General Categories > Laws and Legislation

Thune-Vitter Amendment Roll Call

<< < (4/5) > >>

FarmerRick:
In an ideal world ;D, I would prefer NOT to need to get a permit from the government to do something that is guaranteed to me by the constitution.  Whether someone else can see that I am exercising my constitutional right to bear arms, is none of my concern.

Dan W:
 armed and humurous...Can you point to any statistic, or facts other than anecdotal, that indicate  states that do not require knowledge and proficiency tests before issuing permits have more stupid, careless, accidental  or embarrassing firearms deaths or injuries than the states that do not?

Isn't your argument the same one that all the small towns in Nebraska were using to keep LB430 from passing?

armed and humorous:
To answer your first question, Dan, no.  I don't have any statistics to show that other states with more lax CHP requirements have more stupid, careless, accidental, or embarrassing firearms deaths or injuries.  And, as I said, I'm not saying that reciprocity wouldn't be good for those who choose to carry, or the rest of society for that matter. I'm just trying to make a point that there will be some issues to work out, and in working out those issues, we could come up with something worse than what we have now.  I'm not sure what you mean about my argument being the same as that used by the small towns that were trying to keep 430 from passing.  They didn't want higher standards to apply to people carrying concealed in their towns; they didn't want anyone carrying in their towns, period.  Think of it this way (and I'm not sure if this is a good example):  When I go out to the Izaak Walton League rifle/pistol range, I know that everyone there (unless they are not authorized) has had some training on the rules for the range and that they have demonstrated to some extent to a qualified range officer that they know what they are doing.  Now, I compare this to our CHP classes/tests in that it is pretty lax and certainly isn't going to guarantee that no one is going to get shot by accident while on the range.  In fact, I still see a number of people who don't use particularly good practices when it comes to the safe handling of their firearms.  On the other hand, I've been to pubic sight ins and to public shooting ranges where there is absolutely nothing requiring those who come there to shoot to have any kind of training whatsoever.  I generally don't shoot there when other people are around because I don't trust them to know enough not to point that loaded gun at me or to stop shooting when someone is down range putting up a target.  No, I can't say that I've ever known anyone to get shot at the trap shooting sites at Branched Oak or Pawnee.  But, if I have the choice, I'll go to the club where it is much more likely that anyone else shooting there has at least heard of gun safety.

Finally, when it comes to the second amendment, or simply the right to defend oneself with whatever means one has, I realize that even a blind, illiterate, with DTs and no thumbs has as much right to defend themselves as I do.  (No offense meant to the visually impaired, the uneducated, alcoholics, or amputees.)  Though I might want to stay a safe distance away from them if they were armed, I don't know that I have an ethical argument to deny them that right.

armed and humorous:
Oh, and FarmerRick, I agree.  In an ideal world, we wouldn't need a permit to possess or carry firearms in any manner we see fit.  Actually, I think it would work in the real world, too.  We already have laws against anything "bad" that one might do with a gun.  What's the point of stopping someone from simply owning or carrying one if they're doing no one any harm?  But, I'm probably preaching to the choir...anyway, it'll never happen.

Dan W:
My point is that there is published evidence that training requirements neither reduce crime nor firearm accident rates. There are many more firearms owners than there are CCW's,  and open carry has no training requirement in the majority of locations. So, how is heaping all this responsibility on a small group, typically 1-2% of the population, somehow making us look better.

I think the flaw in your way of thinking is that you need the approval of the opposition to win.

I think we should just defeat them.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page