Just because a person is not a marksman, or does not have training does not mean they are going to "whip out a gun and fire wildly" any more than they are going to whip out a knife and stab someone if they don't have blade fighting training.
The second amendment explicitly recognizes that an individual is a responsible and law abiding person, who has the right to K & BA unless they prove otherwise by their actions.
This faith in individuals is proven out in our country's 300 year history of progress and advances, all due to giving individuals the freedom to be their best, in any field.
In terms of carrying firearms, this is proven out everyday in the many many states that allow open carry and concealed carry, where the accidents committed by those carrying firearms lawfully are miniscule.
I am not even sure why so many folks here have this fear of a non-existent problem. People ARE responsible in general, and those who are allowed to keep and bear arms do NOT abuse that right as a general rule. There is no need for any more training, in my opinion. You can't train a person to change their character through a few hours of gun instruction. They either are fit to keep and bear arms or they are not. Training in marksmanship and gun handling has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms.
If a bunch of people in states that had concealed or open carry were going around "whipping their guns out" and shooting wildly, I would agree, but the empirical evidence clearly shows this is not so. Anyone who thinks current gun bearers need more training is creating a problem that does not exist. I don't see what social problem it would solve.
That said, I am all for folks enrolling in good training classes, I just don't think they should be made a requirement. That would make the RKBA a privilege, given to a few, not a right afforded to all.
You are correct. The evidence shows that those who carry are arguably more responsible than the average citizen. Also, I wonder how many CCL holders actually carry? Most of the ones I know only carry the license.
[/QUOTE]That said, I am all for folks enrolling in good training classes, I just don't think they should be made a requirement. That would make the RKBA a privilege, given to a few, not a right afforded to all.[/QUOTE]
All for the training as well and wish I could afford more than I have. The RKBA is treated like a privilege rather than one of the rights of an individual that the government exists to protect.
Same here. Most of the people I know that have a permit got it "to keep in the car when we go to the city".
Hm. I must've missed the "annual qual" or "training" requirement in the Second Amendment. Was it in a footnote?
No, you just missed the part where the Supreme Court decided that basic rights in the Bill of Rights can be abridged arbitrarily by the States.
Hopefully we'll see incorporation of the 2nd so this won't hold anymore.
The fact is that most self-defense shootings happen at 7 yards or less, so the marksmanship requirements to carry safely aren't that high. I'm glad to see that the Oklahoma carry class covers basic safe gun handling and legal use of lethal force, since I feel that those are the most important parts of safe carry.
Hell, it could be worse. I went for a Florida non-resident permit (because my driver's license is from IL still, and IL is a barren anti-gun wasteland) and for FL licenses you only need to prove that you're not a mouth-breathing cretin with respect to firearms. You can use a hunter's safety class as proof if you want.
I think the requirements in place now are plenty enough. One thing does make me a little uneasy about it. I took the course just a couple years after it was put in place and don't really remember the distances that we shot very well. We were required to fire 50 rounds at what I thought was 7' and 15' with part of it being rapid fire. The instructor used full size human paper targets and had our group shoot at the bullseye on the head so he could use the torso section for the next group. Four out of the five kept all the bullets in the head section. Number five was using a .380 that I think he bought the day before the class. When he was finished it looked like someone had fired a couple rounds of buckshot putting about 20 of the bullets in the target from head to toe. No tellin where the other 30 went. If and when this dude ever uses his gun for protection I hope I am in another country.
Supposedly Washington demanded an annual qual and further training but was shouted down by the physically feeble types like Madison that have always outnumbered the strong and thus the qual portion was permanantly deleted from the Bill of Rights.
Michael Brown
Supposedly Washington demanded an annual qual and further training but was shouted down by the physically feeble types like Madison that have always outnumbered the strong and thus the qual portion was permanantly deleted from the Bill of Rights.
Michael Brown
HAHAHA,that's a good one.This whole thing is kind of silly.There are 40 something(?) states that allow concealed carry and NONE have experienced an increase of "wild shootouts".Why should anyone believe that extending this privilege to school campuses would be any different?? From my experience,most people who get a CWL carry it for a short while and then realize that "it's too heavy" or "I have to dress a certain way" and soon cease to carry.It takes a dedication to carry daily.I suggest that these people are the ones who also work on their marksmanship and self control. Steve
