So, what's your and Mad's take on felons carrying? Should they be allowed to carry? After all, how can the stat take a God given right?
There does need to be rule of law and there does need to be order. And I don't believe all felons should be subject to "no guns, never." But that's a whole ball of yarn we could unravel in another thread, honestly.
There are no perfect answers. But what we're doing now (gun regulation) doesn't sit well with me.
Thinking back to some of the folks in my SDA class, I would have to agree that I'm not a fan of just anybody who wants to carry, carrying without a license. I'm not even a fan of every non-felon having the right to carry without a license. A couple of these people really needed more experience behind the wheel of a firearm, and most importantly needed more firearm education before waltzing around a crowded room with a .45 dangling off their belt.
One guy in particular was appx 55 years of age or older, he said he'd not handled a firearm since he was about 12. Which is fine, because having the know-how of when to use a firearm in self-defense is most important and has nothing to do with having the know-how of pulling a trigger, but this guy understood nothing and seemed to absorb very little. He would ask multiple questions after just about every sentence the instructor got out of his mouth, and there were a couple of times the instructor said "No, that's absolutely not at all what I'm trying to say." The guy really didn't get it.. anything, nothing.. and every time he opened his mouth I sat there wondering if I feel safer or more endangered being out in the world with this guy (and people like him) toting around loaded firearms. The SDA class is a joke and this guy really belonged in an even more beginner firearms course.
*My above opinion has nothing to do with this bill, or any other bill in debate, nor does it have to do with firearm ownership in general. I just don't believe that just anybody without a criminal record and $500 in their pocket to buy a gun should be allowed to carry at will.
One guy in particular was appx 55 years of age or older, he said he'd not handled a firearm since he was about 12. Which is fine, because having the know-how of when to use a firearm in self-defense is most important and has nothing to do with having the know-how of pulling a trigger, but this guy understood nothing and seemed to absorb very little. He would ask multiple questions after just about every sentence the instructor got out of his mouth, and there were a couple of times the instructor said "No, that's absolutely not at all what I'm trying to say." The guy really didn't get it.. anything, nothing.. and every time he opened his mouth I sat there wondering if I feel safer or more endangered being out in the world with this guy (and people like him) toting around loaded firearms. The SDA class is a joke and this guy really belonged in an even more beginner firearms course.
*My above opinion has nothing to do with this bill, or any other bill in debate, nor does it have to do with firearm ownership in general. I just don't believe that just anybody without a criminal record and $500 in their pocket to buy a gun should be allowed to carry at will.
What about public speech? Or possession of marijuana?
Yes, there are some people that *shouldn't* even be near a firearm, knife, or even a sheet of paper. But why punish the majority for the actions of a very limited few?
I know this much... given the quality of the general population (I think OSA members are MUCH higher BTW)... I'm of the opinion that if there is any law passed making it legal to carry openly or even if it's decided sometime that everyone can carry in whatever fashion they wish as their constitutional right, then I'm MAKING SURE I'M ALWAYS ARMED (course I already am anyway...)
I'm not going to pretend like I've got the solution that doesn't allow this guy to carry that doesn't involve a law that further restricts constitutional rights. I just wonder in these extreme scenarios who is more dangerous in a crowded room, a criminal with malicious intent and selected a target(s) or an ignorant Joe Blow who's just trying to do what he thinks is right?
So since I don't want a tighter grip on firearms but I don't want anybody with enough money to buy a gun publicly carrying one, what do I do? Just accept that added social risk and just hope for the best?
Precisely.
I'd stop trying to play the role of God and worry about the person in the mirror.
I am 100% against laws that make something illegal because it *could* be used in a manner that is already illegal!
Think about it, it's already illegal to brandish a gun, or to shoot someone, or commit armed robbery, or murder.
Think about it, it's already illegal to brandish a gun, or to shoot someone, or commit armed robbery, or murder.
This goes for me as well. I'm just not too thrilled with not only having to protect myself from a criminal, but also somebody with good intentions, but no firearm education and experience, who sprays and prays.
Still, if given the choice between voting to keep things the way they are now or voting for completely unlicensed and unrestricted open-carry, I'd vote for the latter.
