The rights contained in the Constitution are granted by God, and guaranteed by the Constitution.
I think the line everyone's getting twisted up about is this one: "Instructors said the training requirement does not infringe on our constitutional rights and without the training requirement, the gun owner could hurt themselves and/or hurt others." That's a direct quote from the reporter.
They don't specify which instructors said it; Just, "Instructors". Now, I will say that there are a lot of SDA instructors (not "firearms instructors", SDA instructors) who think they're saving the world by teaching that class, and I have no doubt that those are the instructors about whom the reporter was speaking. Those people are fools and I sincerely couldn't care less about their opinion. If the Wilshire instructors weren't the ones who said it, that needs to be in their statement. I didn't see that addressed directly by them.
One of the biggest challenges with stuff like this is that the media is involved. If there's not audio or video of the person interviewed saying the thing that the reporter said, well....
Unlicensed carry is the only Constitutional Carry. Period. The level of training required to survive a lethal force encounter by employing a firearm is immeasurable and, in-so-being, is impossible to legislate. By allowing the government to continue to legislate a permission slip, we are all essentially saying that it's okay for government to invalidate at least one of our civil rights and then revalidate it by selling it back to us. The proviso of mandated "training" is just insult added to the injury.
They don't specify which instructors said it; Just, "Instructors". Now, I will say that there are a lot of SDA instructors (not "firearms instructors", SDA instructors) who think they're saving the world by teaching that class, and I have no doubt that those are the instructors about whom the reporter was speaking. Those people are fools and I sincerely couldn't care less about their opinion. If the Wilshire instructors weren't the ones who said it, that needs to be in their statement. I didn't see that addressed directly by them.
One of the biggest challenges with stuff like this is that the media is involved. If there's not audio or video of the person interviewed saying the thing that the reporter said, well....
Unlicensed carry is the only Constitutional Carry. Period. The level of training required to survive a lethal force encounter by employing a firearm is immeasurable and, in-so-being, is impossible to legislate. By allowing the government to continue to legislate a permission slip, we are all essentially saying that it's okay for government to invalidate at least one of our civil rights and then revalidate it by selling it back to us. The proviso of mandated "training" is just insult added to the injury.
Kelly Ogle says as much in his very first sentence of the video I posted. You are attempting to wordsmith this YG.
If the instructor(s) want to clarify they can, Wilshire has made such a poor attempt at it I can only assume they are just trying to mitigate the damage of the position they hold. There was a pretty darn clear rebuttal and rebuke by apparently one of their other instructors on Facebook yesterday. He took them to task pretty well, so if he is an instructor there I'm thinking he won't be for much longer.
From some of the replies to this thread it seems we need to have a remedial civics course or a refresher course on what the Constitution says and actually means.
Sounds to me like some of the respondents have been listening to the anti's and are trying to meet them half way on our gun rights. If in Oklahoma, it will be a blood bath if and when this law is passed, then why are we Oklahoman's so much different than the rest of the states that already have these laws?
The "blood bath" didn't happen in these other states and it sure as hell isn't going to happen here.
We, the citizens of the United States have a God given right to self defense, and these rights are guaranteed by the Constitution via the 2nd Amendment that states "THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS" and "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Clear, concise, direct and to the point.
Doesn't say one damn thing that I read, about training, a license and fees to exercise my God given Constitutional rights.
Sounds to me like some of the respondents have been listening to the anti's and are trying to meet them half way on our gun rights. If in Oklahoma, it will be a blood bath if and when this law is passed, then why are we Oklahoman's so much different than the rest of the states that already have these laws?
The "blood bath" didn't happen in these other states and it sure as hell isn't going to happen here.
We, the citizens of the United States have a God given right to self defense, and these rights are guaranteed by the Constitution via the 2nd Amendment that states "THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BARE ARMS" and "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Clear, concise, direct and to the point.
Doesn't say one damn thing that I read, about training, a license and fees to exercise my God given Constitutional rights.
Stupidity ruels...Period
You cant teach someone not to be stoopid...
No ones right is above the other....maybe people should start learning to duck..if theyre scared...or....find one of those...Safe Spaces....
I'm not wordsmithing. You stated "They are OK with mandatory training requirements." But I have yet to see Wilshire Gun say that in video, audio, or text. Kelly Ogle didn't say Wilshire Gun said that, either.Kelly Ogle says as much in his very first sentence of the video I posted. You are attempting to wordsmith this YG.
If the instructor(s) want to clarify they can, Wilshire has made such a poor attempt at it I can only assume they are just trying to mitigate the damage of the position they hold. There was a pretty darn clear rebuttal and rebuke by apparently one of their other instructors on Facebook yesterday. He took them to task pretty well, so if he is an instructor there I'm thinking he won't be for much longer.
Correct. Kelly Ogle only stated that "instructors are speaking out AGAINST a measure moving through the legislature right now..." emphasis mine.
I checked Wilshire's facebook page earlier and they have stated that they don't support these bills. But I'm skeptical because of the really weak response to the absolute **** storm on their page. It's as if they really don't even understand that they are being bludgeoned about the head. Whoever is running their page either isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, they just don't care, or they are just saying they don't support these bills when they really do.
What evidence do we have that they really do? I'm not saying it isn't there, somewhere...but I haven't seen it.
BOOM! My friend hits it right on the ****ing head
Sometimes we just have to use common sense and life experience. It's just more trustworthy sometimes when you aren't getting anything else.
Similar threads
