# Another state is getting it right.



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

West Virginia Overrides Governor?s Veto To Pass Radical NRA-Backed Gun Law | ThinkProgress

:smt038


----------



## dereckbc (Jan 2, 2016)

Well if you think allowing anyone to conceal and carry a firearm without any training, permits or license is Progress, OK

On the other hand law abiding citizens have nothing to fear or worry about having to at least register for a permit and demonstrate their ability to handle a fire arm in public. I have no problem allowing people to open or conceal carry. I am a Texan and have a Concealed Permit which I am proud of. It even gets me out of Traffic Ticket Citations. But last thing I want to see is Trump supporters (voters) carry a firearm under any circumstances.



Scares the He!! out of me thinking about it.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

dereckbc said:


> Well if you think allowing anyone to conceal and carry a firearm without any training, permits or license is Progress, OK
> 
> On the other hand law abiding citizens have nothing to fear or worry about having to at least register for a permit and demonstrate their ability to handle a fire arm in public. I have no problem allowing people to open or conceal carry. I am a Texan and have a Concealed Permit which I am proud of. It even gets me out of Traffic Ticket Citations. But last thing I want to see is Trump supporters (voters) carry a firearm under any circumstances.
> 
> ...


Two things. Would you want to have to obtain a permit to write letters to the editor, to attend a church of your choosing, or perhaps to speak in front of a crowd of people at an awards ceremony? Why is it okay to be able to do those things without permission from your employees but to exercise the most important right you have, you must receive a permit... and training in accordance thereof?

As for *"But last thing I want to see is Trump supporters (voters) carry a firearm under any circumstances"*, I'd much prefer those folks to carry arms than the things that voted for Obama and are of a mind to vote for Hillary or Sanders.

*Paratrooper;*
I'm with you. I think it is a travesty at best and more along the lines of criminal to force Americans to obtain a permit to exercise this most fundamental right of a free people.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

For me, I feel if an individual wants to carry a firearm either openly or concealed, it's that person's responsibility to get educated and trained at his / her own expense. 

If you don't, you risk a lot. It's just that simple. 

To dumb it down as far as to say that the last thing you want to see is Trump supporters carry a firearm under any circumstance, speaks volumes about yourself.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

I used to have qualms like this.
And then we moved to Washington State, where carry licenses are "must issue," and there's no training requirement.

We've been here almost 17 years, and I have yet to hear of a concealed-weapon carrier who has done something so stupid that it is stupider than the things done by supposedly-trained carriers in other states.
In truth, we Washingtonian carriers seem to be a little better than most, formally trained or not.


----------



## high pockets (Apr 25, 2011)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> I used to have qualms like this.
> And then we moved to Washington State, where carry licenses are "must issue," and there's no training requirement.
> 
> We've been here almost 17 years, and I have yet to hear of a concealed-weapon carrier who has done something so stupid that it is stupider than the things done by supposedly-trained carriers in other states.
> In truth, we Washingtonian carriers seem to be a little better than most, formally trained or not.


Substitute GA for WA in your post, and it pretty much echos my thoughts.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> I used to have qualms like this.
> And then we moved to Washington State, where carry licenses are "must issue," and there's no training requirement.
> 
> We've been here almost 17 years, and I have yet to hear of a concealed-weapon carrier who has done something so stupid that it is stupider than the things done by supposedly-trained carriers in other states.
> In truth, we Washingtonian carriers seem to be a little better than most, formally trained or not.


It is impossible to teach 'native' intelligence. It _is_ possible to inculcate respect for what a loaded gun can do to mess up at least two lives. If the teacher starts early enough, even a cowshit-shoveling hillbilly will get it. This I know for a fact.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

hillman said:


> ...even a cowshit-shoveling hillbilly will get it. This I know for a fact.


...Done been there, done been that? :anim_lol: :smt083


----------



## sdh91 (Dec 12, 2015)

I have no problem with minimum training requirements for a CCW permit. To me it's like getting a driver's license. You should know and be able to demonstrate the basic operation of a vehicle to get a license. I sure wouldn't want to be out on the road with a bunch of people who never had any type of driver training.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> ...Done been there, done been that? :anim_lol: :smt083


Well, that was Cousin Lyle more than me. He was a little more 'objective' than I was. I was given a Daisy BB-gun (not a Red Ryder), along with some advice, when I was 9 y.o. After 'harvesting' a couple tweety-birds and holding their still-warm bodies in my hand, I decided they were much better when they were flying and tweeting. It all kind of flows from there. If you don't want 'em dead...


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

sdh91 said:


> I have no problem with minimum training requirements for a CCW permit. *To me it's like getting a driver's license.* You should know and be able to demonstrate the basic operation of a vehicle to get a license. I sure wouldn't want to be out on the road with a bunch of people who never had any type of driver training.


Oranges and apples. A driver's license extends to you the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roadways. Carrying a firearm is a right, not a privilege.


----------



## dereckbc (Jan 2, 2016)

SouthernBoy said:


> Oranges and apples. A driver's license extends to you the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roadways. Carrying a firearm is a right, not a privilege.


Both are deadly weapons. Second point, the meaning of "_well regulated militia_" means "disciplined" or "_trained_. States have every right to require training and licensing.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Right or wrong, good or bad that you should proof you are trained in the use of firearms it is irrelevant if you understand the 2nd amendment and it true meaning......
:smt1099


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

dereckbc said:


> Both are deadly weapons. Second point, the meaning of "_well regulated militia_" means "disciplined" or "_trained_. States have every right to require training and licensing.


Only if a state creates a militia.......


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

dereckbc said:


> Both are deadly weapons. *Second point, the meaning of "well regulated militia" means "disciplined" or "trained.* States have every right to require training and licensing.


Actually that is not what this phrase means. To regulate in this context in the late 18th century meant "to keep and make regular". That meant to keep* arms and have them at the ready.

And I might add that states do not have rights. People have rights. The state receives its power and authority from its owners; We the People.

* To keep arms was to own and have them "on or about the person".

[source: Judge Andrew Napolitano]


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Cait43 said:


> Only if a state creates a militia.......


All men between the ages of 17 and 45 are automatically members of the common militia, whether or not they know it.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SouthernBoy said:


> All men between the ages of 17 and 45 are automatically members of the common militia, whether or not they know it.


OK, but what about us old folks?
We need self-protection more than most.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> OK, but what about us old folks?
> We need self-protection more than most.


That's what _Depends_ are for. :smt033


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Our governments, federal and state, exist at our pleasure and our authority. It is We the People who are the supreme sovereign of this nation, not the government. If anyone here believes otherwise, your civics and U.S. Government teachers have done you a horrible disservice. Our government operates for us, not the other way around. And while it certainly seems that this is not true at times, just imagine what things might look like if the next election resulted in a total house cleaning of the administrative and legislative branches. That would get some serious attention at the highest levels.

We are NOT a democracy and thank God for that. We are a republic. The Founders got it right and left us with one other safeguard I would bet few have ever been taught in primary or secondary school, or even in college. We are the only nation in the history of the world where We the People have the right to throw off our government with armed force if necessary should the need ever arise. Jefferson saw to that.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> OK, but what about us old folks?
> We need self-protection more than most.


I'm going to bet that if the SHTF, our help would not be turned down.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

paratrooper said:


> That's what _Depends_ are for. :smt033


Some years ago, I figured I could make a lot of money by moving to Florida and opening up a funeral parlor. Then as a bonus, selling Depends as out the back door.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

paratrooper said:


> That's what _Depends_ are for. :smt033





SouthernBoy said:


> I'm going to bet that if the *SHTF*, our help would not be turned down. [emphasis added]


Yup. That's what it always comes down to. As Sherlock Holmes used to say, "It's a process of elimination." :horsepoo:


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

I never thought I'd be as knowledgeable on disposable underwear as I am right now. 

My father uses um. I'm thinkin I'm way too young for any of this.


----------



## sdh91 (Dec 12, 2015)

SouthernBoy said:


> Oranges and apples. A driver's license extends to you the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on public roadways. Carrying a firearm is a right, not a privilege.


I agree that carrying a firearm is a right but believe the comparison is still valid as it relates to public safety. Just because training would be required does not deny someone their right bear arms. We have other examples in the Bill of Rights where a right, for reasons of public safety, has an associated process. For example, The United States Constitution explicitly provides for 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances'. Yet in many situations, a municipal permit is required for the demonstration. I attended 3 hours of training to be able to apply for my CCW. In no way did I feel I we being denied my 2nd amendment rights because I was required by the State to attend mandatory training.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

sdh91 said:


> I agree that carrying a firearm is a right but believe the comparison is still valid as it relates to public safety.


Public safety should never trump a basic and fundamental right. In an extreme example, if this were the case one could argue that the government could and should ban the carrying of all arms by the People after large natural disasters or major terrorist attacks. Our civil rights are far more important than the public safety.



sdh91 said:


> Just because training would be required does not deny someone their right bear arms.


The problem with requiring training is, 1) who is going to require it, 2) how is it going to be setup and administered, 3) where is the guarantee that such training will not, sometime in the future, be used to disqualify people who otherwise would not be disqualified to keep and bear arms?



sdh91 said:


> We have other examples in the Bill of Rights where a right, for reasons of public safety, has an associated process. For example, The United States Constitution explicitly provides for 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances'. Yet in many situations, a municipal permit is required for the demonstration.


And the Bill of Rights mentions absolutely nothing about such a permit



sdh91 said:


> I attended 3 hours of training to be able to apply for my CCW. In no way did I feel I we being denied my 2nd amendment rights because I was required by the State to attend mandatory training.


I attended a total of one college quarter plus a full two-day NRA course before applying for my CHP. The college course was years earlier before we went "shall issue" in Virginia but it was extensive and I took the course as an elective. Also I have taken three courses on Virginia law and the use of deadly force plus another course that could best be described as an advanced CHP course. In addition, I try to train every two weeks.

There is nothing in the Second Amendment or in my state's Section 13 that requires I be trained in the use of arms or that I must first obtain a permit before I can carry concealed. In fact in my state, open carry is the normal mode of carrying a sidearm and requires no permit.

One should always be leery and question those who would suggest or require anything that steps outside of the parameters of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Just keep in mind that "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance".


----------



## sdh91 (Dec 12, 2015)

SouthernBoy said:


> The problem with requiring training is, 1) who is going to require it, 2) how is it going to be setup and administered, 3) where is the guarantee that such training will not, sometime in the future, be used to disqualify people who otherwise would not be disqualified to keep and bear arms?


I respect your opinion and appreciate the dialogue on this topic. As far as training, it occurs all over the country (CCW training). My local firearms dealer did a great job with the training. They are in the business of selling guns, ammo, range time, etc.. Thus, they have an inherent interest in safety and a business interest in "not disqualifying" those who should not be disqualified. Seems like a good balance to me.


----------



## dereckbc (Jan 2, 2016)

SouthernBoy said:


> Actually that is not what this phrase means.
> * To keep arms was to own and have them "on or about the person".
> 
> [source: Judge Andrew Napolitano]


Does not matter what you or Judge Napolitano think, Well Regulated Militia has already been defined in the Federalist Papers No 29 by Alexander Hamilton, and again in Supreme Court by Heller. So whether you like it or not, the State can demand Training as a condition of Licensing. It is the Law silly and you cannot deny it.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Did someone classify a vehicle as a "deadly weapon" ?:watching:


----------



## boatdoc173 (Mar 15, 2014)

personally , I think that gun permits should be like drivers licenses. an NRA safety course to prove you know what you are doing. That is it no bs. no government rectal exams(we get them when we buy guns in CT= BG checks for every purchase or transfer).

I do agree that each holder should get their own training BUT I worry that there are some really lazy( or very stupid) folks out there who will not unless forced. and the NRA course is the very basics to say the least jmho


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

sdh91 said:


> I respect your opinion and appreciate the dialogue on this topic. As far as training, it occurs all over the country (CCW training). My local firearms dealer did a great job with the training. They are in the business of selling guns, ammo, range time, etc.. Thus, they have an inherent interest in safety and a business interest in "not disqualifying" those who should not be disqualified. Seems like a good balance to me.


And I also respect your opinion as well, and am very pleased with the civility shown by you and most everyone else on this thread.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

dereckbc said:


> Does not matter what you or Judge Napolitano think, Well Regulated Militia has already been defined in the Federalist Papers No 29 by Alexander Hamilton, and again in Supreme Court by Heller. So whether you like it or not, the State can demand Training as a condition of Licensing. *It is the Law silly and you cannot deny it.*


So you're saying the "Law" is silly in this regard?? Very interesting.


----------



## t4terrific (Oct 24, 2015)

dereckbc said:


> Both are deadly weapons. Second point, the meaning of "_well regulated militia_" means "disciplined" or "_trained_. States have every right to require training and licensing.


No it DIDN'T.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Not at the time it was written, anyway.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Before I was ever allowed to "Game Hunt" in the field. I was required to take a hunters safety course.

I really think with today's more advanced e.g. "striker guns" ,,,, it's my opinion there is a need for some type of compromise involving training.

Common sense should prevail before an individual should be allowed to carry in public ,,,especially next to my family.

My issue of concern is you can't see the weapon coming if it's CCW. 
Open carry fine , I can see an open carry coming and can choose to trust ,, or not trust to be next to this individual.

I choose not to use public gun ranges, I have a trust issue when it pertains to my life or my family's .

I have no problem if someone wants to shoot themselves, their family, or friends. 
I'll even watch from a safe distance.
I should be allowed a safe distance 



If you're on your own land, blow your Effin head off, I don't care.

:smt1099.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SouthernBoy said:


> Public safety should never trump a basic and fundamental right. In an extreme example, if this were the case one could argue that the government could and should ban the carrying of all arms by the People after large natural disasters or major terrorist attacks. Our civil rights are far more important than the public safety.
> 
> *The problem with requiring training is, 1) who is going to require it, 2) how is it going to be setup and administered, 3) where is the guarantee that such training will not, sometime in the future, be used to disqualify people who otherwise would not be disqualified to keep and bear arms?
> *
> ...


I'm with you "SB". I too took a tactical handgun course in addition to what was required to obtain a concealed weapons permit which is not required in Arizona. Obviously, I believe some sort of training is beneficial to those who wish to carry a gun for self protection, otherwise I wouldn't have done it. But when it comes to exercising a constitutionally guaranteed right making it mandatory would indeed be an infringement of that right. One does not have to pass a literacy test in order to exercise their 1st Amendment rights. The 2nd Amendment should not be treated any differently. Mandatory training required by the state opens up all sorts of mischief on the part of those in charge of administering it.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

I hear and agree on the same issue,, what I'm subscribing to , is a compromise , to protect our rights while maintaining my right to life. 

John Locke;

John Locke (1632-1704) argued that the law of nature obliged all human beings not to harm “the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another”:


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

pic said:


> I hear and agree on the same issue,, what I'm subscribing to , is a compromise , to protect our rights while maintaining my right to life.
> 
> John Locke;
> 
> John Locke (1632-1704) argued that the law of nature obliged all human beings not to harm "the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another":


When it comes to maintaining our constitutionally guaranteed rights there can be no compromise. Every time there is a compromise we lose a little more until one day there's nothing left to compromise. Those that oppose us are relentless in their opposition. They have made it clear to anyone who is listening that they will not stop until every man, women and child relinquishes their 2nd Amendment rights to the alter of perceived public safety. They will never give up after each compromise is agreed on. It's as if you have a cake that someone else wants, you keep on giving up your half of the cake piece by piece through compromise until all you are left with are crumbs.

Regardless of the laws of nature human beings have been harming "the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another" since the beginning of mankind. All the laws in the world will never put an end to that. Governments and religion often being the worst offenders.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

You're obviously speaking about trusting the government. I don't trust the government either. 

I certainly don't trust the government to hand out guns to every Tom , Dick n Harry, lol. 

Common sense laws that will protect my family from an untrained, idiotic gun handler is my natural unalienable right.

I don't view John Locke 's quote as a compromise to the 2nd amendment. You shouldn't undermine people's natural rights while defending the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## dereckbc (Jan 2, 2016)

t4terrific said:


> No it DIDN'T.
> 
> Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"
> 
> Not at the time it was written, anyway.


Did you even bother to read your own link? Perhaps you should read the Federalist Paper No 29 Militia is an army under command and call to duty.

Look I have no problem with Open or Concealed carry. The framers had no intention of letting anyone loose with a gun. No law abiding citizen should have a problem being required to have some basic training in gun safety, Laws of when they can and connote use a gun, and a license. Hell let your kids take a gun to school.


----------



## t4terrific (Oct 24, 2015)

dereckbc said:


> The framers had no intention of letting anyone loose with a gun. No law abiding citizen should have a problem being required to have some basic training in gun safety, Laws of when they can and connote use a gun, and a license. Hell let your kids take a gun to school.


They were constantly writing about how the government needs to strictly control things. Weren't they?

Name one instance where a framer of The Constitution wrote that people should not bear arms unless they get special permission from government.

They were all, always writing, so there should be mountains of evidence that they did not want Americans being "let loose with a gun".


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

pic said:


> You're obviously speaking about trusting the government. I don't trust the government either.
> 
> I certainly don't trust the government to hand out guns to every Tom , Dick n Harry, lol.
> 
> ...


I'm going to play devil's advocate:

Those "common sense" laws are already in place regarding negligence. If someone were to accidentally shoot an innocent bystander caused by their own negligence their legal problems would be insurmountable. They'd be in deep shit up to their eyebrows. There are already over 20,000 federal, state and local firearms laws in place: Will just one more make that much of a difference? Then it's always we need one more after that, and after that. Do we just keep passing laws based on every individuals perceived fears? Where does it end?

Since when has the government handed out guns to every Tom, Dick n Harry? Other than governmental agencies such as the military and police? Since they are the only ones that the government hands out guns to: Are you implying that you don't trust them either?

Since we both don't trust the government. Who are you going to trust? Who would you choose to enforce those "common sense" laws? You need some form of government to collectively enforce laws. Who's to determine what those "common sense" laws are to begin with? Besides the term "common sense" is all too often used by our adversaries to enact even more "common sense" laws.

Just because someone has a license does not make them a safe driver otherwise there would never be any accidents or DUI's. Besides driving is a privilege that government can either grant or deny. Owning a gun is a God given inalienable right under our Constitution who's purpose is to constrain government.

Like I've mentioned before we already have laws in place that address the criminal and negligent mis-use of firearms as there should be. Many of these laws serve no purpose whatsoever other than to criminalize what in some jurisdictions is perfectly legal in one and illegal in another. More specifically, the mere possession of a firearm on one's person or vehicle. Try taking a firearm into New York City without a license from that city even though you have a concealed weapons permit from another state or even from another jurisdiction within New York State. Get caught and you could be a felon. In some state's without pre-emption statutes the laws can vary from county to county, town to town. New York State happens to be one of them.

There are far too many laws on the books as it is that punishes the behavior of individuals even when that behavior harms absolutely no one or their property. Their only purpose is to provide a steady stream of clients for lawyers who also happen to be the politicians who enact those laws.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

dereckbc said:


> Did you even bother to read your own link? Perhaps you should read the Federalist Paper No 29 Militia is an army under command and call to duty.


That paper talks about the organized militia. Most people in this nation are part of the common militia (all men between 17 and 45 and some select females).



dereckbc said:


> The framers had no intention of letting anyone loose with a gun.


You're going to have to explain this one. The Founders had no power to control who carried arms.



dereckbc said:


> Hell let your kids take a gun to school.


They did when I was in junior and senior high school. They would keep them in their vehicles then hunt or shoot after school. And many schools had shooting teams as well.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

I'm pretty sure the police and military have weapons training programs in place.

Like I said before, I agree about defending our 2nd amendment rights wholeheartedly.

But IMO, it needs to be done with proper discretion. 

I don't have the answer.

But I have an opinion,,,when govts start making the gun laws , either pro gun or anti gun, it's never good.

:smt1099


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

dereckbc said:


> ...The framers had no intention of letting anyone loose with a gun...


Huh?
Someone's been giving you strangely altered copies of the Framers' writings.

Back in the 18th century, just about everyone in what would soon be the US owned a gun of one kind or another, and without having to pass a background check or take a state-mandated course in safe gun handling.
And after the Revolution was over, there were military weapons everywhere. Americans even had privately-owned cannon!

(I strongly believe in some kind of mandated gun-safety-and-applicable-law course for concealed carriers, but I am quite happy to live without it too.)

And about "taking guns to school"...
In the 1940s and '50s, we safely took guns to school, even in New York City, as long as they were in some adult's hands until we left school grounds. (We did not have a school-sponsored shooting club.)
We played knife games on the grass on school grounds, right outside the Principal's office. He came out and joined the fun, once.
In the 1950s, I routinely carried a cased rifle with me on the New York subway, on my way to shoot at the range near City Hall.
I rode home on the subway with a newly-purchased rifle, open and unwrapped. Nobody seemed to mind.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

I just saw this note, about West Virginia's new no-permit concealed carry law: "The legislation provides a $50 tax credit for anyone who voluntarily undergoes gun training..."

Now, there's a really good solution to the mandated-safety-course problem! Let's get all of the other states to handle it the same way.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

There was only a few of us Rochester neighborhood youngsters who wanted a shotgun or rifle. 
I was one .
My parents allowed my ownership n possession of firearms,built out of trust. 
It was an interest of passion, a hobby, it was inevitable.

That was then, today , my concern is based on the reasons people are buying firearms today in volumes.

There seems to be a massive surge in gun ownership due to *fear*, uncertainties.

That really concerns me when a major percentage of firearms carriers are doing so in fear, not in hobby or upbringing.

Just a point of concern.
:smt1099


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

It would be a good Idea when some go back and rethink what the difference between a priviledge and a right is. But forgetabaoutit. 

We can only pray that there are some from the government school system brainwashed become a little spark in the darkness of their brain to realize, that they already slaves. And the shackles and chains are from childhood on by system teachers proven and tested once a year of the loyalty to the politically correct view (others would never become a Minute to teach) implemented in their brains.
A right is something that a human being has and don't need a justification or a approval for.
A privlidge is something that someone gives to another but is free to revoke regardless of justification.

To carry a weapon is a right and not a privilege. In human history 8000 years was always the sign of the free that they carried a weapon. Slaves never had a weapon because they are called inhuman, they are cattle to harvest.

Well but I doubt that I come through in the brainwashed minds. The brainwashed never really comprehend and the free don't need that explanation.

Go figure and pray that the creator of this wold comes and makes an final end with that enslavement of the many.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

pic said:


> There was only a few of us Rochester neighborhood youngsters who wanted a shotgun or rifle.
> I was one .
> My parents allowed my ownership n possession of firearms,built out of trust.
> It was an interest of passion, a hobby, it was inevitable.
> ...


I understand your point. But when teachers in school would stop to scare the heck out of 5 year olds only to implement a fear from guns, what do you expect?
I'll think if teachers in school would teach the responsible handling with firearms, teach what they really are and not scare the heck of many and give violent ideas to the view It would be way better.

I remember we went to school with a gun, placed it in the corner and went home going in the forest shot a rabbit for moms supper. No one became the idea of shooting each other. That was a part of responsibility behavior and parenting and not just let them do what they want and create uncontrollable monsters.

I believe when everyone has a weapon the children growing up with that devices no one had to be scared. But its always the same. If there are a government or political forces around that have no god in mind, they have to get rid of guns. They plan in decades and not in months. Just saying.

Opinion off


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

It was my job to teach my children to safely handle firearms, knives the stove and to drive. I even reinforce the training my grand-daughter gets. I grew up with guns and would go off all day with my rifle at 8 years old. We had school shooting every month and as long as Ms. Goodale wasn't shooting you had a chance to win.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

tony pasley said:


> It was my job to teach my children to safely handle firearms, knives the stove and to drive. I even reinforce the training my grand-daughter gets. I grew up with guns and would go off all day with my rifle at 8 years old. We had school shooting every month and as long as Ms. Goodale wasn't shooting you had a chance to win.


"Those were the days, my friend, we thought they would never end." I'm pretty sure the song was about other endings...


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

tony pasley said:


> It was my job to teach my children to safely handle firearms, knives the stove and to drive. I even reinforce the training my grand-daughter gets. I grew up with guns and would go off all day with my rifle at 8 years old. We had school shooting every month and as long as Ms. Goodale wasn't shooting you had a chance to win.


One of my classmates in my senior year in high school used to take homemade pipe bombs to school and after school let out, he would take them to open fields a few miles away and set them off. He even made a cannon with galvanized conduit, metal end caps, and a caisson made of 2X10's. We had a ball shooting that thing off on the Fourth of July... until it blew up.


----------



## dereckbc (Jan 2, 2016)

SouthernBoy said:


> One of my classmates in my senior year in high school used to take homemade pipe bombs to school and after school let out, he would take them to open fields a few miles away and set them off. He even made a cannon with galvanized conduit, metal end caps, and a caisson made of 2X10's. We had a ball shooting that thing off on the Fourth of July... until it blew up.


And you wonder why people want tighter regulations?


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

SouthernBoy said:


> One of my classmates in my senior year in high school used to take homemade pipe bombs to school and after school let out, he would take them to open fields a few miles away and set them off. He even made a cannon with galvanized conduit, metal end caps, and a caisson made of 2X10's. We had a ball shooting that thing off on the Fourth of July... until it blew up.





dereckbc said:


> And you wonder why people want tighter regulations?


 :anim_lol: :anim_lol: :anim_lol:


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Back in 1977, while in college, one of my classes was Speech Communication. It was a required class for LE. Being such, we had quite a few LE students in it. 

Anyways, we had to give speeches in front of the class on subjects that we pretty much decided on ourselves. It came as no surprise that a good number of us chose firearms, handguns in particular. 

It wasn't unusual for some of us to bring handguns to class and speak about them, mostly safety and such. A lot of the other students (non-LE) had never had any kind of firearms instruction at all. 

It wasn't uncommon to have upwards of 10-15 various handguns in that class that had been brought in by us. Never a raised eyebrow or commotion. The instructor was female and quite attractive. She and I ended up getting along quite well.......but that's a whole other story. :smt033


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Not to worry......... Once the democrats take control of Congress and the individual state legislations law abiding citizens will be hog tied by them when it comes to gun rights....... Enjoy your weapons while you can.......


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

dereckbc said:


> And you wonder why people want tighter regulations?


This was 1963 and '64. The world was a far different place back then than it is today and people had more and better common sense.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Thanks PT111Pro. I should add that this classmate was never a threat*. From what I heard, he went to Vietnam and got into something to do with demolitions - go figure. Back in those days, school shootings were virtually nonexistent, let alone bombings. It was just a different world in mostly good ways.


* I know, that's what they all say.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

Cait43 said:


> Not to worry......... Once the democrats take control of Congress and the individual state legislations law abiding citizens will be hog tied by them when it comes to gun rights....... Enjoy your weapons while you can.......


When the Clinten president goes into office (and that is as sure as daylight change next weekend) the first thing she does is a gun ban. It's only a law change, no one get out to get the guns from you, she said in ABC TV. Sure she is right is only a tiny law thing. It means everyone with a slingshoot is outside the law, actually a criminal than with a snip of a finger or better with the pen that signs the law everyone is a criminal and you can't complain about protected carreer criminals by liberals anymore even if it's true because yourselve became a criminal over night.

People don't really understand what that mean. It means for exapmple if you get cought with a weapon on you or pocked or in your home (a divorce case where the ex complains about it for example) you go to prison for at least some years. And if someone break in your house and you shoot them, you see the death penalty for first degree capital murder because you had the gun before hand and planned to shoot an introoder. If the guy survifes he got probation and you 25 years. That is the tiny little change of law that the man hater liberals talking about.

The funy thing on that is, that by destroying the 2nd no one can stop them to erase the 1st or any other law. You become cattle over night. But the school system brainwashed can't believe that Obama or the nice Clinton with their promisses can go wild. Right? They can talk so nice and smile so bright they never have somthing sinister in mind. Right? Never forget a vote from a criominal caunts the same that the one of a saint, but a saint never will vote for democrats (he wouldn't be a saint anymore) but every criminal will.


----------



## dereckbc (Jan 2, 2016)

PT111Pro said:


> When the Clinten president goes into office (and that is as sure as daylight change next weekend) the first thing she does is a gun ban. It's only a law change, no one get out to get the guns from you, she said in ABC TV. Sure she is right is only a tiny law thing. It means everyone with a slingshoot is outside the law, actually a criminal than with a snip of a finger or better with the pen that signs the law everyone is a criminal and you can't complain about protected carreer criminals by liberals anymore even if it's true because yourselve became a criminal over night.
> 
> People don't really understand what that mean. It means for exapmple if you get cought with a weapon on you or pocked or in your home (a divorce case where the ex complains about it for example) you go to prison for at least some years. And if someone break in your house and you shoot them, you see the death penalty for first degree capital murder because you had the gun before hand and planned to shoot an introoder. If the guy survifes he got probation and you 25 years. That is the tiny little change of law that the man hater liberals talking about.
> 
> The funy thing on that is, that by destroying the 2nd no one can stop them to erase the 1st or any other law. You become cattle over night. But the school system brainwashed can't believe that Obama or the nice Clinton with their promisses can go wild. Right? They can talk so nice and smile so bright they never have somthing sinister in mind. Right? Never forget a vote from a criominal caunts the same that the one of a saint, but a saint never will vote for democrats (he wouldn't be a saint anymore) but every criminal will.


Bet spelling, English, science and math were not your strong subjects.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

> Bet spelling, English, science and math were not your strong subjects.


:smt082:anim_lol::anim_lol::smt083
Well you right. English was, when I went to school, absolutelly no subjet. How did you know that? :anim_lol:


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

PT111Pro said:


> :smt082:anim_lol::anim_lol::smt083
> Well you right. English was, when I went to school, absolutelly no subjet. How did you know that? :anim_lol:


I think your English is great considering your German homeland. Im thinking you're from Germany, East Germany if I were to guess. Can you speak a third or fourth language ?
I apologize if I'm speaking out of bounds,,thanks
:smt1099


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

@pic
I am comming out of the old Bundesrepublik Deutschland (BRD and not GDR) meaning the western US controled free part of Germany that not exist anymore since the comunist had taken Germany over after the wall broke down. I actually come from Munich but the family is mainly from Austria.
Yes, I speak other languages. I speak Croatian (Sebocroatian how they called back when I lived in Europe), Italian and a little bit English.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Another point I would like to mention is,,, writing the language is always much more difficult then speaking the language.

In your case _languages_ :smt023:smt023


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

PT111Pro said:


> @pic
> I am comming out of the old Bundesrepublik Deutschland (BRD and not GDR) meaning the western US controled free part of Germany that not exist anymore since the comunist had taken Germany over after the wall broke down. I actually come from Munich but the family is mainly from Austria.
> Yes, I speak other languages. I speak Croatian (Sebocroatian how they called back when I lived in Europe), Italian and a little bit English.


Ignore the less-than-civil remark. You're fine in my book, friend.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

PT, your text English expresses your thoughts quite adequately.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

Thank you'all. 
I know my written English is sometimes terrible. The young men is just a young men and in his little single minded world he was absolutely right, at least when it comes to English spelling and grammar.
The rest was just plain mean, because people in other languages may not spelling English right but math and science too?

You see there are grammar and spelling police all over the Internet and that is found in all the languages and in German for sure too. But in today's world you never know who you meet in the web. It could be a Chinese in a Russian Forum, an American among the Turkish, the Turkish between the South Africans and South Africans writing in a Canadian block. That is in my Opinion honestly the real gain in our times. That is the intellectual wealth of today's culture being able to live and participate among all that different cultures, minds, and opinions. I found this just wonderful. Being able to compare to others and value and revalue what you have on your own. God bless America.

But sometimes when people live in their own little world, unable to think outside the little village that they live in, can't just not see much further than his or hers own toes, have nothing to contribute to the www, they at least can work as a spellchecker in one language because there is not more than that. Right?

End or rant

We should not be to hard with them, some just not able to keep up with all that


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

dereckbc said:


> Bet spelling, English, science and math were not your strong subjects.


One things for sure, he certainly understands what oppression is all about. Who cares about his broken English? He certainly knows his history. He's no fool that's for sure. Maybe we can all learn a little something from him. Actually he should be lecturing in our public schools and in colleges and universities instead of all that left wing socialist propaganda they are being fed. America needs more "PT's". "PT" you're authentic, don't change a thing.


----------



## joepeat (Jul 8, 2015)

Well now that we're on the subject language, how about a lesson for the NATIVE English speakers on this forum:

_*then*_ is different from _*than*_
"If it's raining _*then*_ I will not go shooting today."
"The 10mm is more powerful _*than*_ the 9mm."

_*your*_ is different from _*you're*_ (contraction for "you are")
"I agree with _*your*_ last post, _*you're*_ absolutely correct."

_*advise*_ is different from _*advice*_
"I _*advise*_ you to find some _*advice*_ on that matter."

_*its*_ is different from _*it's*_ (contraction for "it is")
"_*It's*_ not smart to point a gun at anything other that _*its*_ intended target."

those are the most egregious and there may be a few more that I haven't mentioned. Maybe others will chime in. Remember this is meant for NATIVE English speakers only.


----------



## PT111Pro (Nov 15, 2014)

WoW desterman, now I am just an average dude that has seen a little more from socialism than the americans. No not because I am smarter, it it because I have seen it first hand.

But for those that want to know. For those Americans that had cycled trough Germany since 1945 to keep us safe from socialism and the oppression that always comes with it. Hitler was not a Conservative he was a Socialist. That is the cup ot the centaury blaming the Conservative for Hitler instead admitting that this is socialism. 

You see the truth don't need a police or a suppression. The truth speak for itself. Only the liar the cheater the one that has sinister goals and agendas need suppression and have to hinder any free speech implementing Police against the speech of the people..

For those that want to know, Germany is again converted to a totalitarism. Many over there can't feel it at the moment because they are politically correct anyway, at least for the moment. But no one on earth can stay politically correct all thew time in socialism. Nothing ios more interchangeable than political views and socialistic truth is subject to change on a daily base.
Germans had to learn that during Hitler and later in the GDR during Ulbricht/Honecker. Many ended in Bergenbesen oder later in Bauzen because they couldn't keep up with the newest turns. The last executed person because of the crime of opinion was conducted in Leipzig GDR in 1988 in the chambers of the Stasi (Government Secret Police). He was shot execution style with a Walther P 38 in the neck.

But since January 1, 2016 Germans could be visited and interrogated by the police for saying or writing (in the social media for example) something that was not approved by the German Government.
It is actually insane. How long were the US GI over there to prevent that from happen again? It was 55 years. But the promise of free stuff from a nanny state and a living without work and responsibility did it all over again. And this time they didn't even have to promise a People's car for free (Volkswagen Bug).

Never forget, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong,Pol Pot and all that Socialists were actually elected because of the promise of free stuff from the government. I pray the US Americans wake up before it is to late.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

I've never had issues understanding what you were putting forth. Too bad I can't say the same for others born and educated in this country.

Just for clarification purposes, I'm talking about others on other forums, *NOT* this one.

I swear, some people come across as dumb as a large box of smooth river rock.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

PT111Pro said:


> WoW desterman, now I am just an average dude that has seen a little more from socialism than the americans. No not because I am smarter, it it because I have seen it first hand.
> 
> But for those that want to know. For those Americans that had cycled trough Germany since 1945 to keep us safe from socialism and the oppression that always comes with it. Hitler was not a Conservative he was a Socialist. That is the cup ot the centaury blaming the Conservative for Hitler instead admitting that this is socialism.
> 
> ...


I do too "PT". Your knowledge of history and insight is refreshing. Although we're not there yet, every time a Democrat gets elected president we take one more step in the march towards Socialism. In order to speed up the process they want to grant citizenship to the tens of millions who have entered this country illegally. Along with the importation of tens of millions more. How any clear thinking American citizen can be okay with this is beyond me? Socialism depends on a large majority of impoverished people in order to flourish. People who depend on the labor of others to support their every need. As the middle class gets pushed further down the economic ladder they too will become somewhat dependent on government assistance. Not necessarily because they want to, but because they will have no other choice in order to eke out some semblance of a standard of living. That's when the real problems will begin as there will no longer be a middle class to support the burgeoning Socialist welfare state. That's when the whole rotten structure will come crashing down. Only those that rule over us will be living a palatial lifestyle. That's why they wish to abolish Constitutional Law, but first they must get rid of the 2nd Amendment in order to prevent another bloody revolution of which is a certainty. The founders of this nation were fully aware of this after fighting a revolution of their own.

Here's a quote from one of my favorite authors, it bears repeating:



> "The law has been used to destroy it's own objective; It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which it's real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense." *"But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder."* --- The Law by Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) French economist, statesman, and author.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

joepeat said:


> Well now that we're on the subject language, how about a lesson for the NATIVE English speakers on this forum:
> 
> _*then*_ is different from _*than*_
> "If it's raining _*then*_ I will not go shooting today."
> ...


Go flying a kite JOE. Go play into traffic. Go pound you're pavement. Its about time to Take a long walk off a short peer. 
(Tease)
Did you find the spelling mistake? 
:smt008:smt008


----------



## joepeat (Jul 8, 2015)

pic said:


> Go flying a kite JOE. Go play into traffic. Go pound you're pavement. Its about time to Take a long walk off a short peer.
> (Tease)
> Did you find the spelling mistake?
> :smt008:smt008


Yeah, you misspelled "a".


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

PT111Pro said:


> ...Hitler was not a Conservative he was a Socialist...


The Hell he was.
Hitler's brand of "socialism" was to fix what was wrong with Depression-era Germany by looting neighboring countries. That's not exactly Socialism.
He was also bent on punishing France for having held out through WW1, and for hosting the physical surrender meeting.
And, further, he was intent upon finding a scapegoat, the Jews, for the disaster that Germany had brought upon itself.

Socialism is really bad economics, but its political structure does not feature looting, revenge, and scapegoating.
Further, calling oneself a Socialist does not make you one.
The National Socialist German Workers' Party (_Nazional-Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei_, NSDAP, Nazis) was only a name, not a truth.
The Soviet Union declared itself to be "Communist," but its government was about as far from Marxist communism as the Nazis were from socialism.



joepeat said:


> Well now that we're on the subject language, how about a lesson for the NATIVE English speakers on this forum...


...and don't forget that "apostrophe-s" ("person*'s*") makes a possessive, while just plain "s" ("person*s*") makes a plural.
Of course, this is complicated by the fact that "apostrophe-s" ("it*'s*") makes a contraction of "it is," while just plain "s" indicates the English language's one really strange possessive ("it*s*").
Too often, they are both written the other way 'round.


----------



## RK3369 (Aug 12, 2013)

Is anyone here willing to deny anyone else their constitutionally granted right? If not, everyone should be able to carry without a permit slip from the government. Does anyone support limiting everyone's right to free speech, or right to choose the religion they believe in? A right is a right is a right. Nothing else needs be said.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

RK3369 said:


> Is anyone here willing to deny anyone else their constitutionally granted right? If not, everyone should be able to carry without a permit slip from the government. Does anyone support limiting everyone's right to free speech, or right to choose the religion they believe in? A right is a right is a right. Nothing else needs be said.


RK3369,
Are you on the correct thread? I think you're off topic.
:smt033


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

joepeat said:


> Well now that we're on the subject language, how about a lesson for the NATIVE English speakers on this forum:
> 
> _*then*_ is different from _*than*_
> "If it's raining _*then*_ I will not go shooting today."
> ...


These are very common grammatical errors on numerous websites. One hopes that those who make these mistakes don't do so when writing a letter of introduction to go along with their resume. We all make mistakes in writing as well as speaking. Most of mine are typos and not reviewing my text before hitting "Post". So it is probably a good thing to just let it go and hope for the best.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

From time to time, I like to post this link about the common forms of government. It is well worth viewing.


----------

