no license required....there is no provision for any restrictions such as training, etc. - requiring training is, in fact, an infringement. A free society has its inherent dangers. You do not have the right to deny me the ability to keep and bear arms. If you seek to apply your personal standards to me - then you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Lee1000 -
"How many times have you volunteered to teach free gun safety classes? Someone who is of the opinion you are should be doing this weekly, and for free."
I would think that you as a person that wants everyone to have a gun without licenensing or training, should be the one volunteering weekly to train the novices.
"How many times have you volunteered to teach free gun safety classes? Someone who is of the opinion you are should be doing this weekly, and for free."
I would think that you as a person that wants everyone to have a gun without licenensing or training, should be the one volunteering weekly to train the novices.
Thanks for the name calling. anyone can do that.
Our society has decieded that the following should be licensed for the good of society"
doctors
dentist
plumbers
drivers must show they can drive a car
plumbers,
electricians
attorneys
pilots
investment brokers
etc.
Why is this so? Because the stakes are so high. Society does not want unqualified people ruining people's lives. Is training for carrying a gun any less important?
Same thought as open carry was..
Blood will run in the streets. Blood will run in the streets!
I don't hear any more accidents in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont etc. that have had constitutional carry for a while.
Blood will run in the streets. Blood will run in the streets!
I don't hear any more accidents in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont etc. that have had constitutional carry for a while.
In Louisiana, florists have to be licensed. Licensure is about control, not quality. If licensure were that effective at preventing accidents, we wouldn't have pilot-error crashes, driver-error accidents, medical malpractice, or Bernie Madoff. It's all about control: the trades get to exclude people (reduce supply -> drive up costs), and the government gets to wet its beak. You're perfectly happy with that because you're benefiting from it.
Besides, I've checked my copy of the Bill of Rights--recently, even--and guess what: none of those things was listed as a right! That's right, none! Can you believe that?
Now, if you're in favor of licensing the second, surely you're in favor of licensing the First, right? Because religion and speech have historically been the biggest drivers of murder in the world. Imagine, if only we could have denied Marx and Engels the right to speak, tens of millions might never have died under Communism.
The time is now! The killing must end! We demand speech licensing!
ProBusiness,
You would train and license every creature out there who has a built in self defense mechanism? Creatures with fangs, horns, beaks, tusks, massive bulk, poison, stink, camouflage, speed, flight, stingers, etc. etc.? We have our brains and have created the defense mechanisms we need. You would deny us our defense mechanisms if we don't comply with whatever training you feel is necessary.
Maybe we should all walk around with a full length shield. A shield might stop bullets, but without shooting back and neutralizing the threat, the bullets will just keep on coming. Why require training that will delay or even prevent a person employing self defense? You condemn such people to death before their life is even threatened.
It is obvious that many more people who are disarmed are murdered than armed people. Arming people saves lives. Arming untrained people will also save lives. People are intelligent and can figure out how to use things without training. Lack of training doesn't automatically mean a weapon will be used improperly or unlawfully.
Cavemen used spears and rocks to survive. Unga and Trog never had to get a license from the elders to protect the tribe or bring home the brontosaurus. Nowadays it's knives, bow and arrows, and guns. Some of us still have to hunt to bring home the bacon. You would deny those people the right to feed themselves simply for the lack of a piece of paper saying they received training?
Woody
PS: Don't forget the Second Amendment, either. "Shall not be infringed," is quite simple, easy to understand, and about as absolute a statement as you can get.
You would train and license every creature out there who has a built in self defense mechanism? Creatures with fangs, horns, beaks, tusks, massive bulk, poison, stink, camouflage, speed, flight, stingers, etc. etc.? We have our brains and have created the defense mechanisms we need. You would deny us our defense mechanisms if we don't comply with whatever training you feel is necessary.
Maybe we should all walk around with a full length shield. A shield might stop bullets, but without shooting back and neutralizing the threat, the bullets will just keep on coming. Why require training that will delay or even prevent a person employing self defense? You condemn such people to death before their life is even threatened.
It is obvious that many more people who are disarmed are murdered than armed people. Arming people saves lives. Arming untrained people will also save lives. People are intelligent and can figure out how to use things without training. Lack of training doesn't automatically mean a weapon will be used improperly or unlawfully.
Cavemen used spears and rocks to survive. Unga and Trog never had to get a license from the elders to protect the tribe or bring home the brontosaurus. Nowadays it's knives, bow and arrows, and guns. Some of us still have to hunt to bring home the bacon. You would deny those people the right to feed themselves simply for the lack of a piece of paper saying they received training?
Woody
PS: Don't forget the Second Amendment, either. "Shall not be infringed," is quite simple, easy to understand, and about as absolute a statement as you can get.
Stop the name calling. Its not necessary.
Indeed. The purpose of my thread is to show Senator David Holt that there are groups of Oklahomans, hopefully large, that want Constitutional carry, not give a place to bicker. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and disagree all you want, but please don't crap up my thread.
Thanks! !
Thanks! !
One thing Senator David Holt, Politicians , America and the rest of the world need to know. Our Second amendment is a right not a privilege. A privilege can come with conditions.A right means no conditions can be added to it. What our countries so called leaders are doing is illegal and they have been allowed to do it. If you look at what is happening all of our rights have been under attack. Our right to keep and bear arms and our freedom of religion are the two that are under attack more than any other right we have. Our so called elected leaders need to abide by their oaths to uphold and defend The Constitution of the United States of America. Quit making excuses like it is for the children. Uphold your oaths Mr Politician .
If there was a way to measure it, you could probably make a pretty good argument that hurtful and deceitful words have caused more human misery than anything else, but yet we don't make people get training in how to use them.
Similar threads
