Here We Go


Harleymac1

New member
An Indiana legislator wants to make attending a training and safety class mandatory to get your license to carry. Those who possess a license would be exempt. Do you feel this goes against our 2A rights? Do you feel that the license requirement in itself goes against 2A?

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk 2
 

UrsusMedius

New member
I have mixed feelings about mandatory training. I think anyone that takes up the responsibility to carry a firearm should do everything they can to know how to safely and effectively use it, but I also know that I have no right to impose my opinions on anybody. I suppose the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment could be interpreted as meaning that anyone that chooses to bear arms must be trained in their use, but again that is just my interpretation; I enforce it on myself but have no right to force it on anyone else.
 

wolf_fire

New member
An Indiana legislator wants to make attending a training and safety class mandatory to get your license to carry. Those who possess a license would be exempt. Do you feel this goes against our 2A rights? Do you feel that the license requirement in itself goes against 2A?

Sent from my KFOT using Tapatalk 2


The license goes against your rights... any hoop to jump through in order to get the infringement permission slip is a further violation.
 

wolf_fire

New member
I have mixed feelings about mandatory training. I think anyone that takes up the responsibility to carry a firearm should do everything they can to know how to safely and effectively use it, but I also know that I have no right to impose my opinions on anybody. I suppose the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd amendment could be interpreted as meaning that anyone that chooses to bear arms must be trained in their use, but again that is just my interpretation; I enforce it on myself but have no right to force it on anyone else.

Read up on your history and what the founding fathers meant by "well-regulated".. it means a well armed and well staffed militia.... in other words, many people with many arms.
 

Harleymac1

New member
I have to agree wolf_fire. F our Constitution provides us the rihht to bear arms how can a state make a rule that we have to be licensed?

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 

Harleymac1

New member
Sorry about the spelling in my last post. Either I have fat fingers or my phone has a mind of its own. Maybe the NSA changed it to make me look stupid while they were monitoring OUR forums.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 

JDM

New member
Despite the fact that the whole licensing process, to me, is unconstitutional, the one upside to having a training requirement is that your license should be recognized by more states.
 

UrsusMedius

New member
Read up on your history and what the founding fathers meant by "well-regulated".. it means a well armed and well staffed militia.... in other words, many people with many arms.

I've actually read that as well as several other interpretations. "Well armed" can mean either being simply "in possession of arms" or or being "in possession and and trained in the use of arms", depending on the author. Either way, nothing should stand in the way of a private citizen's gun ownership. (Unless they are known to be mentally incapable of being responsible for their actions.)

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

--Richard Henry Lee, 1778

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun."

-- Noah Webster, 1787
 
As far as I am concerned, the right to vote and bear arms should be mirrors. If an 18-yr-old can vote, he should be allowed to bear arms. If training is required for gun ownership, it should be required before voting. Knowing the Tenth Amendment and who must pay the national debt (taxpayers!) should be a requirement before voting. In North Carolina, liberals are arguing that requiring id to vote violates constitutional rights. Maybe it should be illegal to ask for id when you buy a gun from a dealer...... As far as "registration" goes, we register voters, not votes, so this is already fulfilled by the US census.... Treat gun owners and voters alike!!! Not much is more precious than the right to vote and bear arms!!!!
 

tadawson

New member
To me, no training requirement for a CCL makes about as much sense as no training for a drivers license - that is to say, none. I don't want folks who are either too stupid or too lazy to meet what are typically pretty minor training requirements causing problems for those who are more responsible. They train you in the military (militia?) so why should this be different.
 

Harleymac1

New member
tadawson, not challenging your answer or belief but how many of the gun toting criminals would you guess have any training? And, even if the law is changed, they will not be applying for a license anyway. I am curious what the ratio of licensed carriers vs unlicensed carriers is.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 

wolf_fire

New member
To me, no training requirement for a CCL makes about as much sense as no training for a drivers license - that is to say, none. I don't want folks who are either too stupid or too lazy to meet what are typically pretty minor training requirements causing problems for those who are more responsible. They train you in the military (militia?) so why should this be different.

Because there shouldn't be a permission slip in the first place!! Let alone hoops to jump through in order to get your permission slip from the government!!

Do you get a training and permission slip for a table saw? a circular saw? a router? a nail gun? NO! And none of these is protected within the Constitution, yet all of them are deadly instruments as well.

I'm sorry for the rant... I just realized you only have 3 posts and are new to the forums. Welcome.

However, this is an issue that really strikes a nerve with me. We are granted under the Constitution the right to KEEP and BEAR arms with absolutely no INFRINGEMENTS. Yet, we have this convoluted permit/license system which is nothing more than allowing our governmental officials the ability to deny or uphold our rights. And we are okay with this??? This makes no sense to me. We should be fighting against these un-Constitutional practices, not adding more hoops to go through.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,394
Messages
623,166
Members
74,218
Latest member
Evrviglnt
Top