootings and often end up killing some 10 year old girl watching cartoons on her couch. It's not intentional, they just didn't have the experience to understand most of your shots will miss your target, especially if you're in a moving vehicle.

The only reason I brought up felons and others is to point out that constitutional rights do come with exceptions. I don't want those folks I mentioned armed either.

John Lott talked about your saying the state should just pay…,

the below is behind a paywall….so the next link quotes the story…

The Republicans put an amendment up for a vote that would have exempted the poor from these fees…….the democrats voted it down….

John Lott: Guns Only For The Rich In Connecticut

Why do Democrats, self-proclaimed champions of the poor, make it so difficult for poor people to defend themselves? Democrats oppose even free voter IDs as imposing too much of a burden on the poor…

www.courant.com

Democrats oppose even free voter IDs as imposing too much of a burden on the poor,” Lott wrote, “but when it comes to guns, they don't hesitate to impose fees, expensive training requirements and onerous background checks. These are precisely the things that can put guns out of reach for poor people.”

Malloy wants to raise the fee for handgun permits to $370, with a $300 renewal every 5 years. Connecticut currently imposes a $140 fee—twice the national average.

An Official Journal Of The NRA | John Lott: Guns Only For The Rich In Connecticut

In a Tuesday column in the Hartford Courant, researcher John Lott pointed out how Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy’s proposed exorbitant fee increases would impact citizens most vulnerable to crime—the poor.

www.americas1stfreedom.org

 

[Flash]

Maybe. But the more people out there that have no idea how to handle a firearm, the more chances that they will be just as much of a threat as a criminal.

I am certified firearms instructor and range officer.

I have seen a lot of novices with firearms.

Yea, there are some dumbasses that never should be allowed to touch a firearm.

However, the great majority are responsible and you will have nothing to worry about.