General Categories > Laws and Legislation
Thune-Vitter Amendment Roll Call
SBarry:
--- Quote from: Dan W on July 23, 2009, 10:11:59 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
Amen.
Be proactive on our rights rather than reactive. That is the only way to get anything done.
armed and humorous:
I see your point, and I don't disagree with it. Although, there is one difference between training those who carry concealed and not training those who carry in the open: I have a choice to avoid those carrying in the open because I see them coming toward me with a gun. If someone is carrying concealed and has one in the chamber and the safey off, I don't know that when he bends over to tie his shoes, his unrestrained wheel gun is going to fall out and blow my head off when it lands on the hammer. Also, I try to avoid using or paying too much attention to a lot of statistics. Unless someone is reasonably intelligent, and understands logic and statistics and all that goes along with them, it is just too easy to make people believe something that simply isn't true. It's pretty hard to deduce cause and effect relationships on a large scale with the kinds of statistics that are generally available to the public. And, a good deal of research is often supported by those with vested interests in the results.
I'm not saying "we" (gun owners or second amendment proponents) can't win without convincing the anti-gunners we're right. I don't honestly know how it would come out if you could just take a nation wide vote right now on some of the issues we face concerning gun control. I'm sure some areas would come out pro-gun, but I'm reasonably sure there are areas that wouldn't. My point is, even if we don't outnumber them, if we can convince them that excercising our second amendment rights won't do them any harm, we won't have to worry about it.
Yes, we've made some headway in the last few years, with most states allowing concealed carry, and the Supreme Court decision on the Heller v DC case. Still, that was a 5-4 vote on a court that is likely to change one or more seats quite soon and a Democratic president choosing the replacements. It also seems that cities or states with more dense populations tend to have stricter gun control. So, even though we may be in the majority here in Nebraska, we've got the Californians and New Yorkers to more than cancel us out when it comes to anything on a national level.
Give me a break, Dan. I've been off work and bored to death for weeks now. My rambling here just gives me something to do. I think we're on the same side.
huskergun:
--- Quote from: Dan W on July 23, 2009, 10:11:59 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
AGREE 100%
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version