CDZ Second Amendment Rights Must be Complete and Uncondional!

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Do you have any idea about concealed carry? What it takes to earn that title? In Florida it usually takes 2 months to have your conceal license issued but being a veteran the process was sped up to 2 weeks. But then again, i already had a Utah CC and Virginia CC before i had my Florida one.

Yes, I have two permits: one for Nevada and one for Utah.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Don't know why requiring such a simple safety course is such a flame war starter with some here; it's not like we're still a rural country where everybody grew up around hunting and firearms from childhood any more, and many people definitely need a little basic instruction. We do it for drivers' licenses, a more difficult test to boot, so why would a couple of hours on safety cause so much sniveling?

Driving a car is not in the Bill of Rights, so I wouldn't hold that up as a comparison, but nonetheless, I agree. As long as you have completed a training course and the state law is "shall issue" and not "may issue" I see no reason for people to work up such a fuss over requiring reasonable training for something that ultimately is designed to kill someone.

 

[westwall]

Don't know why requiring such a simple safety course is such a flame war starter with some here; it's not like we're still a rural country where everybody grew up around hunting and firearms from childhood any more, and many people definitely need a little basic instruction. We do it for drivers' licenses, a more difficult test to boot, so why would a couple of hours on safety cause so much sniveling?

Driving a car is not in the Bill of Rights, so I wouldn't hold that up as a comparison, but nonetheless, I agree. As long as you have completed a training course and the state law is "shall issue" and not "may issue" I see no reason for people to work up such a fuss over requiring reasonable training for something that ultimately is designed to kill someone.

Not designed to kill someone. Designed for protection, competition, hunting etc.

Footman flails and war hammers are among the few devices designed purely for killing people.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Don't know why requiring such a simple safety course is such a flame war starter with some here; it's not like we're still a rural country where everybody grew up around hunting and firearms from childhood any more, and many people definitely need a little basic instruction. We do it for drivers' licenses, a more difficult test to boot, so why would a couple of hours on safety cause so much sniveling?

Driving a car is not in the Bill of Rights, so I wouldn't hold that up as a comparison, but nonetheless, I agree. As long as you have completed a training course and the state law is "shall issue" and not "may issue" I see no reason for people to work up such a fuss over requiring reasonable training for something that ultimately is designed to kill someone.

Not designed to kill someone. Designed for protection, competition, hunting etc.

Footman flails and war hammers are among the few devices designed purely for killing people.

To be fair, though, cars aren't designed to kill people either, but you still have to take a test to get your license...

 

[westwall]

Don't know why requiring such a simple safety course is such a flame war starter with some here; it's not like we're still a rural country where everybody grew up around hunting and firearms from childhood any more, and many people definitely need a little basic instruction. We do it for drivers' licenses, a more difficult test to boot, so why would a couple of hours on safety cause so much sniveling?

Driving a car is not in the Bill of Rights, so I wouldn't hold that up as a comparison, but nonetheless, I agree. As long as you have completed a training course and the state law is "shall issue" and not "may issue" I see no reason for people to work up such a fuss over requiring reasonable training for something that ultimately is designed to kill someone.

Not designed to kill someone. Designed for protection, competition, hunting etc.

Footman flails and war hammers are among the few devices designed purely for killing people.

To be fair, though, cars aren't designed to kill people either, but you still have to take a test to get your license...

Cars are also inherently more dangerous. Merely using it exposes you to danger. It is designed to travel at speeds of 50 mph and if any mechanical issue arises you can kill yourself or a bystander.

My guns are not capable of doing ANYTHING without my volition.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Don't know why requiring such a simple safety course is such a flame war starter with some here; it's not like we're still a rural country where everybody grew up around hunting and firearms from childhood any more, and many people definitely need a little basic instruction. We do it for drivers' licenses, a more difficult test to boot, so why would a couple of hours on safety cause so much sniveling?

Driving a car is not in the Bill of Rights, so I wouldn't hold that up as a comparison, but nonetheless, I agree. As long as you have completed a training course and the state law is "shall issue" and not "may issue" I see no reason for people to work up such a fuss over requiring reasonable training for something that ultimately is designed to kill someone.

Not designed to kill someone. Designed for protection, competition, hunting etc.

Footman flails and war hammers are among the few devices designed purely for killing people.

To be fair, though, cars aren't designed to kill people either, but you still have to take a test to get your license...

Cars are also inherently more dangerous. Merely using it exposes you to danger. It is designed to travel at speeds of 50 mph and if any mechanical issue arises you can kill yourself or a bystander.

My guns are not capable of doing ANYTHING without my volition.

Neither is a car...

 

[danielpalos]

This is a State's sovereign Right secured by our Second Amendment:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[westwall]

Don't know why requiring such a simple safety course is such a flame war starter with some here; it's not like we're still a rural country where everybody grew up around hunting and firearms from childhood any more, and many people definitely need a little basic instruction. We do it for drivers' licenses, a more difficult test to boot, so why would a couple of hours on safety cause so much sniveling?

Driving a car is not in the Bill of Rights, so I wouldn't hold that up as a comparison, but nonetheless, I agree. As long as you have completed a training course and the state law is "shall issue" and not "may issue" I see no reason for people to work up such a fuss over requiring reasonable training for something that ultimately is designed to kill someone.

Not designed to kill someone. Designed for protection, competition, hunting etc.

Footman flails and war hammers are among the few devices designed purely for killing people.

To be fair, though, cars aren't designed to kill people either, but you still have to take a test to get your license...

Cars are also inherently more dangerous. Merely using it exposes you to danger. It is designed to travel at speeds of 50 mph and if any mechanical issue arises you can kill yourself or a bystander.

My guns are not capable of doing ANYTHING without my volition.

Neither is a car...

Sure it is. Once the accelerator has been pushed the car is moving. I have to steer it. I have to use the brakes etc.

If I get it up to speed and then do nothing the car is going to hit something.

If I don't pull that trigger, that gun is inert.

Heck, that Russian actor was killed by his car. He didn't do it. The car squished him into his gate.

 

[2aguy]

Don't know why requiring such a simple safety course is such a flame war starter with some here; it's not like we're still a rural country where everybody grew up around hunting and firearms from childhood any more, and many people definitely need a little basic instruction. We do it for drivers' licenses, a more difficult test to boot, so why would a couple of hours on safety cause so much sniveling?

Driving a car is not in the Bill of Rights, so I wouldn't hold that up as a comparison, but nonetheless, I agree. As long as you have completed a training course and the state law is "shall issue" and not "may issue" I see no reason for people to work up such a fuss over requiring reasonable training for something that ultimately is designed to kill someone.

Until you hit a state like New York, Hawaii and California where they refuse to grant permits........

In Europe, they use training requirements to keep people from owning and carrying guns......anti-gun extremists will create training mandates that will keep normal people with normal lives from being able to own or carry a gun.

A friend of mine works 50-60 hours a week and doesn't have time here in Illinois to take 16 hours to get the training requirements for concealed carry.......so he doesn't have his concealed carry permit...

So any mandatory training requirement is a non-starter and needs to be fought.

 

[2aguy]

Don't know why requiring such a simple safety course is such a flame war starter with some here; it's not like we're still a rural country where everybody grew up around hunting and firearms from childhood any more, and many people definitely need a little basic instruction. We do it for drivers' licenses, a more difficult test to boot, so why would a couple of hours on safety cause so much sniveling?

Driving a car is not in the Bill of Rights, so I wouldn't hold that up as a comparison, but nonetheless, I agree. As long as you have completed a training course and the state law is "shall issue" and not "may issue" I see no reason for people to work up such a fuss over requiring reasonable training for something that ultimately is designed to kill someone.

Not designed to kill someone. Designed for protection, competition, hunting etc.

Footman flails and war hammers are among the few devices designed purely for killing people.

To be fair, though, cars aren't designed to kill people either, but you still have to take a test to get your license...

To be fair, cars kill more people than guns do. It isn't even close.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Driving a car is not in the Bill of Rights, so I wouldn't hold that up as a comparison, but nonetheless, I agree. As long as you have completed a training course and the state law is "shall issue" and not "may issue" I see no reason for people to work up such a fuss over requiring reasonable training for something that ultimately is designed to kill someone.

The point is that a requirement for a permit, and a requirement for specific training to obtain that permit, creates an irresistible opportunity for a corrupt state to make that training and permit difficult and/or expensive to obtain. The same principle, exactly, that was behind the poll taxes used to selectively disenfranchise certain elements of the citizenry a few generations ago.

I do agree that there is great value in having everyone who is going to exercise their Second Amendment rights, in being trained in how to safely and properly do so. But that training needs to be easily and freely available to any who wish to seek it, and there needs to be no opportunity to use anyone's inability to easily obtain it as an excuse to deny them their rights.

I say that such training should be made a standard part of every high school curriculum; and with that, there should be an underlying assumption that any adult has no excuse not to understand the principles instilled in such training.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Don't know why requiring such a simple safety course is such a flame war starter with some here; it's not like we're still a rural country where everybody grew up around hunting and firearms from childhood any more, and many people definitely need a little basic instruction. We do it for drivers' licenses, a more difficult test to boot, so why would a couple of hours on safety cause so much sniveling?

Driving a car is not in the Bill of Rights, so I wouldn't hold that up as a comparison, but nonetheless, I agree. As long as you have completed a training course and the state law is "shall issue" and not "may issue" I see no reason for people to work up such a fuss over requiring reasonable training for something that ultimately is designed to kill someone.

When you buy a knife , are you required to go get trained on how to use it? How about a hammer? Or a spoon?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

To be fair, cars kill more people than guns do. It isn't even close.

Cars are also inherently more dangerous. Merely using it exposes you to danger. It is designed to travel at speeds of 50 mph and if any mechanical issue arises you can kill yourself or a bystander.

Or, more commonly, human error.

The vast majority of the times in which a gun is involved in someone being killed or injured, there was a specific intent on the part of the one using that gun to cause that. It is that intent, lacking the drastic circumstances that would be necessary to justify it, that ought to be subject to legal restrictions and consequences, not the possession of the gun itself. As a factor in purely accidental deaths and injuries, guns are not even on the radar, being way below many, many, many more mundane sources of accidental harm.

Cars are a completely different story. A car can be used to intentionally cause harm, but the vast majority of harm arising from the use of automobiles is purely accidental, due either to human error, or to mechanical failures. There is much more that you need to learn to be able to operate a car safely, than there is to operate a gun safely.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Heck, that Russian actor was killed by his car. He didn't do it. The car squished him into his gate.

If they were to make a movie about Anton Yelchin, that covered his life, up to his death, and his Jeep was prominently features early in the movie, without any immediate indication as to how it ended up being involved in his death, then his Jeep would be a Chekhov's gun.

 

[2aguy]

Driving a car is not in the Bill of Rights, so I wouldn't hold that up as a comparison, but nonetheless, I agree. As long as you have completed a training course and the state law is "shall issue" and not "may issue" I see no reason for people to work up such a fuss over requiring reasonable training for something that ultimately is designed to kill someone.

The point is that a requirement for a permit, and a requirement for specific training to obtain that permit, creates an irresistible opportunity for a corrupt state to make that training and permit difficult and/or expensive to obtain. The same principle, exactly, that was behind the poll taxes used to selectively disenfranchise certain elements of the citizenry a few generations ago.

I do agree that there is great value in having everyone who is going to exercise their Second Amendment rights, in being trained in how to safely and properly do so. But that training needs to be easily and freely available to any who wish to seek it, and there needs to be no opportunity to use anyone's inability to easily obtain it as an excuse to deny them their rights.

I say that such training should be made a standard part of every high school curriculum; and with that, there should be an underlying assumption that any adult has no excuse not to understand the principles instilled in such training.

Don't forget Literacy tests used by the democrats to also deny blacks and the poor the ability to vote......

 

[2aguy]

Don't know why requiring such a simple safety course is such a flame war starter with some here; it's not like we're still a rural country where everybody grew up around hunting and firearms from childhood any more, and many people definitely need a little basic instruction. We do it for drivers' licenses, a more difficult test to boot, so why would a couple of hours on safety cause so much sniveling?

Driving a car is not in the Bill of Rights, so I wouldn't hold that up as a comparison, but nonetheless, I agree. As long as you have completed a training course and the state law is "shall issue" and not "may issue" I see no reason for people to work up such a fuss over requiring reasonable training for something that ultimately is designed to kill someone.

When you buy a knife , are you required to go get trained on how to use it? How about a hammer? Or a spoon?

View attachment 497992

The majority of gun murder victims are not normal Americans. They are criminals engaged in criminal activity......of the remaining victims who are not criminals, the vast majority of them are friends, family and associates of criminals hit by mistake when the targeted criminal is missed...or when they kill everyone in the home with the criminal...

If ....

--you are not a criminal

--you are not a family member of a criminal

--you are not an associate of a criminal

--you do not live in a democrat party controlled voting district where almost all the gun crime actually takes place....

the odds of being murdered with a gun are almost zero.....

Meanwhile, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop brutal rapes, beatings, knifings, robberies and murders......

At the same time......we have over 600 million guns in private hands, and over 19.4 million Americans can legally carry their guns in public.....

Let the vastness of those numbers sink in....

Now....how many accidental gun deaths do we have? With all those guns?

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leading_causes_death.html

2019....485
2018....458
2017....486
2016 495
2015...489http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

2014.....461

2013 ..... 505
2012 ..... 548
2011 ..... 591
2010 ..... 606
2009 ..... 554
2008 ..... 592
2007..... 613
2006..... 642
2005 ..... 789
2004 ..... 649
2003 ..... 730
2002 ..... 762
2001 ..... 802
2000 ..... 776
1999 ..... 824

 

[danielpalos]

Don't know why requiring such a simple safety course is such a flame war starter with some here; it's not like we're still a rural country where everybody grew up around hunting and firearms from childhood any more, and many people definitely need a little basic instruction. We do it for drivers' licenses, a more difficult test to boot, so why would a couple of hours on safety cause so much sniveling?

Driving a car is not in the Bill of Rights, so I wouldn't hold that up as a comparison, but nonetheless, I agree. As long as you have completed a training course and the state law is "shall issue" and not "may issue" I see no reason for people to work up such a fuss over requiring reasonable training for something that ultimately is designed to kill someone.

When you buy a knife , are you required to go get trained on how to use it? How about a hammer? Or a spoon?

View attachment 497992

What is the purpose for the tool used?

 

[danielpalos]

Don't know why requiring such a simple safety course is such a flame war starter with some here; it's not like we're still a rural country where everybody grew up around hunting and firearms from childhood any more, and many people definitely need a little basic instruction. We do it for drivers' licenses, a more difficult test to boot, so why would a couple of hours on safety cause so much sniveling?

Driving a car is not in the Bill of Rights, so I wouldn't hold that up as a comparison, but nonetheless, I agree. As long as you have completed a training course and the state law is "shall issue" and not "may issue" I see no reason for people to work up such a fuss over requiring reasonable training for something that ultimately is designed to kill someone.

When you buy a knife , are you required to go get trained on how to use it? How about a hammer? Or a spoon?

View attachment 497992

The majority of gun murder victims are not normal Americans. They are criminals engaged in criminal activity......of the remaining victims who are not criminals, the vast majority of them are friends, family and associates of criminals hit by mistake when the targeted criminal is missed...or when they kill everyone in the home with the criminal...

If ....

--you are not a criminal

--you are not a family member of a criminal

--you are not an associate of a criminal

--you do not live in a democrat party controlled voting district where almost all the gun crime actually takes place....

the odds of being murdered with a gun are almost zero.....

Meanwhile, Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop brutal rapes, beatings, knifings, robberies and murders......

At the same time......we have over 600 million guns in private hands, and over 19.4 million Americans can legally carry their guns in public.....

Let the vastness of those numbers sink in....

Now....how many accidental gun deaths do we have? With all those guns?

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leading_causes_death.html

2019....485
2018....458
2017....486
2016 495
2015...489http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe

2014.....461

2013 ..... 505
2012 ..... 548
2011 ..... 591
2010 ..... 606
2009 ..... 554
2008 ..... 592
2007..... 613
2006..... 642
2005 ..... 789
2004 ..... 649
2003 ..... 730
2002 ..... 762
2001 ..... 802
2000 ..... 776
1999 ..... 824

If you are a good Christian, you only need Ten simple Commandments from God not the Expense of Government on Earth.

 

[JoeBlow]

There can be no restrictions on any person's right to buy or sell any guns or any number of guns they choose.
This could present risks to society in America but the risks need to be accepted as necessary for the upholding of the intent of the 2nd. amendment. If any American objects to the sacred rights as stated by the 2nd. amendment then they have the option of purchasing their own weapons with which to defend themselves from harm.

The extreme example: A person released from prison who has murdered with his gun has the right to walk straight across the street from the prison and purchase a gun or guns. The only thing stopping him would be a background check being required to purchase a gun.

On the surface it could seem to be counter-productive to a peaceful society. It might be but there is no legitimate means to stop him unless the 2nd. amendment's unconditional rights are infringed upon.

And so for those who are hesitant to accept the full and complete rights as spelled out by their 2nd. amendment, is there any possible law that could be enacted that could curtail the ex-criminal's rights?

I say there is none! The 2nd. amendment isn't open for compromise for any reason or for any socialist cause.

Opinions?

So I can buy a nuke?

 

[Donald H]

There can be no restrictions on any person's right to buy or sell any guns or any number of guns they choose.
This could present risks to society in America but the risks need to be accepted as necessary for the upholding of the intent of the 2nd. amendment. If any American objects to the sacred rights as stated by the 2nd. amendment then they have the option of purchasing their own weapons with which to defend themselves from harm.

The extreme example: A person released from prison who has murdered with his gun has the right to walk straight across the street from the prison and purchase a gun or guns. The only thing stopping him would be a background check being required to purchase a gun.

On the surface it could seem to be counter-productive to a peaceful society. It might be but there is no legitimate means to stop him unless the 2nd. amendment's unconditional rights are infringed upon.

And so for those who are hesitant to accept the full and complete rights as spelled out by their 2nd. amendment, is there any possible law that could be enacted that could curtail the ex-criminal's rights?

I say there is none! The 2nd. amendment isn't open for compromise for any reason or for any socialist cause.

Opinions?

So I can buy a nuke?

Very wealthy Americans probably could.
But the rights you claim so often infringe on the rights of others and that's the problem with the 2nd. amendment clusterf--k rights.
Have all the weapons you like but just keep them in your own country for killing each other.