I agree with that. I once spent a very long time preparing a piece for publication on the 'collective right'. I took the first federal decision in which that phrase ever appeared (in the 1940's) and traced its cites back to their sources, and those sources references and cites even further back. I found that Heller pretty much covered the thinking of the founders and the courts for our first 150 years but I did not find a single source that spoke of a right to carry concealed. All the law and writing about the practice was rooted in state law and state constitutions. That said, such a 'right' is easily as protected under the penumbra of the second as abortion was in Roe...At least concealed carry was not illegal in every state in 1789 as was abortion.
This thread is centered around handguns. ..... which is not the world we live in. In reality, there is a government tasked with handling certain issues. Reality is not a right wing fantasy land of vigilante justice. In reality mandates are required to ensure that people do in fact know how to do X. I quite honestly don't care if you were trained be the best driver in the world, the only way to ensure that you understand x, y, and z is through a standardized and mandated test. Which is an irrelevant point. The only way to ensure that people learn x, y, and z is through mandate.
There is always a good sounding reason to institute totalitarian democracy. As they say, the path to Hell is paved with good intentions.
No more idiotic than the officer that shot himself in the leg while showing a class of kids what not to do. At least the cop was a bad enough shot to miss someone else.
I was taught the gun is ALWAYS loaded. Period. It was not "pretend the gun is always loaded". It was not "the gun is loaded until you check to make sure it isn't loaded". It was the gun is ALWAYS loaded. With that as your single most important rule, accidents would be greatly reduced.
Someone at some time should have. I had shown a deputy one of my M&P's (I suppose you could say we are friends), he seems surprised that I cleared the pistol before handing it over. Especially considering the empty chamber.
Actually, that really depends on where you live good sir. While I typically frown on vigilante justice just as you do, it typically only arrives en masse when it is needed. Vigilantes fill a void. For better or for worse. Either way it isn't pretty. http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-ne...l-average-justifiable-homicide-up-79_02102012 It's no laughing matter in Detroit. Yes, the thread is centered around handguns. But once legislation like this has started it seems to grow and expand and never be curtailed. It wouldn't surprise me in the lease that if some mandate was ever applied that it would grow to encompass all weaponry. It is unnecessary. And no, it is not a required mandate, in the 1800's I highly doubt there was a law saying you needed children to go to school, or even need firearms training for that matter. People instead learned from their elders. People saw the benefit of an education...and now you can't fog a window with out an associate's degree. Passing ridiculous laws and mandating weapons training is just silly, not to mention unenforceable. Another note on this is that a test or examination is worthless unless you stay in practice. If you do not practice your skills they begin to quickly atrophy. Which I suspect is why the officer shot himself like an idiot. Besides, if officers followed the training provided them to the "T", silly things like shooting themselves would be a thing of the past. Mandates are overrated. Let the community police itself. Respect the spirit of the 2nd amendment.
Justfiable homicide is not exactly the only thing you mentioned before. Soooooo..... legislation to prevent incompetent shooters from acquiring a CCW will somehow spread to all other weaponry? How is someone going to conceal a shotgun exactly? Sorry, I am not going to entertain the idea of a slippery slope (fallacy). You also had an astronomically low literacy rate. So no, the 1800's is not some sort of idealized world. There is nothing wrong with people furthering their education. A large number of educated persons helps the society as a whole. The notion of a few people learning from a few people while the rest remain ignorant is a bit silly. 1. Apply for concealed weapons permit. 2. Fail live fire session. 3. Application denied. How is that unenforceable? Uh... yeah. Practice is important. .... what is that spirit? Gun registration and confiscation for the public benefit?
Oh dear... Concealing a shotgun is not rocket science, it only requires creativity. You can call it a slippery slope fallacy all you want, the facts are that it remains true. Social Security was originally designed as a supplemental retirement income. It has ballooned in funding since its inception. Trends like this occur in many facets of government, what makes you think weaponry is exempt? Yes, many were illiterate, nobody is disputing that. I am merely pointing out that it doesn't take a government mandate to spur improvement. As you may notice, education is everywhere now. Literacy has never been higher. Department of Education hasn't been around since the beginning of the nation. It has origins in the late 1800's, nearly a hundred years after the nation was founded (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education) How is it unenforceable? Criminals carry weaponry, often concealed, rarely are they applying for permits or taking marksmanship exams. Spirit of second amendment? "AMENDMENT II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It is pretty self explanatory. It is tough to make it clearer than they already put it. Confiscation is an oxymoron at direct adds with our constitution regardless of public safety.
How did this thread go from discussing CWL requirements to "things that criminals can do"? Stay on topic folks, you're making me dizzy.
.... wouldn't that be considered an AOW? We are not talking about Social Security. We are talking about requiring CCW applicants to demonstrate an ability to shoot their weapons before being granted a permit. That is a very limited restriction applying to a very limited scope. So no, I am not going to entertain a silly fallacy. Right, and do you think that scholl attendance would be the same or higher if it were not mandated? Ha! Oh, so just because criminals carry guns, that means anyone and everyone and anyone can carry guns without a permit? Laughable. I suggest reading Gun Fight. Guns were registered the Founder's days so that they could be confiscated for public use in the event of a British or Indian attack. History. A great read, a book far removed from the ignorance of the Brady Campaign, and the paranoid delusions of the NRA.
Still tryin' to find a Problem, just so yer Cure will work, eh,..?? It seems yer very Sure that yer the only CCW holder who's competent enough to hold that CCW, eh,..??
Wolverine, You are a puzzling individual. I think this is one of those times where it is time to agree to disagree. This is one of those "leading the horse to water" type of things, only both of us seem to think the other is the horse. Nonetheless, I remain puzzled by you. Kudos I guess. By the way, what is an AOW? The term is unfamiliar to me.
I don't see how there is anything to be puzzled by, I am not a "conservative" gun owner. As for the AOW, it is a type of Class III item any other weapon. I may be wrong, but the shotgun cane may qualify as an any other weapon.
