2nd Amendment "rules" should apply to the 14th Amendment

[stanc]

We used to be a free society; well, free-er. "Give me liberty, or give me death!"? When the suburban population grows to the point ours has, where the only people you meet with guns are police and bad guys, this kind of thing is inevitable.

But, if we don't stand up and say no, when we are told to do something we know is wrong then who are we? If we're going to bow down just because some misguided elected officials decide something arbitrarily that harms our liberty, then we will surely lose the rights we hold so very dear.

Indeed. I wonder what the Founders would think of us. They committed treason, a hanging offense, and took up arms to fight for the rights they believed in.

Today, we obediently accept every infringement of those rights. And not only do we refrain from taking up arms, some of us call for even more infringements.

[LR1955]

As a matter of strict logic? Probably so. Unalienable is pretty clear.

keystone:

There is strict logic and common sense.

Pretty simple.

Given today and our society, do you believe that anyone should be able to purchase any firearm without any sort of control or check to see if the guy should own one?

LR55

[Double Naught Spy]

If professional training is implemented, absolutely. Just with my experience in Practical shooting, my skill level and safe firearm handling had improved by 100%. My wife and daughter beat a retired SWAT team member from Los Angeles, and they did it safely. Nothing improves firearm skills better than putting rounds down range with skilled shooting instruction. Safe firearm practice becomes second nature as does shooting skills. Reckless shooting habits and skills or lack of, can have the opposite effect. .

Good for you and your wife!

Of course, training is very expensive. Who pays for all of these regular, professional, high speed, low drag training?

People who are unwilling, too lazy, or too immature to pass basic firearm safety classes shouldn't own firearms in my opinion. There also needs to be class instruction on the legalities of firearm ownership and responsibility.

So you are for infringement of our 2nd amendment rights.

People are not stupid and with the right training can be a big deterrent to crime if properly trained.

This sort of goes with the "more guns less crime" mantra of John Lott that was a complete fabrication based on misinterpretation of statistical data. People are stupid.

I would rather have shooters like Jerry Miculek as my spokesman instead of some camouflage militia wanna be.

That's really interesting. You like the idea of a showman being the spokesperson for dealing with crime and defensive training issues.

[montana]

:confused: How is mandatory firearm training supposed to stop mass shootings?

Teaching new shooters positive, safe and proper instruction as oppose to first player video games is a bad idea? If you believe that, then you should campaign against wasting time and money on drivers education.

How would mandatory firearm training be a deterrent to crime?.

So you would prefer gun owners and CC holders not to be trained and proficient when confronting a criminal???

How do you propose to get more CC shooters in the country?.

I actually said: We need more "skilled CC shooters" in the country, not less. Once again you would prefere less skilled shooters??

You really lost me on that one. What positive effects does it have on the non-shooting public?

If the public new gun owners had to be vetted and properly trained before they could legally own a firearm, "much like the police" it would end the narrative that any crazy can buy a gun.

Regardless of what is proposed and enacted, it's a safe bet that it won't stop mass shootings.

I agree, nothing will stop criminals, "but more good guys with guns" will make us safer....

[montana]

Good for you and your wife!..

Of course, training is very expensive. Who pays for all of these regular, professional, high speed, low drag training?.

Actually, it was my wife and daughter.
Who pays for the millions of automobiles, gas, insurance, maintenance, etc, going down the highway everyday?? If a person is serious about owning a firearm, they will have to cover the cost like every young person who enters hunter safety class. Instruction could be volunteer like in hunter safety. Tax deductions could be offered to ammo and firearm manufacturers for donations to help cover cost. Think of it as education, since that is exactly what it is. Of course we can do nothing and "enjoy shooting our flint lock rifles" we are mandated to keep at the shooting range.

So you are for infringement of our 2nd amendment rights.

No, "I'm for finding solutions to stop more infringements on our 2ndA rights" that are in the works right now. Do you have a better idea that you think will stop these proposed gun bans???

This sort of goes with the "more guns less crime" mantra of John Lott that was a complete fabrication based on misinterpretation of statistical data. People are stupid..

So you are a supporter of gun bans and believe armed and trained gun owners are no deterrent to crime????

That's really interesting. You like the idea of a showman being the spokesperson for dealing with crime and defensive training issues.

LOL, I stated : "I would rather have shooters like Jerry Miculek as my spokesman instead of some camouflage militia wanna be". My point was we as gun owners need to show the positive of our sport and hobby such as Gentleman Jerry with his modern sporting rifle. Perhaps you prefer the public pictures some camo covered dude threatening civil war or a disconnected crazy killing people with an assault weapon. Did Go Daddy show good looking female race car drivers in their adds or some alcoholic drunk drivers. This isn't that complicated!

[Double Naught Spy]

Teaching new shooters positive, safe and proper instruction as oppose to first player video games is a bad idea? If you believe that, then you should campaign against wasting time and money on drivers education.

The question posed to you was how mandatory training would stop mass shootings, not if it was a good or bad idea. This, after you said you thought it would stop them. The problem isn't just as simple as getting people training, required or otherwise, but getting them to actually have guns with them. There were at least 2 people at Walmart in El Paso who had the ability to carry guns legally. Statistically, there were probably several more there. None engaged the shooter. The two in question, an elderly mother and a Customs and Border Patrol officer neither had their guns.

Even if they carry guns and have instruction, as we have seen time and time again with law enforcement and the military, that doesn't mean people will respond as trained. Many will perform, many won't. That is documented reality. See Grossman, On Killing.

Who pays for the millions of automobiles, gas, insurance, maintenance, etc, going down the highway everyday?? If a person is serious about owning a firearm, they will have to cover the cost like every young person who enters hunter safety class. Instruction could be volunteer like in hunter safety. Tax deductions could be offered to ammo and firearm manufacturers for donations to help cover cost. Think of it as education, since that is exactly what it is. Of course we can do nothing and "enjoy shooting our flint lock rifles" we are mandated to keep at the shooting range.

Driving is a privilege, not a Constitutional right. And sure, people could provide free advanced firearm instruction. Jerry Miculek gives hundreds of free classes a year, right? I can see the instructors lining up right now. Why get $150-300 per student per day when you can get $0?? And now you think you are going to get tax deductions and such for ammo and firearm manufacturers to help cover the costs, this from the same government discussing gun bans? Of course, being such a great idea, I am surprised this hasn't happened sooner.

If you believe that, then you should campaign against wasting time and money on drivers education.

Again, driving is not a Constitutional right, but is a privilege.

So you would prefer gun owners and CC holders not to be trained and proficient when confronting a criminal???

It isn't a preference that they not get training. The issue is making it mandatory which is in conflict with the Constitution.

So you are a supporter of gun bans and believe armed and trained gun owners are no deterrent to crime????

Nope, and have never suggested such. Your repeated ad hominem spin doctoring is tiresome.

However, you should send your ideas to your elected representatives. I am sure they will realize how uncomplicated it all is and work to implement immediately.

[JASmith]

This OP in AccurateShooter.com gives a clear picture of the dangers inherent in Red Flag laws if they fail to include due process and the right to a public hearing: http://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads...n.3985160/

The remainder of the thread has the usual gripes, counter gripes and so on that we see in this thread.

[montana]

The question posed to you was how mandatory training would stop mass shootings, not if it was a good or bad idea. This, after you said you thought it would stop them. The problem isn't just as simple as getting people training, required or otherwise, but getting them to actually have guns with them. There were at least 2 people at Walmart in El Paso who had the ability to carry guns legally. Statistically, there were probably several more there. None engaged the shooter. The two in question, an elderly mother and a Customs and Border Patrol officer neither had their guns.

Even if they carry guns and have instruction, as we have seen time and time again with law enforcement and the military, that doesn't mean people will respond as trained. Many will perform, many won't. That is documented reality. See Grossman, On Killing..

Yes, I think the more trained CC holders that are on the street the better the chance to stop a mass shooter. I can give examples of CC holders stopping mass shooters. So what is your point, trained CC holders are no deterrent?? What is your suggestion to stop mass shooters???

Driving is a privilege, not a Constitutional right. And sure, people could provide free advanced firearm instruction. Jerry Miculek gives hundreds of free classes a year, right? I can see the instructors lining up right now. Why get $150-300 per student per day when you can get $0?? And now you think you are going to get tax deductions and such for ammo and firearm manufacturers to help cover the costs, this from the same government discussing gun bans? Of course, being such a great idea, I am surprised this hasn't happened sooner.

The H S ammo manufacturer donates a lot of ammo for hunter safety and the shooting sports in my area. All the hunter safety and Practical shooting instructors donate their time to train new shooters. It does happen, apparently not in your neighbourhood.

Again, driving is not a Constitutional right, but is a privilege.

So what is your solution??

It isn't a preference that they not get training. The issue is making it mandatory which is in conflict with the Constitution..

So what is your solution???

Nope, and have never suggested such. Your repeated ad hominem spin doctoring is tiresome.

However, you should send your ideas to your elected representatives. I am sure they will realize how uncomplicated it all is and work to implement immediately.

So what was your point about more gun less crime is all bunk??? So you do believe guns are a deterrent?? Confusing ???

DNS, I was making suggestions on how to change the snowball effect that is occurring with regards to modern sporting rifles by addressing the anti's narrative. You obviously disagree which is fine, I never stated I had all of the answers and I'm open to all suggestions. That is the point of this thread isn't it??? What I have noticed about you, is you are quick with criticism and slow with solutions. Enough said!

[Double Naught Spy]

Look Montana, hunter safety classes use a pittance of ammo compared to tactical training. Your bad solutions are no solutions at all. I don't have to have a counter solution to recognize bad solutions that are Unconstitional.

You can give examples of CCers who stopped shootings? Great! I can give examples where they didn't. That you point this out shows the lack of deterrence.

What are the more guns less crime bunk? You are drawing the same wrong conclusion. Guns repeated have NOT proven to be a deterrent. The deterrent aspect hyped by Lott has failed miserably.

Voluntary training is great. I have had a buttload of it over the years. It costs a LOT of money. We are not in the land of socialized guns and pixie dust. We are in the land of capitalists, liability, and high prices. Shoot houses are expensive. Reactive targets are expensive. FofF training is expensive.

You know why HS doesn't donate ammo to tac classes. It is outrageously expensive. Jerry Miculek classes, strangely, they aren't free, either.

Your idea of semi-socialized mandatory classes is a panacea that cannot be attained. You are expecting everyone else to incur the expense for training. You would be talking about 10s of millions of people getting free instruction with free ammo, only somebody has to pay for all of that somehow. Decent self defense classes will run 150-500 rounds in a day per student depending on the class. The more intense the training, the higher the round count tends to be. You are talking many billions of $$ in ammo, land use, facilities use, targets, and instructors....and you want that to be donated. However, one class really isn't enough. To keep people at proper proficiency, a regular training cycle needs to be maintained. After all, you want to do this right, don't you? So after everyone gets through their initial class, there needs to be additional classes each year. After all, what you are talking about is a highly perishable skill set.

You want a solution? How about you pay for my self defense classes. You want a charity based system, so let it start with you. Beyond that, the solution I have for you is to run this by your state and federal representatives. They aren't psychic. You gotta spell it out for them.

[montana]

I never said we were training ninjas, but basic safety and shooting instruction. Where the hell did reactive targets and kill "shoot" houses get into the discussion. I never said HS gave ammo to tac training. Mandating that people are trained in the basics of firearm safety and skills by volunteers and donations to off set the cost is a semi- socialized mandate??

DNS, You are quick to criticize, so I would like you to address the problem we have with disconnected young men who obviously have mental issues shooting up the country side. How would you deal with the public that wants more gun control, red flag laws and gun bans?? What is your solution or suggestions to prevent people with mental problems from acquiring guns??? What should people do who are unfortunately in a mass shooting?? . Any suggestions or possible solutions?? Or are you only good at bitching and moaning. Lets have some answers !!!

[stanc]

Teaching new shooters positive, safe and proper instruction as oppose to first player video games is a bad idea? If you believe that, then you should campaign against wasting time and money on drivers education.

You're deflecting, and evading the question. I didn't say firearm training is a bad idea.

I asked how is your proposed mandatory training supposed to stop mass shootings?

So you would prefer gun owners and CC holders not to be trained and proficient when confronting a criminal???

You're again deflecting and evading the question, Kellyanne: How would your mandatory firearm training be a deterrent to crime?

I actually said: We need more "skilled CC shooters" in the country, not less. Once again you would prefere less skilled shooters??

What I would prefer is that you give a straight answer to my questions, instead of attempt to deflect by asking me if I'd prefer something that I never said I wanted.

If the public new gun owners had to be vetted and properly trained before they could legally own a firearm, "much like the police" it would end the narrative that any crazy can buy a gun.

A questionable conclusion. IIRC, most of the mass shooters bought their guns legally, having passed background checks.

And making crazies better trained, more skilled shooters would do nothing to end the narrative that they can buy a gun.

It would make them more lethal, though, increasing the body count in future mass shootings.

I agree, nothing will stop criminals, "but more good guys with guns" will make us safer....

Also a questionable conclusion.

[montana]

You're deflecting, and evading the question. I didn't say firearm training is a bad idea.

I asked how is your proposed mandatory training supposed to stop mass shootings?.

I'm getting double teamed ;0 The more trained good guys with guns the higher the % there will be some one to stop them.

You're again deflecting and evading the question, Kellyanne: How would your mandatory firearm training be a deterrent to crime?.

Same answer as above.

What I would prefer is that you give a straight answer to my questions, instead of attempt to deflect by asking me if I'd prefer something that I never said I wanted.

You quoted me wrong so I corrected you. Same answer as above.

A questionable conclusion. IIRC, most of the mass shooters bought their guns legally, having passed background checks.

And making crazies better trained, more skilled shooters would do nothing to end the narrative that they can buy a gun.

It would make them more lethal, though, increasing the body count in future mass shootings.


Also a questionable conclusion.

The police and military have people slip through the cracks too, but they still vette their potential employees.


What is your solutions to these problems Stan?

[montana]

I guess certain people have plenty of criticism to share, but are sorely lacking when asked for solutions or answers. Pathetic! :p

[stanc]

Patience, grasshopper. Just because you can spend 16 hours a day on the forum, doesn't mean all of us can. Some of us have other things to do.

And right now I need to take my post-lunch nap.

[keystone183]

I guess certain people have plenty of criticism to share, but are sorely lacking when asked for solutions or answers. Pathetic! :p

That's probably because real answers are incredibly complicated and difficult. Frankly, I don't think you've provided them either. Not tying to be confrontational, based on your inability to answer direct questions about them, that's my conclusion.

[keystone183]

I guess certain people have plenty of criticism to share, but are sorely lacking when asked for solutions or answers. Pathetic! :p

That's probably because real answers are incredibly complicated and difficult. Frankly, I don't think you've provided them either. Not tying to be confrontational, but based on your inability to answer direct questions about them, that's my conclusion.

[keystone183]

Oops. Editing on phone hard....

[keystone183]

keystone:

There is strict logic and common sense.

Pretty simple.

Given today and our society, do you believe that anyone should be able to purchase any firearm without any sort of control or check to see if the guy should own one?

LR55

LR

This certainly isn't a simple answer, but if forced to, then I'd say yes. I'll always default to preservation of rights. I'm a big believer in Ben Franklin's take, and I realize the problems it presents.

[montana]

That's probably because real answers are incredibly complicated and difficult. Frankly, I don't think you've provided them either. Not tying to be confrontational, but based on your inability to answer direct questions about them, that's my conclusion.

Which questions did I not answer??? Please elaborate. I have no problem with criticism, "but when it is just bitching without any alternatives or solutions" it just becomes a bitch session which is neither constructive or helpful..My ideas maybe wrong and impractical, but I have not heard any ideas at all from the complainers. Complicated or difficult, we will keep losing our 2ndA rights if things do not change. So what are your ideas or suggestions to these problems, "I have asked repeatedly of others" without any replies???

[Kswhitetails]

Indeed. I wonder what the Founders would think of us. They committed treason, a hanging offense, and took up arms to fight for the rights they believed in.

Today, we obediently accept every infringement of those rights. And not only do we refrain from taking up arms, some of us call for even more infringements.

This is nothing new to human culture. How many have accepted the rule of a King at the expense of personal freedom for generations?

Reagan may have been prophetic about the tree of liberty needing refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time. It's just more like generation to generation. And assumes the tyrants will always lose.