# Education, Training & Accountability vs Gun Control



## GCBHM

There are a couple threads going that have some promoting this notion that government should mandate training and licensing for firearms, citing things like driver's license, CPA licensing and the like to compare. It seems to me that there is a colossal misunderstanding of what training does vs what people do. 

First, one needs to understand the difference btwn rights and privileges. It is a right to keep and bear arms. It is a right to have free speech. It is not a right to be a CPA or drive a car. Comparing rights to privileges is not a fair comparison, and does not make any valid points wrt training/licensing. 

Secondly, this notion that mandated training is going to somehow magically ward off accidents and violent crime is simply misguided. While training is good, and I beleive should be required for using a gun, it does not ensure safety. It may serve to reduce, and I say may to mean that it may, but it may not, some accidents and tragedies, but it is not going to address the real problem behind violent crime in America.

Lastly, if the government really wanted to protect America against violent crime, it would actually get out of the way to be honest, but if it had an agenda to protect rather than control it would implement a policy that worked to educate people at an early age, train them to use things properly, and then hold them accountable to using it in accordance with accepted law passed by the people. However, although that would be an extremely effective way to combat violent crime, the government has proven throughout history that it does not want to protect the people. It has proven that it simply wishes to control them by passing senseless laws restricting law abiding citizens from having access to means of defense. Only good people who have been properly educated and trained can hold others accountable for their actions. Laws restricting access to defense do nothing to stop bad guys from perpetrating violent crime, but a granny with a gun can. 

This is a perfect example of why government does not need to be involved in such issues. It simply works to serve itself, not the people, and will stop at nothing to ensure its survival. Anyone who honestly believes otherwise is simply unaware at best, but if one is being honest with themselves, they must acknowledge the truth that education, training and accountability is a much better way than restriction and control. 

Gun control has been proven not to work. Neither will mandated "training". To those who say that eliminating gun control measures will result in the country going back to the wild, wild, west, I invite you to spend a night in any metropolitan area after dark. Go into the inner city and walk through the neighborhoods I've been in and tell me what you see. I submit to you we already have the wild west there now, and the reason for that is b/c of a lack of proper education, training and accountability coupled with restrictive gun laws in those areas that prevent good people from being able to defend themselves. Those who insist that rejecting government mandated training advocates for idiots putting guns in their pockets they don't know about or respect, I invite you to go to some of these state mandated classes. And, btw, if you don't see the idiot in the class, you're it. 

By all means, get a good education on firearms, get good training and be accountable to society, but do not buy into the lie that the government is here to help.


----------



## TAPnRACK

You mean the Government has been lying to us all these years?


----------



## SouthernBoy

TAPnRACK said:


> You mean the Government has been lying to us all these years?


Bless their hearts*, who would have thought?

* This is Southern for he/they're crazy.


----------



## TAPnRACK

I remember that phrase from another thread.... I learn some odd stuff on here sometimes.


----------



## hillman

TAPnRACK said:


> You mean the Government has been lying to us all these years?


At least 90% of our hassle with 'government' can be laid at Congress' door, either in laws it has passed or bureaucratic rules/regulations it has permitted. Neither John Adams nor Jefferson nor Madison nor Teddy nor any other resident of the president's quarters has been able to stem the tide of special interest edicts pouring out of that door. It started when each slave was counted as 3/5ths of a person, and hasn't ebbed since.


----------



## SailDesign

SouthernBoy said:


> Bless their hearts*, who would have thought?
> 
> * This is Southern for he/they're crazy.


So I gathered from my brother in NC. We only found him (or were found by him) a couple of years ago when he delved into Ancestry.com to find his birth parents as NC had changed the laws regarding how much info an adopted person could be given. He was amazed and saddened to discover he was really a Yankee - but he's getting used to being a bit of both (or "bipolar" as he puts it...) Bless his heart.


----------



## SouthernBoy

SailDesign said:


> So I gathered from my brother in NC. We only found him (or were found by him) a couple of years ago when he delved into Ancestry.com to find his birth parents as NC had changed the laws regarding how much info an adopted person could be given. He was amazed and saddened to discover he was really a Yankee - but he's getting used to being a bit of both (or "bipolar" as he puts it...) Bless his heart.


The phrase, "bless his heart", commonly shows up in speech something like this;

"You remember Uncle Joe, bless his heart, used to say....."

It's not so much that it is said with vindictiveness or spitefulness but rather as a cover for what may be a concern about someone. Whether or Uncle Joe really was crazy may or may not be the case. It's more along the lines that he raised some eyebrows with his behavior, whatever it may have been.

So you have a brother in North Carolina? Now that you have found him are you going to visit him? As for him being amazed and saddened to discover he had a Yankee background, I can understand that. It could be confusing. I have (had since they're dead) relatives (two) from New Hampshire. This was a 50+ years ago. They were wonderful ladies and quite conservative. But then, they grew up in a different time, as did I.


----------



## SailDesign

SouthernBoy said:


> The phrase, "bless his heart", commonly shows up in speech something like this;
> 
> "You remember Uncle Joe, bless his heart, used to say....."
> 
> It's not so much that it is said with vindictiveness or spitefulness but rather as a cover for what may be a concern about someone. Whether or Uncle Joe really was crazy may or may not be the case. It's more along the lines that he raised some eyebrows with his behavior, whatever it may have been.
> 
> So you have a brother in North Carolina? Now that you have found him are you going to visit him? As for him being amazed and saddened to discover he had a Yankee background, I can understand that. It could be confusing. I have (had since they're dead) relatives (two) from New Hampshire. This was a 50+ years ago. They were wonderful ladies and quite conservative. But then, they grew up in a different time, as did I.


He's been up here and it is my "turn" to travel. I'm looking forward to it as he has a nice chunk of land near Madison. Not mountains, but not really flat either.


----------



## desertman

GCBHM:
Great post!


----------



## Steve M1911A1

Back on subject...

I don't care whether or not one government agency or another mandates or does not mandate gun-safety training.
I care only that it be provided in such a way that just about everybody ends up taking the course(es).

To that end, I suggest that gun safety, and related subjects, be taught in both grammar school and high school, both public and private.
It is unfortunate that we must accept that to accomplish this end, "there's gotta be a law." Without a law, schools will opt out using the Political Correctness argument.

I'll go as far as to suggest that high schools provide for rifle teams, shooting "real" rifles (not air-guns). Even the most urban high school can find room for a 50-yard range.
I think that intermural rifle competition is just as meaningful for teaching values, safety, and concentration as are baseball and football. Maybe more so.

(Of course, in our stupidly-pacifistic national state-of-being nowadays, I can only dream.)


----------



## GCBHM

I love the idea of teaching this in grade school, jr high, and hs. My only misgiving is that if it is "mandated" by government, then government will want to regulate and control it. That just won't do. With that comes more gun control. I want government to have nothing to do with guns.


----------



## tony pasley

SailDesign said:


> He's been up here and it is my "turn" to travel. I'm looking forward to it as he has a nice chunk of land near Madison. Not mountains, but not really flat either.


Madison NC or Madison county? Sorry for your brother their are treatment for Yankeeism but I regret their is no real cure. Don't forget your passport and visa when visiting the south and all those nasty shots to prevent infecting the locals LOL


----------



## SouthernBoy

tony pasley said:


> Madison NC or Madison county? Sorry for your brother their are treatment for Yankeeism but I regret their is no real cure. Don't forget your passport and visa when visiting the south and all those nasty shots to prevent infecting the locals LOL


I once saw a T-shirt in South Carolina that said (aimed at folks from up north), "Welcome to the South. Now go home".

The real worry, and this is very real, is that we lose that which is precious to us. A uniqueness that is only found in the South. I don't mean to offend our members here from the north, or other parts of the country, but the richness of a region is its soul. I know that people here from parts north or west would also like to see their region retain its own richness and traditions and I don't blame them one bit.

It's kinda like the last line in Don Henley's song, "The Last Resort". "You call someplace paradise, kiss it goodbye".


----------



## SouthernBoy

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Back on subject...
> 
> I don't care whether or not one government agency or another mandates or does not mandate gun-safety training.
> I care only that it be provided in such a way that just about everybody ends up taking the course(es).
> 
> To that end, I suggest that gun safety, and related subjects, be taught in both grammar school and high school, both public and private.
> It is unfortunate that we must accept that to accomplish this end, "there's gotta be a law." Without a law, schools will opt out using the Political Correctness argument.
> 
> I'll go as far as to suggest that high schools provide for rifle teams, shooting "real" rifles (not air-guns). Even the most urban high school can find room for a 50-yard range.
> I think that intermural rifle competition is just as meaningful for teaching values, safety, and concentration as are baseball and football. Maybe more so.
> 
> (Of course, in our stupidly-pacifistic national state-of-being nowadays, I can only dream.)


I would be totally on board with schools teaching firearms safety and proper handling. My two daughters graduated from high school in 1991 and 1993. At that time, their school had a rifle team... firearms not BB guns. I bet that stopped some years ago. The schools are a great place for this as part of the normal curriculum and could easily incorporate into early American history, such as the fourth grade, where children in my generation learned about the founding of the nation.

Sadly we're not going to see this. It would not fit in with the agenda of current school boards and so many local governments.


----------



## pic

GCBHM said:


> I love the idea of teaching this in grade school, jr high, and hs. My only misgiving is that if it is "mandated" by government, then government will want to regulate and control it. That just won't do. With that comes more gun control. I want government to have nothing to do with guns.


It's understandable the paranoia and mistrust of the govt. when dealing with firearms.

Past n Present Government actions confirm this fear we have.

But,

There are Federal, State laws and codes that do work to protect the American People

FEDERAL OSHA protects the workers on the job. The crane operator needs special training to operate that piece of equipment. The scaffolding is built according to federal safety standards to protect the workers. You must be properly qualified according to Federal Osha.
Asbestos, Silica dust, coal mines, fall protection, electrocution, struck by hazards, excavation hazards,etc

When I'm flying in a jet airplane, thank god for the govts federal regulations.

My drinking water is under Federal or State regulations.

When I go grocery shopping , almost everything you purchase is federally or state inspected

This list would be much to time consuming, if we listed everything.

We just don't trust the governments agenda when it pertains to firearms.
MAYBE THE GAY THING ALSO, lol.

AT LEAST I DON'T.

:smt1099


----------



## GCBHM

Actually, there really are no laws that work to protect anyone. Laws cannot protect. They may serve to deter law abiding citizens from crossing the line, but criminals simply disregard law as a way of life. 

People protect themselves and others, bc laws simply can't. Otherwise, laws against murder would stop every unlawful killing.


----------



## SailDesign

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Back on subject...
> 
> I don't care whether or not one government agency or another mandates or does not mandate gun-safety training.
> I care only that it be provided in such a way that just about everybody ends up taking the course(es).
> 
> To that end, I suggest that gun safety, and related subjects, be taught in both grammar school and high school, both public and private.
> It is unfortunate that we must accept that to accomplish this end, "there's gotta be a law." Without a law, schools will opt out using the Political Correctness argument.
> 
> I'll go as far as to suggest that high schools provide for rifle teams, shooting "real" rifles (not air-guns). Even the most urban high school can find room for a 50-yard range.
> I think that intermural rifle competition is just as meaningful for teaching values, safety, and concentration as are baseball and football. Maybe more so.
> 
> (Of course, in our stupidly-pacifistic national state-of-being nowadays, I can only dream.)


I sure as heck enjoyed my high-school team - shot twice at Bisley, weekly practice at the 200 or 500 yard ranges. Indoor 22's if it was rainy... Happy days!


----------



## Gruesome

You came SO CLOSE to not being an jerk, but you just made it in under the wire there at the end. Congrats. I'm glad you enjoy my turn of phrase, though. Now I will go ahead and use your own words against you. I had intended to do several of these because you gave me plenty of options, but there is one that crystalizes your hypocrisy. It's a shame, really. Much of your manifesto is good and right and I agree with a lot of it, but it is dipped in high octane Limbaugh and liberally (ooh, poor word choice) seasoned with Tinfoil Hat. Oh, and I fully realize that you will not be in any way swayed by this. You are deep in the Kool-Aid. If Jesus himself came down to you personally and said "Guns are bad" you'd call it a lie and blame Obama.

"While training is good, and I believe should be required for using a gun [snip]"
You just said it. TRAINING SHOULD BE REQUIRED. The only way you get something required is to make it into a law. This should be where I drop the drumsticks and leave, but it's just too easy to push it on the internet.

Of course training isn't a panacea. It would be naïve to think otherwise. If I gave the impression that a I believed 2 day course administered by my most benevolent and wise masters in the state legislature was the bestest thing in the history of ever then either I posted poorly (which I have been known to do...today, even) or you went LIBTARD! GET IM! But you (because you just admitted to it) and I (because it was my original point in the other thread) and I bet every other person reading this believes that some gun training and education is better than none. Some of us even think it should be required.

I'm sorry you hate the government so much. They must have really hurt you. Show me on this doll where the government touched you. Look, I trust those dirt bags about as far as I can comfortably spit a rat, but you apparently have it in your head that they are pure evil in every way and all they want to do is rape and pillage like drunken Vikings. Let go of some of that paranoia and have a sandwich or something.

"And, btw, if you don't see the idiot in the class, you're it."

I have definitely located the idiot in this thread.


----------



## GCBHM

Gruesome said:


> You came SO CLOSE to not being an jerk, but you just made it in under the wire there at the end. Congrats. I'm glad you enjoy my turn of phrase, though. Now I will go ahead and use your own words against you. I had intended to do several of these because you gave me plenty of options, but there is one that crystalizes your hypocrisy. It's a shame, really. Much of your manifesto is good and right and I agree with a lot of it, but it is dipped in high octane Limbaugh and liberally (ooh, poor word choice) seasoned with Tinfoil Hat. Oh, and I fully realize that you will not be in any way swayed by this. You are deep in the Kool-Aid. If Jesus himself came down to you personally and said "Guns are bad" you'd call it a lie and blame Obama.
> 
> "While training is good, and I believe should be required for using a gun [snip]"
> You just said it. TRAINING SHOULD BE REQUIRED. The only way you get something required is to make it into a law. This should be where I drop the drumsticks and leave, but it's just too easy to push it on the internet.
> 
> Of course training isn't a panacea. It would be naïve to think otherwise. If I gave the impression that a I believed 2 day course administered by my most benevolent and wise masters in the state legislature was the bestest thing in the history of ever then either I posted poorly (which I have been known to do...today, even) or you went LIBTARD! GET IM! But you (because you just admitted to it) and I (because it was my original point in the other thread) and I bet every other person reading this believes that some gun training and education is better than none. Some of us even think it should be required.
> 
> I'm sorry you hate the government so much. They must have really hurt you. Show me on this doll where the government touched you. Look, I trust those dirt bags about as far as I can comfortably spit a rat, but you apparently have it in your head that they are pure evil in every way and all they want to do is rape and pillage like drunken Vikings. Let go of some of that paranoia and have a sandwich or something.
> 
> "And, btw, if you don't see the idiot in the class, you're it."
> 
> I have definitely located the idiot in this thread.


After reading this, I am reminded of some words from Mark Twain, which fit your dissertation quite nicely. "Ignorance ain't what you know know, it's what you do know that ain't so." But then, ignorance is bliss. Enjoy!


----------



## SailDesign

tony pasley said:


> Madison NC or Madison county? Sorry for your brother their are treatment for Yankeeism but I regret their is no real cure. Don't forget your passport and visa when visiting the south and all those nasty shots to prevent infecting the locals LOL


Madison, NC.

We don't think we'll ever train him to be a real Yankee, but that's OK - we like him anyway. It's fun suddenly finding you've got a new brother at the age of 58.


----------



## SailDesign

SouthernBoy said:


> I once saw a T-shirt in South Carolina that said (aimed at folks from up north), "Welcome to the South. Now go home".
> 
> The real worry, and this is very real, is that we lose that which is precious to us. A uniqueness that is only found in the South. I don't mean to offend our members here from the north, or other parts of the country, but the richness of a region is its soul. I know that people here from parts north or west would also like to see their region retain its own richness and traditions and I don't blame them one bit.
> 
> .




Sadly, wherever people go, they try to make it like where they were last. Like US and Brit tourists going to India and looking for a McDonalds instead of trying the gorgeous local foods. And then wanting to stay in a hotel with plumbi.... No - that last one's OK, but you see where I'm going. I would never change anywhere I moved to, or why would I bother going?


----------



## pic

?..


----------



## Steve M1911A1

GCBHM said:


> Actually, there really are no laws that work to protect anyone. Laws cannot protect...


I call "BS."
Go back and re-read what *pic* wrote.

Perhaps you would differentiate between pic's _regulation_ of jobs and industries, and _laws_.
But remember, the useful regulations to which pic refers are all brought to us by means of laws.
There is no functional difference.

Strongly-worded general statements like "there are no..." will almost always turn out to be inaccurate.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

Gruesome said:


> You came SO CLOSE to not being an jerk, but you just made it in under the wire there at the end. Congrats. I'm glad you enjoy my turn of phrase, though. Now I will go ahead and use your own words against you. I had intended to do several of these because you gave me plenty of options, but there is one that crystalizes your hypocrisy. It's a shame, really. Much of your manifesto is good and right and I agree with a lot of it, but it is dipped in high octane Limbaugh and liberally (ooh, poor word choice) seasoned with Tinfoil Hat. Oh, and I fully realize that you will not be in any way swayed by this. You are deep in the Kool-Aid. If Jesus himself came down to you personally and said "Guns are bad" you'd call it a lie and blame Obama.
> 
> "While training is good, and I believe should be required for using a gun [snip]"
> You just said it. TRAINING SHOULD BE REQUIRED. The only way you get something required is to make it into a law. This should be where I drop the drumsticks and leave, but it's just too easy to push it on the internet.
> 
> Of course training isn't a panacea. It would be naïve to think otherwise. If I gave the impression that a I believed 2 day course administered by my most benevolent and wise masters in the state legislature was the bestest thing in the history of ever then either I posted poorly (which I have been known to do...today, even) or you went LIBTARD! GET IM! But you (because you just admitted to it) and I (because it was my original point in the other thread) and I bet every other person reading this believes that some gun training and education is better than none. Some of us even think it should be required.
> 
> I'm sorry you hate the government so much. They must have really hurt you. Show me on this doll where the government touched you. Look, I trust those dirt bags about as far as I can comfortably spit a rat, but you apparently have it in your head that they are pure evil in every way and all they want to do is rape and pillage like drunken Vikings. Let go of some of that paranoia and have a sandwich or something.
> 
> "And, btw, if you don't see the idiot in the class, you're it."
> 
> I have definitely located the idiot in this thread.


Wonderfully written!
Even the humor was masterfully, um, executed and, um, right on-target. (I never met-a-phor I didn't like.)

I am in awe!


----------



## GCBHM

Steve M1911A1 said:


> I call "BS."
> Go back and re-read what *pic* wrote.
> 
> Perhaps you would differentiate between pic's _regulation_ of jobs and industries, and _laws_.
> But remember, the useful regulations to which pic refers are all brought to us by means of laws.
> There is no functional difference.
> 
> Strongly-worded general statements like "there are no..." will almost always turn out to be inaccurate.


Call it whatever you like, but the fact remains that laws don't protect people, when it comes to guns and gun control. Let's stop with all the ridiculous comparisons to things like jobs and industry, shall we? It does not relate to the subject of guns and gun control, and it serves no real propose other than to make a straw man's argument so that one can say "I'm right".


----------



## Steve M1911A1

SailDesign said:


> Sadly, wherever people go, they try to make it like where they were last. Like US and Brit tourists going to India and looking for a McDonalds instead of trying the gorgeous local foods. And then wanting to stay in a hotel with plumbi.... No - that last one's OK, but you see where I'm going. I would never change anywhere I moved to, or why would I bother going?


...And now the county wants to install street lights in our little village.
The Californians who've just moved here are demanding them.

After all, we have such a mugging problem, The streets just aren't safe at night. (The raccoons will get you, if you don't watch out.)


----------



## GCBHM

Gruesome said:


> I have definitely located the idiot in this thread.


Thanks for the PM. I appreciate your candor and honesty, and wrt my service, you're welcome. We all have bad days, don't we? But the truth is, as I have said many times, there is never a good excuse for bad behavior, so I offer you my apology here.

Thanks again for the olive branch, and welcome to the site.


----------



## Gruesome

GCBHM said:


> Thanks for the PM. I appreciate your candor and honesty, and wrt my service, you're welcome. We all have bad days, don't we? But the truth is, as I have said many times, there is never a good excuse for bad behavior, so I offer you my apology here.
> 
> Thanks again for the olive branch, and welcome to the site.


You are a scholar and a gentleman and I am glad we could work this out. I offer my apology publically as well. Although...I honestly don't know what to do now. I've never had a flame war end in a mature, responsible, respectful way like this. They usually degenerate into ever-more-shameful name calling, threats, attacks against the structure of the family tree, insults, suggestions of homosexual tendencies, claims of having had 'relations' with close female family members, insinuations of less than adequate genitalia, at least 8 iterations of "You are!" "No, you are!" "No, you!" and finally the mom jokes. It is exhausting. I am glad to let all that go. I had a doozy of a mom joke on deck but I'm sure I can regift that somewhere else.

Honestly, I can't turn it off. It's a disease. I'll shut up now.


----------



## SouthernBoy

SailDesign said:


> Sadly, wherever people go, they try to make it like where they were last. Like US and Brit tourists going to India and looking for a McDonalds instead of trying the gorgeous local foods. And then wanting to stay in a hotel with plumbi.... No - that last one's OK, but you see where I'm going. *I would never change anywhere I moved to, or why would I bother going?*


Bingo and dead on, Were I of a mind to move to, say.. Cape Cod, I would learn everything I could about the area. Its traditions, its culture, its heritage, is history, and its colloquialisms. That is what makes regions of our nation unique and colorful. I would try my best to meld into the area and not attempt to foist my Southern heritage upon them. That wouldn't make any sense to me if I had chosen to make such a move.

I expect the same of others who come here from different places but alas, that is a pipe dream in my area and has been for half a century.


----------



## Gruesome

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Wonderfully written!
> Even the humor was masterfully, um, executed and, um, right on-target. (I never met-a-phor I didn't like.)
> 
> I am in awe!


Many Thanks. They call me the Cunning Linguist.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

Strange: Me, too.
Jean loves me for it. Literally.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

SouthernBoy said:


> ...Were I of a mind to move to, say.. Cape Cod, I would learn everything I could about the area. Its traditions, its culture, its heritage, is history, and its colloquialisms...


That's what Californians do, before moving here.
They learn all about the islands and island culture first. Then they move here and try to change it.

Truth: We moved to Orcas from California too. But before Californicating, we both came from elsewhere. That seems to have made us more tolerant and respectful.

We understand, and tolerate, both incest and animal love. After all, our winters do get boring. And we don't mind buck teeth at all, even coming out of the nose.
And speaking of animal love, we understand that it improves the island's sheep flocks considerably. We all, um, eat a lot of lamb.

I just wish that they'd get rid of all these damn' trees, so we could see the beautiful scenery we hear so much about.


----------



## SouthernBoy

Gruesome said:


> Many Thanks. They call me the Cunning Linguist.





Steve M1911A1 said:


> Strange: Me, too.
> Jean loves me for it. Literally.


Oh, that's cute. Talk about off topic.... but a good one. Bon appetit.


----------



## KeithC.

I thought "Bless his heart" meant you were a tree tard or something?


----------



## GCBHM

Gruesome said:


> "While training is good, and I believe should be required for using a gun [snip]"
> You just said it. TRAINING SHOULD BE REQUIRED. The only way you get something required is to make it into a law. This should be where I drop the drumsticks and leave, but it's just too easy to push it on the internet.
> 
> I bet every other person reading this believes that some gun training and education is better than none. Some of us even think it should be required.


To address the above statement, if you will look to see where you snipped my comments, I said that although I do think training should be required "to use a gun" I do not think it should be mandated by the government. The point behind that is that when you allow government in to mandate things, they want to control things, and when they get control of things, they take control of more things, and there is no end in sight.

I believe training is important, but training alone is not going to solve any problems we face as a society, which has been my point the entire time. As the subject of this thread states, Education, Training & Accountability are the things that must happen before any such issues will be legitimately addressed, and the government simply isn't interested in doing those. They just want to flat out ban things like buns and bullets in the name of safety. On that I call BS.

Even police have stated that the green tip 5.56 ammo is no threat to them, but Obama would have us all believe that we need to keep police safe. No, let there be no doubt the government (not just Obama-this all started well before Obama was a blip) wants to get guns to control society. The government has proven it cannot be trusted to do the work of the people, let alone control anything. Everything it touches turns to crap, and that has been proven beyond measure.

Let there be no doubt, as I have said, I want people to get trained. But I don't want it to rest with that. I've been to state required classes to get permits, and it was a joke, and that is not "training". It falls into the education realm. I've also taken safety training in the military, and it was good. But the military did not stop with education alone. We trained and were held accountable for our actions. The military is a very controlled environment for a very specific purpose, but you can't treat society this way. Even in the military there are countless episodes of renegade shootings, mishaps and accidents.

Training is good, but please don't buy into the lie that the government is here to help. How is this for moving forward, Gru?


----------



## SouthernBoy

KeithC. said:


> I thought "Bless his heart" meant you were a tree tard or something?


Hadn't heard that one.


----------



## pic

GCBHM said:


> Call it whatever you like, but the fact remains that laws don't protect people, when it comes to guns and gun control. Let's stop with all the ridiculous comparisons to things like jobs and industry, shall we? It does not relate to the subject of guns and gun control, and it serves no real propose other than to make a straw man's argument so that one can say "I'm right".


I was only confirming our mistrust of the government when it pertains to firearms.

I also pointed out that our lives are affected everyday by federal, state, local laws.

Don't forget to turn your clock ahead this weekend. The govt. even tells us how to adjust our watches, lol.
:smt1099


----------



## GCBHM

pic said:


> I was only confirming our mistrust of the government when it pertains to firearms.
> 
> I also pointed out that our lives are affected everyday by federal, state, local laws.
> 
> Don't forget to turn your clock ahead this weekend. The govt. even tells us how to adjust our watches, lol.
> :smt1099


Pic, why do you think I want less government controlling us? Could it be that too much control is in effect now? What you stated was obvious. No need to confirm it.


----------



## pic

GCBHM said:


> Pic, why do you think I want less government controlling us? Could it be that too much control is in effect now? What you stated was obvious. No need to confirm it.


Your homework assignment is to list five federal regulations , that you feel are unjust. 
(being funny)

Then list five federal regulations that you feel are for your benefit.( tease)

You have til the end of the week before the post is due .

:smt033


----------



## RK3369

GCBHM said:


> .......I said that although I do think training should be required "to use a gun" I do not think it should be mandated by the government.


....sooooooooo.......... how do you "require" something if it is not a law? Maybe you say you "require everyone to be trained,, but we're going to trust that you will do it? So how does that give everybody else some comfort that "you" have really been trained?

Your anti training and anti government argument is illogical. You can not "require" something of everyone without giving somebody or something the force of arms to enforce that requirement, can you?

this was the entire point of my disagreement with you in the other thread. If you are for training, but against the government mandating it, who is going to make me comfortable that you have been trained? You??? are you going to be the final arbiter of that? Well, then, I guess you then have become the government, haven't you??? You can not have the anarchy which you preach and also be able to assure your fellow citizens that all is well without some government mandates, which are usually referred to as "LAWS"...


----------



## GCBHM

Easy. 1. Gun control. There are numerous regulation on the book, too many to list here, but all are unjust. 2. Marriage. This is something the government also has no business deciding. 3. Prohibition. Although repealed, it was one of the most heinous of all federal regulations. 4. The war on drugs. See #3. 5. Roe v Wade. This is not an issue for the federal government to mandate. 

The federal government has but three duties. 1. Provide a national defense. 2. Protect state's right to govern. 3. Conduct international trade. That's it. All else should be governed at the state level, and the state government, in turn, should be protecting individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not working to control like the federal government does. 

As to what federal regulations I see that are for my benefit. Easier. None. The federal government is to have no control over domestic issues; however, thanks to Mr. Lincoln, we are now the United State of America rather than the United States of America. That ought not be.

How'd I do, professor? What's my grade? Come on, come on! SAY IT!


----------



## GCBHM

RK3369 said:


> Your anti training and anti government argument is illogical. You can not "require" something of everyone without giving somebody or something the force of arms to enforce that requirement, can you?


Are you required to get up, go to work, make a living? Did your father require things of you that are not written in law? Think outside the box that the government has put you in.


----------



## GCBHM

When one considers things from the stand point of desire rather than mandate, it changes the entire perspective. Think about it, if you will. When I was a kid, I waited until the last minute to get up to get ready to go to school, but come hunting season, I was up and at 'em come 0400! Why? I was made to go to school, but I wanted to go hunting. Today, what is it we spend our free time, if we have any, doing? Things we are made to do, or things we love and enjoy doing? 

Let's approach this subject the same way. I think we all agree that firearms training is good. I think we can also agree that while it will not prevent all accidents, it certainly doesn't hurt to do it. It seems the majority of us agree that it would be a great idea to teach the basics of firearms safety starting in grade school, graduating up to offering advanced training by the time we graduate high school. This is such a great and simple idea that would help make society so much safer that it's a no brainer, right? So then why isn't the government "mandating" that instead of just trying to take guns? Does that not prove to you that safety is not government's agenda here? 

I believe that if people are educated, trained and held accountable to their training the country would be a better place; however, allowing the government to control it will surely ruin it. I challenge you to name one government run anything that has long term success. I think it is safe to say that our country is far worse off today than ever in its history. We are regulated to death, our economy is in the gutter barely hanging on to life support, businesses are leaving to locate their HQs in foreign countries to escape ridiculous tax codes, healthcare is a sham and our best doctors are retiring early just so that they do not have to deal with Obamacare, insurance is out of control as a result, and now the GOP is saying that it may not be in our best interests to repeal Obamacare. 

I could go on, but I'm afraid I'd fall asleep typing it all up. Not once have I said that I do not support training. What I have stated is that government controlled, government mandated training is useless. That is b/c it would be for nothing other than to cover its collective ass so that it can say it did something to get re-elected for. Government is not here to help you. It is here to take from you. There are ways that the people can make this education, training and accountability required without government intervention. It's called the home. If people do not want guns, fine. They don't have to have them. But if we want real change that lasts then we are going to have to be the ones who offer this education, training and accountability to the point that those who do want the guns want also the ETA that goes with it. 

Idealistic? Of course! But then so were the founding fathers. Just food for thought.


----------



## RK3369

GCBHM said:


> Are you required to get up, go to work, make a living? Did your father require things of you that are not written in law? Think outside the box that the government has put you in.


Not required to get up and go to work, I do it because I have to pay my way in life. 
Yes, my father required things of me that were not written in law, but guess what, if I didn't do them, I got my ass beat when he got home. Did your father say, 'oh, that's ok you didn't do what I told you to do, you don't have to be responsible to anything anyhow, so don't worry about it"

I'm not in the government box unless by that you mean do I feel an obligation to get up and, go to work and pay my bills rather than sitting on my ass and drawing welfare. You seem to be a rather "broad" thinker? Did you work for a living or did you expect the government to put food on your table? Wouldn't have thought so with your anti government rants, but then maybe you are just one of those social malcontents who despite what this country has done for them despises the system we live under anyhow.

So what's your plan to make sure everyone is trained? Are you going to personally train them? If you don't have the time and money to do that, who is going to do it so that the rest of us are sure, as you say, "that everyone who uses a gun should be required to be trained"? I want some proof that everyone is trained? How are you going to do that? Personally I don't trust my next door neighbor to tell me that he is trained, as I do not trust you to tell me that. Nor do I trust any politician to tell me the truth about anything, so how is this going to be accomplished?

oh gee, maybe we have to have a "LAW" that says somebody qualified to do so has trained you in safe and proper gun handling and operation. You're stuck on the concept that since owning and carrying is a "right", (which I agree with) that you cant' do anything which affects that right. Fine, I go along with that too, but answer this, how do you assure me that when I'm walking down the street and some guy with a sidearm clearly visible who I don't know is approaching me, how am I assured that that guy is not some neo Nazi sympathizer who just wants to kill people? ??? I have a right too, and that's the right to not have to be confronted by someone carrying a gun who I don't know the first thing about whether or not he is even remotely qualified to carry that gun. Balance that right off with your right to carry without restriction under the 2A. I have great difficulty with that concept which is why I want some assurance that somebody I see walking down the street with a gun on his hip has had some level of exposure to safety and responsibility for handling a gun to begin with. And is also not a criminal and has been found to be not mentally unfit. How do you give me that assurance without mandating any laws to that affect????


----------



## GCBHM

RK3369 said:


> Not required to get up and go to work, I do it because I have to pay my way in life.


I rest my case.

BTW, there is no restriction under the 2A. You have no right to mandate that another do anything against their will. You have the right to protect your life and property, to the pursuit of happiness in so much as it does not violate another's rights. It does not matter if you know that the guy walking down the street has some level of training so that you feel safe. If he isn't doing anything to bother you, shut up and press on. What if he wanted to make you prove you have the training he approves of before he lets you carry your gun? Think bruh...think.


----------



## GCBHM

RK3369 said:


> Yes, my father required things of me that were not written in law, but guess what, if I didn't do them, I got my ass beat when he got home.


My point, exactly. No law could have that influence over you. That's b/c your dad had a relationship with you, and that is the way it is designed to work. I bet he made a far longer lasting impression that affected your life for good than anything government has done by passing some ridiculous law mandating something that served no purpose but to justify the existence of the government that passed it. I may be spitballing here, but I bet I'm right, and this is how something can be required without being law.


----------



## RK3369

GCBHM said:


> It does not matter if you know that the guy walking down the street has some level of training so that you feel safe. What if he wanted to make you prove you have the training he approves of before he lets you carry your gun? Think bruh...think.


You show a remarkable level of personal trust of individuals for one who is so mistrustful of the government. Quite honestly, I don't think I trust most people nor do I trust the government, but I can't run around telling everyone I see to show me their gun training card now, can I. I don't feel your answer is acceptable. I just have to "trust" that the guy walking down the street is going to do no harm?

Isn't that what the Nazis told the Jews about the showers in Germany????, or something to the effect that "don't be afraid, you're just going to get cleaned up". Well, after the guy walking down the street coming towards me pulls his gun and shoots me, I guess I won't have to worry any more about it now, will I?

Even Reagan said "trust, but verify"


----------



## GCBHM

If he is doing no harm, why question him? How about I demand that you prove to me that you're trained to the level I accept when I see you coming bc I'm not sure you know how to handle a gun? Should we now pass a law mandating that everyone post their credentials on-line, and wear badges to put the rest of society at ease? 

Let's say that the government does mandate training. Is that going to make you feel safer? How do you feel about guys like Matix and Platt, who were highly trained with weapons, which enabled them to kill two FBI agents and wound five before being taken out? Do we need to start planting chips in our brains that are designed to explode if we deviate from our government mandated behavioral protocols?

Btw, Reagan was referring to government. Just food for thought.


----------



## desertman

RK3369:


> how am I assured that that guy is not some neo Nazi sympathizer who just wants to kill people?


The problem with that as I see it, is that neo Nazi sympathizer would not be affected by any mandatory training requirements or even be allowed to have a concealed weapons permit.



> And is also not a criminal and has been found to be not mentally unfit.


If that's the case they are already prohibited by law from possessing firearms. Which raises another question: Why is that individual allowed to be out on the streets in the first place? There are all types of devices that are available for these individuals to get a hold of that could maim or kill innocent people.

I think what "GCBHM" and myself included, would like to see is safe weapons handling to be taught in public or private schools as part of their curriculum. Instead of having these conditions implemented by some bureaucrat with a political agenda against those who choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. New York State is but one example of this. I'm all for laws that address the criminal and negligent mis-use of firearms. When government starts mandating how we shall exercise our "Constitutional Rights" we have no "Constitutional Rights". Only privileges which are subject to the discretion of whoever is in power at any given time. Governments by nature are a monopoly and a corrupt entity. The founders of this nation realized this hence we have the 2nd Amendment and the "Bill of Rights". We are a "Constitutional Republic" meaning that regardless of which political party is in power all public officials have to abide by the Constitution which they are sworn to uphold. This regardless of their political beliefs. We as a nation would be much better off if our duly elected government officials adhere to this. Unfortunately we are moving further away from this concept which has kept us free since the founding of this nation.

I have to repeat this again:


> "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.--The Law by Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) French economist, statesman, and author.


It was true back then and it is true today.


----------



## SailDesign

I think it may be time to air this one again...


----------



## GCBHM

desertman said:


> RK3369:
> 
> The problem with that as I see it, is that neo Nazi sympathizer would not be affected by any mandatory training requirements or even be allowed to have a concealed weapons permit.
> 
> If that's the case they are already prohibited by law from possessing firearms. Which raises another question: Why is that individual allowed to be out on the streets in the first place? There are all types of devices that are available for these individuals to get a hold of that could maim or kill innocent people.
> 
> I think what "GCBHM" and myself included, would like to see is safe weapons handling to be taught in public or private schools as part of their curriculum. Instead of having these conditions implemented by some bureaucrat with a political agenda against those who choose to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights. New York State is but one example of this. I'm all for laws that address the criminal and negligent mis-use of firearms. When government starts mandating how we shall exercise our "Constitutional Rights" we have no "Constitutional Rights". Only privileges which are subject to the discretion of whoever is in power at any given time. Governments by nature are a monopoly and a corrupt entity. The founders of this nation realized this hence we have the 2nd Amendment and the "Bill of Rights". We are a "Constitutional Republic" meaning that regardless of which political party is in power all public officials have to abide by the Constitution which they are sworn to uphold. This regardless of their political beliefs. We as a nation would be much better off if our duly elected government officials adhere to this. Unfortunately we are moving further away from this concept which has kept us free since the founding of this nation.
> 
> I have to repeat this again:
> 
> It was true back then and it is true today.


Exactly! If the government would actually deal with those who break the laws already on the books, instead of coddling them like they do now, and stop trying to punish those of us who actually do abide by the laws of nature, you would see a really steep drop in violent crime. Also, coupled with allowing the citizens to defend themselves according to the rights guaranteed in the bill of rights, the crime rates would drop even more dramatically.

All one has to do is read the statistics of inner city vs rural suburban areas. Then break it down by areas with highly restrictive gun laws (which government mandated training would fall under) vs areas with liberal gun laws, and see what you get. It is really very telling. All this proves the government is not concerned with safety, but control.


----------



## GCBHM

SailDesign said:


> I think it may be time to air this one again...
> 
> View attachment 984


That's funny coming from someone who wants to give control to the government. What I am talking about is taking personal responsibility, and telling the government I do not need you to wipe my ass, blow my nose and tell me how to live. Sail, it would seem perhaps you're becoming more typical by the day.


----------



## pic

Y


GCBHM said:


> Easy. 1. Gun control. There are numerous regulation on the book, too many to list here, but all are unjust. 2. Marriage. This is something the government also has no business deciding. 3. Prohibition. Although repealed, it was one of the most heinous of all federal regulations. 4. The war on drugs. See #3. 5. Roe v Wade. This is not an issue for the federal government to mandate.
> 
> The federal government has but three duties. 1. Provide a national defense. 2. Protect state's right to govern. 3. Conduct international trade. That's it. All else should be governed at the state level, and the state government, in turn, should be protecting individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not working to control like the federal government does.
> 
> As to what federal regulations I see that are for my benefit. Easier. None. The federal government is to have no control over domestic issues; however, thanks to Mr. Lincoln, we are now the United State of America rather than the United States of America. That ought not be.
> 
> How'd I do, professor? What's my grade? Come on, come on! SAY IT!


Sounds like you have your hands full already,lol.

How do you think you did ? I sometimes grade as a classroom open discussion. Which from experience creates a better learning environment IMO.

The benefits are , the whole class gets involved. Less likely to be a boring day in class.

The only difficulty I find is changing topics, the class participants are all hyped ,,that's when I usually have them take a ten minute break.

:smt024


----------



## GCBHM

pic said:


> Y
> 
> Sounds like you have your hands full already,lol.
> 
> How do you think you did ? I sometimes grade as a classroom open discussion. Which from experience creates a better learning environment IMO.
> 
> The benefits are , the whole class gets involved. Less likely to be a boring day in class.
> 
> The only difficulty I find is changing topics, the class participants are all hyped ,,that's when I usually have them take a ten minute break.
> 
> :smt024


Well, it all depends on the professor and what he/she is looking for.


----------



## RK3369

GCBHM said:


> Exactly! If the government would actually deal with those who break the laws already on the books, instead of coddling them like they do now, and stop trying to punish those of us who actually do abide by the laws of nature, you would see a really steep drop in violent crime. Also, coupled with allowing the citizens to defend themselves according to the rights guaranteed in the bill of rights, the crime rates would drop even more dramatically.
> 
> All one has to do is read the statistics of inner city vs rural suburban areas. Then break it down by areas with highly restrictive gun laws (which government mandated training would fall under) vs areas with liberal gun laws, and see what you get. It is really very telling. All this proves the government is not concerned with safety, but control.


I agree, I'd also like to see those laws enforced but the libs won't put anyone in the gas chamber anymore. Too bad because eventually we could get crime under control. At that point, if I see someone coming down the street with a sidearm, I won't automatically assume he's a "gang banger". Beyond that, I'm looking for more assurance that that person is a legal, law abiding carrier. And yes, I do especially agree that someone committimg a crime with a gun should be facing the death penalty. No life in jail, no parole, end of story, dead, goodbye. Yes it would be a long legal battle, but eventually they'd be gone. As it is now, nobody really pays a price for any crime. It's just a change in lifestyle for someone who probably can't exist in the outside world anyhow.


----------



## desertman

GCBHM:
I wish we could be guaranteed that all public officials would be fine upstanding citizens free of corruption and scandals. However they are not. This is not to say that all of them are bad. However many of them will lie, steal, cheat, prostitute themselves and claw their way up to the top for some lousy political position. Are these the types of people who we want controlling our lives? I think not. Politics is a dirty business that often brings out the worst of human behavior. Elections do indeed have consequences!


----------



## GCBHM

RK3369 said:


> I agree, I'd also like to see those laws enforced but the libs won't put anyone in the gas chamber anymore. Too bad because eventually we could get crime under control. At that point, if I see someone coming down the street with a sidearm, I won't automatically assume he's a "gang banger". Beyond that, I'm looking for more assurance that that person is a legal, law abiding carrier. And yes, I do especially agree that someone committimg a crime with a gun should be facing the death penalty. No life in jail, no parole, end of story, dead, goodbye. Yes it would be a long legal battle, but eventually they'd be gone. As it is now, nobody really pays a price for any crime. It's just a change in lifestyle for someone who probably can't exist in the outside world anyhow.


My personal stance is that it is my responsibility to be competent with my firearm b/c I can't control what goes on around me, and I don't want to. Doing so only opens the door to giving others the right to control me, and that just won't do. The fact is that life is not fair, and it comes with no guarantees. We all take our lives into our own hands when we get out of bed every morning, and that is the risk we are willing to take to live. It can be great, but it can also have tragic consequences.

We have no rights that enable us to infringe another's. I do not look for what others have done to prove they are in fact competent gun toters, although it is somewhat more comforting knowing the other guy is at least competent. I prepare for the fact that one of them may try to harm me, and if they do, I will fight to defend myself. Outside that, it's really none of my business what anyone else does.


----------



## GCBHM

desertman said:


> GCBHM:
> I wish we could be guaranteed that all public officials would be fine upstanding citizens free of corruption and scandals. However they are not. This is not to say that all of them are bad. However many of them will lie, steal, cheat, prostitute themselves and claw their way up to the top for some lousy political position. Are these the types of people who we want controlling our lives? I think not. Politics is a dirty business that often brings out the worst of human behavior. Elections do indeed have consequences!


I have to agree. And the longer one stays in politics, the more corrupt they become. I really do not believe anyone should be able to make a career of public office service. There are other ways to serve the people besides holding a public office, and part of the problem we face today is the systemic corruption put in place by life-long politicians.


----------



## RK3369

GCBHM said:


> My personal stance is that it is my responsibility to be competent with my firearm b/c I can't control what goes on around me, and I don't want to. Doing so only opens the door to giving others the right to control me, and that just won't do. The fact is that life is not fair, and it comes with no guarantees. We all take our lives into our own hands when we get out of bed every morning, and that is the risk we are willing to take to live. It can be great, but it can also have tragic consequences.
> 
> We have no rights that enable us to infringe another's. I do not look for what others have done to prove they are in fact competent gun toters, although it is somewhat more comforting knowing the other guy is at least competent. I prepare for the fact that one of them may try to harm me, and if they do, I will fight to defend myself. Outside that, it's really none of my business what anyone else does.


and that's fine however, I believe you should be in a system where there is no government. It appears you have great difficulty with any type of infringement on anything you want to do. While I agree with you in theory, I don't think you can live in any society without some level of general restriction and infringement on your ability to be completely free. I am guessing this is a real paradox for you to deal with everyday. Government control bothers me also, but since I am not prepared to provide 100% for my own existence, I have to accept a certain degree of it.


----------



## GCBHM

RK3369 said:


> and that's fine however, I believe you should be in a system where there is no government. It appears you have great difficulty with any type of infringement on anything you want to do. While I agree with you in theory, I don't think you can live in any society without some level of general restriction and infringement on your ability to be completely free. I am guessing this is a real paradox for you to deal with everyday. Government control bothers me also, but since I am not prepared to provide 100% for my own existence, I have to accept a certain degree of it.


Well, no. See, the government is supposed to be representative of the people, but the problem is that it isn't. The truth is that there really should be no laws restricting anyone from doing whatever they want to do, as long as what they want to do does not infringe the rights of another. That's the key.

If what you're doing does not infringe my "rights" (not preferences), then what business is it of mine or anyone else? It should not matter what anyone else does as long as it does not infringe your rights. So if someone is walking down the street with a gun strapped to his hip, why does it bother you as long as he walks by without doing anything to infringe your rights?

Now, with regard to accepting a certain degree of it, it being control, we all have to be tolerant of others b/c we're all different; however, we all have the same rights. Where some of the problems come into play is one's perception of a right vs a privilege. It is my right to walk down the same street as you with a gun on my hip. It would be a privilege, that I would grant to you, to prove I am indeed a certified legal gun toter, if you were to ask to see my permit b/c you have no right to do so. The right you do have is to shoot me if I try to harm or rob you of anything.

You simply do not have a right to make sure others do as you see fit to prove they are legally carrying a gun. The fact that you are wiling to accept enough control to not be completely free is the reason the government controls you to the extent they do. We are inherently free. Why would you accept any measure of control restricting that freedom for the false facade of safety? I honestly used to accept it just as you do now, but then I began to study the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As Ben Franklin said, any man who is willing to sacrifice freedom for safety deserves neither. Again, just something to consider.


----------



## RK3369

Well, no. See, the government is supposed to be representative of the people, but the problem is that it isn't. The truth is that there really should be no laws restricting anyone from doing whatever they want to do, as long as what they want to do does not infringe the rights of another. That's the key.

*What "right" is it that another has? Isn't it something which is granted by society? or by government? Surely you don't believe that God (if you believe in God) told us all we have the right to carry guns?

*
If what you're doing does not infringe my "rights" (not preferences), then what business is it of mine or anyone else? It should not matter what anyone else does as long as it does not infringe your rights. So if someone is walking down the street with a gun strapped to his hip, why does it bother you as long as he walks by without doing anything to infringe your rights?

*not infringe on my rights to do what? Not be infringed upon? I'm still not seeing what you are claiming my "rights" are. If you are referring to the code of "LAWS, Axioms, or Truths which are referred to as the Bill of Rights", they are indeed not rights, but privileges granted to citizens of this country by the founding "GOVERNMENT". IF no one else were on this planet I could do anything I wanted to without fear of repercussion. The only way I can do anything without fear of repercussion otherwise is if another person, or persons in the form of a government, gives me the "right" to do something. The only way we have a "right" to anything is if no one else exists. Beyond that, to the extent that we have to interact with other beings, we have no "rights" only "privileges" which the government (being the remainder of society) tells us we can do legally. 
*
Now, with regard to accepting a certain degree of it, it being control, we all have to be tolerant of others b/c we're all different; however, we all have the same rights.

*Yes, which basically means you can do nothing without everyone else agreeing to it, otherwise you are infringing on their rights*.

Where some of the problems come into play is one's perception of a right vs a privilege. It is my right to walk down the same street as you with a gun on my hip.

*Who said so? Who gave you that right? Wasn't that right given to you by a "GOVERNMENT" which was formed 239 years ago?
*

It would be a privilege, that I would grant to you, to prove I am indeed a certified legal gun toter, if you were to ask to see my permit b/c you have no right to do so. The right you do have is to shoot me if I try to harm or rob you of anything.

*Not true in all states. If you do that in a state without the castle doctrine or a stand your ground law, you will likely be prosecuted, so where does that right come from? the Government, once again.

*

You simply do not have a right to make sure others do as you see fit to prove they are legally carrying a gun. The fact that you are wiling to accept enough control to not be completely free is the reason the government controls you to the extent they do.

*once again, I reply, you only have that "right" because a 239 year old government gave you that "right" when it was formed, which is in reality, a privilege.

*

We are inherently free.

*as long as nobody else exists in the world. Otherwise by our interaction with even one other being, we have restrictions on that freedom.

*

Why would you accept any measure of control restricting that freedom for the false facade of safety? I honestly used to accept it just as you do now, but then I began to study the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As Ben Franklin said, any man who is willing to sacrifice freedom for safety deserves neither. Again, just something to consider.

*You are never truly free as long as any other being exists. If other beings exist, you have a society and not complete freedom.
*


----------



## GCBHM

RK3369 said:


> Well, no. See, the government is supposed to be representative of the people, but the problem is that it isn't. The truth is that there really should be no laws restricting anyone from doing whatever they want to do, as long as what they want to do does not infringe the rights of another. That's the key.
> 
> *What "right" is it that another has? Isn't it something which is granted by society? or by government? Surely you don't believe that God (if you believe in God) told us all we have the right to carry guns?
> 
> Whether you want to call them God-given or natural rights, we, the people, have the right to defend our lives by any means necessary, whether that be with a gun, or a hands. Do you disagree with this?
> 
> *
> If what you're doing does not infringe my "rights" (not preferences), then what business is it of mine or anyone else? It should not matter what anyone else does as long as it does not infringe your rights. So if someone is walking down the street with a gun strapped to his hip, why does it bother you as long as he walks by without doing anything to infringe your rights?
> 
> *not infringe on my rights to do what? Not be infringed upon? I'm still not seeing what you are claiming my "rights" are. If you are referring to the code of "LAWS, Axioms, or Truths which are referred to as the Bill of Rights", they are indeed not rights, but privileges granted to citizens of this country by the founding "GOVERNMENT". IF no one else were on this planet I could do anything I wanted to without fear of repercussion. The only way I can do anything without fear of repercussion otherwise is if another person, or persons in the form of a government, gives me the "right" to do something. The only way we have a "right" to anything is if no one else exists. Beyond that, to the extent that we have to interact with other beings, we have no "rights" only "privileges" which the government (being the remainder of society) tells us we can do legally.*
> 
> Your rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights. How can you not know this?
> 
> Now, with regard to accepting a certain degree of it, it being control, we all have to be tolerant of others b/c we're all different; however, we all have the same rights.
> 
> *Yes, which basically means you can do nothing without everyone else agreeing to it, otherwise you are infringing on their rights*.
> 
> Actually, no. It means no one else can tell you how to live as long as how you choose to live does not restrict them in any way. How can you not know this?
> 
> Where some of the problems come into play is one's perception of a right vs a privilege. It is my right to walk down the same street as you with a gun on my hip.
> 
> *Who said so? Who gave you that right? Wasn't that right given to you by a "GOVERNMENT" which was formed 239 years ago?
> *
> 
> The 2nd Amendment. No, the government gave no one any rights. The Bill of Rights tell the government that they cannot infringe the God-given rights we all have, which predate the "government". How can you not know this?
> 
> It would be a privilege, that I would grant to you, to prove I am indeed a certified legal gun toter, if you were to ask to see my permit b/c you have no right to do so. The right you do have is to shoot me if I try to harm or rob you of anything.
> 
> *Not true in all states. If you do that in a state without the castle doctrine or a stand your ground law, you will likely be prosecuted, so where does that right come from? the Government, once again.
> 
> *
> 
> You simply do not have a right to make sure others do as you see fit to prove they are legally carrying a gun. The fact that you are wiling to accept enough control to not be completely free is the reason the government controls you to the extent they do.
> 
> *once again, I reply, you only have that "right" because a 239 year old government gave you that "right" when it was formed, which is in reality, a privilege.
> 
> *
> 
> We are inherently free.
> 
> *as long as nobody else exists in the world. Otherwise by our interaction with even one other being, we have restrictions on that freedom.
> 
> *
> 
> Why would you accept any measure of control restricting that freedom for the false facade of safety? I honestly used to accept it just as you do now, but then I began to study the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As Ben Franklin said, any man who is willing to sacrifice freedom for safety deserves neither. Again, just something to consider.
> 
> *You are never truly free as long as any other being exists. If other beings exist, you have a society and not complete freedom.
> *


If you believe that I feel sorry for you, but it really seems now that you're only arguing to argue. Do you honestly mean to tell me that you do not understand this basic premise as defined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights? It would seem so.


----------



## RK3369

GCBHM said:


> If you believe that I feel sorry for you, but it really seems now that you're only arguing to argue. Do you honestly mean to tell me that you do not understand this basic premise as defined in our Constitution and Bill of Rights? It would seem so.


no, what I am saying is that you have no rights other than those which are given to you by another. Your right to keep and bear arms, which I also cherish, is not a natural right. It was clearly given to you by a group of men who wrote and adopted the "GOVERNING PRINCIPLES OF OUR COUNTRY." They had the knowledge and wisdom to say that the government couldn't infringe upon those rights (as they incorrectly referred to them) but the reality is that "WE WERE GIVEN THAT RIGHT BY OTHER MEN, NOT BY GOD AND NOT BY OUR MERE EXISTENCE."

If man has the inherent "right" (from whatever source you believe it springs) to carry a gun down the street, why isn't it happening in every other country on the face of this planet????? WHAT YOU REFER TO IS NOT A RIGHT, IT IS A PRIVELIGE GIVEN TO YOU BY A GROUP OF MEN WHO WROTE OUR LAWS 239 YEARS AGO AND THEY SAID THAT PRIVILEGE COULD NOT BE TAKEN AWAY. THAT PRIVILEGE STILL EXISTS IN THIS COUNTRY BUT DOES NOT IN MANY PARTS OF THE WORLD BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY. In SC, if you come on my property carrying a gun, and I tell you I do not want you carrying a gun on my property, what has just happened to your "right"??? It's been taken away, hasn't it???? I have the legal "right" as a property owner in SC to tell you that I do not want you carrying a weapon on my property, and SC law upholds my preferential right to do so. So if I can change your supposedly "inalienable right" as they are referred to, is it really a "right" absolutely, beyond all control, for all time???? Nope, it's a privilege given by your Constitution but one which is susceptible to my modifying because my right to not let you carry your weapon on my property trumps your right to carry your weapon on my property. Therefore, it is not truly a right, but a given privilege.

*Whether you want to call them God-given or natural rights, we, the people, have the right to defend our lives by any means necessary, whether that be with a gun, or a hands. Do you disagree with this?

*I agree because those guys back 239 years ago said it was so and I abide by those rules.

*The 2nd Amendment. No, the government gave no one any rights. The Bill of Rights tell the government that they cannot infringe the God-given rights we all have, which predate the "government". How can you not know this
*

those rights predate the government??? who gave them to us??? you mentioned God given rights???? What about those rights for people who don't believe in God??? Do they have the same right to carry a gun down the streets of this country? Why do they have that right if they don't believe in God??? There are certainly non believers out there in our society, and I suppose many of them carry guns. How do they have the right to carry guns then?

What you fail to realize is that despite what you think, you only have the rights which other men have given you. The right to carry was not given to you by God because I'm sure there are gun carriers out there who don't believe in god and are carrying despite the fact that they didn't get that right directly from the almighty. We were given those "rights" by other men and they also said they couldn't be taken away by other men, that's all. Luckily it was set up that way otherwise I'm sure with the present administration, nobody would own a gun any more. But the basic fact remains, you do not have a God given right, you have a man given privilege to keep and bear arms. Yes I agree with that and will support and defend it, but don't kid yourself into thinking that it predated government. Yes, it's about control and yes it can't be taken away despite what many might want to do, but it came from men who formed a government, not from a God.


----------



## GCBHM

"What you fail to realize is that despite what you think, you only have the rights which other men have given you. The right to carry was not given to you by God because I'm sure there are gun carriers out there who don't believe in god and are carrying despite the fact that they didn't get that right directly from the almighty. We were given those "rights" by other men and they also said they couldn't be taken away by other men, that's all. Luckily it was set up that way otherwise I'm sure with the present administration, nobody would own a gun any more. But the basic fact remains, you do not have a God given right, you have a man given privilege to keep and bear arms. Yes I agree with that and will support and defend it, but don't kid yourself into thinking that it predated government. Yes, it's about control and yes it can't be taken away despite what many might want to do, but it came from men who formed a government, not from a God." RK3369

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, *that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.*-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Declaration of Independence

"The Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power. For example, what the Founders saw as the natural right of individuals to speak and worship freely was protected by the First Amendment's prohibitions on Congress from making laws establishing a religion or abridging freedom of speech. For another example, the natural right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion in one's home was safeguarded by the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirements."

"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."

You are free to clamor on all you like about our rights coming from men, but the founders of this country saw it differently, as do I. How else are we to defend the security of a free state if we do not carry our guns? The right to keep and BEAR (otherwise known today as "carry") arms is what this is talking about, specifically, and as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, these rights were endowed (or given) to all men by their creator, not by other men, and they are unalienable, which means they are unable to be taken away or given away by the possessor.

It would seem that it is you who does not understand, as I suspected, exactly what liberty is and you are a danger to society as the result. This is really all I have to say on the matter. Clamor on if you wish.


----------



## RK3369

GCBHM said:


> "
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, ...........
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't that mean that "Men agreed that those principles were the truth?" If it was the word of God why is it not in the Bible or inscribed into the original Ten Commandments which God gave Moses? "MEN" said that these principles were self evident, not God declared that they were the law of God." Therefore "MEN" gave you the "privilege" to keep and bear arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem that it is you who does not understand, as I suspected, exactly what liberty is *and you are a danger to society as the result*. This is really all I have to say on the matter. Clamor on if you wish.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll leave it alone also however I am troubled to see that you feel that I am the danger to society. It appears that your lack of tolerance for dissenting opinions is exactly the danger you speak of. You infringe on my right to free speech by declaring me to be a danger to society???? I think you are the real danger simply based on that statement. You can't win the discussion by logical argument thus you revert to threats and intimidation. I wish you no ill will however, I can see this discussion should end now.
> I am done.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## GCBHM

RK3369 said:


> GCBHM said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident, ...........
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't that mean that "Men agreed that those principles were the truth?" If it was the word of God why is it not in the Bible or inscribed into the original Ten Commandments which God gave Moses? "MEN" said that these principles were self evident, not God declared that they were the law of God." Therefore "MEN" gave you the "privilege" to keep and bear arms.
> 
> I'll leave it alone also however I am troubled to see that you feel that I am the danger to society. It appears that your lack of tolerance for dissenting opinions is exactly the danger you speak of. I wish you no ill will however, I can see this discussion should end now.
> I am done.
> 
> 
> 
> The danger of it, as I see your understanding, is that you're willing to sacrifice liberty for safety, as Franklin spoke of. That is why government has more control than they were ever intended to have, but you are free to your opinion. Just keep in mind that I'm not the one who was trying to prove you wrong. You're the one who commented on what I said in the attempt to prove me wrong. I have taken the time to discuss it with you, in an attempt to explain why I think this way, but we have discussed it until it is pointless to continue. You see it as you see it, and I'm fine with that. I just do not see the point in continuing to state that we disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Steve M1911A1

GCBHM said:


> ...there is no restriction under the 2A...It does not matter if you know that the guy walking down the street has some level of training so that you feel safe...What if he wanted to make you prove you have the training he approves of before he lets you carry your gun?...


"A _well-regulated_ militia being necessary..."

_Well-regulated_, in the context in which our Founders meant it, means "trained."

As RK3369 keeps asking: Who is to do the training? How is one to prove that he has been trained? But you, GCBHM, keep ducking that question.
Our Constitution _requires_ us to be trained. Proof: Read that Second Amendment carefully. So the question requires an answer.

Back in the Founders' days, I knew that you were trained because we both lived in the same county, and we were trained together.
But that's no longer true. We are quite widely separated now, and swift travel can bring me across the entire breadth of our nation, right to your doorstep in a matter of hours.
So here I am, armed, on your doorstep. Can you trust me with a deadly weapon? Should you trust in my bald statement that, "Sure, I know how to handle a gun. Here: hold my beer and watch this..."?

Answer the question, GCBHM. Answer the question.


----------



## paratrooper

Regulated to me, means controlled.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

...Oh, and, by the way, some of our Founders referred to our rights as "natural," rather than "endowed [upon us] by our Creator."

The right of self-defense is a "natural" right that predates mankind: All living creatures-plant, animal, or whatever the taxonomy-defend themselves when attacked.
_Die Gedanken sind frei!_ As the old song says, "Thoughts are free." Freedom of thought and the freedom to express one's thoughts are "natural" rights which predate mankind.
Freedom of belief (not "religion") deals with inner thoughts and, therefore, predates mankind. Lions have inner thoughts about that lamb over there, and the lion's belief about lunch.
And so on.

Man, or men, or government, did not give us our rights and freedoms. They are both natural and innate.
The Constitution merely _guarantees_ these rights and freedoms, backed by the presumed force of the people. The Constitution bestows exactly nothing.


----------



## SailDesign

Steve M1911A1 said:


> <snip good stuff>
> Man, or men, or government, did not give us our rights and freedoms. They are both natural and innate.
> The Constitution merely _guarantees_ these rights and freedoms, backed by the presumed force of the people. The Constitution bestows exactly nothing.


I'm in the mood to question the word "right". What you have described is an instinct, a natural reaction, not a "right" per se.



Merriam Webster said:


> : behavior that is morally good or correct
> 
> : something that a person is or should be morally or legally allowed to have, get, or do
> 
> rights : the legal authority to reproduce, publish, broadcast, or sell something


Nothing there that isn't either given or judged by Man.

(But I'm just being picky coz I've got too much snow outside and I'm all shovelled out for this year....)

That the Constitution guarantees them I won't argue.


----------



## pic

Ok ,,, good discussion,

let's take that ten minute break. Smoke em if you got em

:smt033


----------



## paratrooper

Intermission question.

Who really knows for sure, just what the founding fathers had imagined or intended? 

I'm thinking that no one does.

Where's that "little can of worms" emoticon?


----------



## GCBHM

paratrooper said:


> Intermission question.
> 
> Who really knows for sure, just what the founding fathers had imagined or intended?
> 
> I'm thinking that no one does.
> 
> Where's that "little can of worms" emoticon?


Their discussions are recorded. You can read their notes, debates, etc., it is all there for anyone to read.


----------



## GCBHM

Steve M1911A1 said:


> "A _well-regulated_ militia being necessary..."
> 
> _Well-regulated_, in the context in which our Founders meant it, means "trained."
> 
> As RK3369 keeps asking: Who is to do the training? How is one to prove that he has been trained? But you, GCBHM, keep ducking that question.
> Our Constitution _requires_ us to be trained. Proof: Read that Second Amendment carefully. So the question requires an answer.
> 
> Back in the Founders' days, I knew that you were trained because we both lived in the same county, and we were trained together.
> But that's no longer true. We are quite widely separated now, and swift travel can bring me across the entire breadth of our nation, right to your doorstep in a matter of hours.
> So here I am, armed, on your doorstep. Can you trust me with a deadly weapon? Should you trust in my bald statement that, "Sure, I know how to handle a gun. Here: hold my beer and watch this..."?
> 
> Answer the question, GCBHM. Answer the question.


Read the entire thread. I have answered the question. This training should begin and come from home, our fathers and mothers. As to where professional "militia" or military type training should come from, I would think that is rather obvious; the military.

I'm reminded of the scene in the movie "Patriot" in which Mel Gibson's character is running to catch the detail escorting his oldest son back to garrison to be hanged. He grabs all his guns and two of his younger sons, and off they go. He finds the position he wants, positions his sons, instructs them, and just before all the fighting starts he asks them "what have I taught you about shooting", to which they respond "aim small miss small".

This is the type of training we should get growing up. He taught them about guns and how to shoot, and when the time came for them to use it, they were able to do exactly as they were instructed. It wasn't his right to ensure all men were trained accordingly, it was his right and obligation to ensure his sons were, and that is where the education must begin. His oldest son, when it became time for him to learn how to fight in a militia was taught by the militia. In another scene, after Gibson's character had been commissioned in the militia, and was about to go off on a recruiting mission to get more men, he and his oldest had a quick debate, during which the son tried to tell the father what he knew of the land and tactics, and Gibson's character asked his son "where did you learn all this...", to which the son replied "my father taught me".

There was no license or credential these men possessed. They were not mandated to get the training, they just grew up with it being taught to them, and they carried it on. That is where it is supposed to come from. That is who is supposed to train and teach, not the government. Of course, then they weren't nearly as regulated and convinced that they needed government to facilitate it for them as we are today. They just lived it like they were supposed to.


----------



## GCBHM

Steve M1911A1 said:


> ...Oh, and, by the way, some of our Founders referred to our rights as "natural," rather than "endowed [upon us] by our Creator."
> 
> The right of self-defense is a "natural" right that predates mankind: All living creatures-plant, animal, or whatever the taxonomy-defend themselves when attacked.
> _Die Gedanken sind frei!_ As the old song says, "Thoughts are free." Freedom of thought and the freedom to express one's thoughts are "natural" rights which predate mankind.
> Freedom of belief (not "religion") deals with inner thoughts and, therefore, predates mankind. Lions have inner thoughts about that lamb over there, and the lion's belief about lunch.
> And so on.
> 
> Man, or men, or government, did not give us our rights and freedoms. They are both natural and innate.
> The Constitution merely _guarantees_ these rights and freedoms, backed by the presumed force of the people. The Constitution bestows exactly nothing.


This too was covered, thoroughly. As I said, whether you want to call them God-given or natural, our rights were not given by man. It's really all here in the thread.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

paratrooper said:


> Intermission question.
> 
> Who really knows for sure, just what the founding fathers had imagined or intended?...


Actually, we do!

The Founders wrote a lot more than merely the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
There was a long period of preliminary debate and publicity, before the Constitution got written, all of it published on paper and widely circulated.
There wasn't a lot of face-to-face preliminary debate, because people were widely separated, and travel was difficult. Thus the reliance on publication and the Post Office.
The easiest-to-access example that first comes to mind is something called "The Federalist Papers." But there's more.

The Supreme Court routinely examines the Founders' writings, and bases decisions upon their declared intent.


----------



## desertman

pic:


> let's take that ten minute break. Smoke em if you got em


Smoking is no good for you. More dangerous than carrying a gun.


----------



## Steve M1911A1

SailDesign said:


> I'm in the mood to question the word "right". What you have described is an instinct, a natural reaction, not a "right" per se....


Our "natural rights" descend to us from that which you call a "natural reaction."
Since the reaction in question is "natural," then it cannot be curbed. Thus, it becomes a "right" to so react, meaning that the "natural" reaction becomes a faultless act.
You possess a "right" when the act or reaction in question cannot be faulted, and therefore, by extension, your ability to effect it cannot be denied.

The "right" exists independently of government's presumption of permission. Thus, it is naturally and independently "...something that a person is or should be morally or legally allowed to have, get, or do."


----------



## GCBHM

SailDesign said:


> I'm in the mood to question the word "right". What you have described is an instinct, a natural reaction, not a "right" per se.
> 
> Nothing there that isn't either given or judged by Man.
> 
> (But I'm just being picky coz I've got too much snow outside and I'm all shovelled out for this year....)
> 
> That the Constitution guarantees them I won't argue.


No, the Bill of Rights guarantees that the government, which is created by man, cannot infringe these natural, God-given rights. The Constitution creates and defines the role of government, which is also very restrictive in nature, but gives nor guarantees no rights.


----------



## desertman

GCBHM:


> No, the Bill of Rights guarantees that the government, which is created by man, cannot infringe these natural, God-given rights. The Constitution creates and defines the role of government, which is also very restrictive in nature, but gives nor guarantees no rights.


Still in your corner my friend!


----------



## GCBHM

paratrooper said:


> Regulated to me, means controlled.


WRT militia it is controlled. It must be, but for a very specific purpose, which is to train. But wrt society, this controlled training these men received in the militia is to be taught to the sons/daughters so they can grow up learning how to use these guns and why, and if the situation to defend freedom for oneself or a group, such as the state, the ability will be there to do so effectively. When the there is no need to defend the freedom, the ability is still there, but the need to control the individual as the live in liberty is not. That would be contrary to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".


----------



## TAPnRACK

My brain hurts from reading this thread...


----------



## GCBHM

desertman said:


> GCBHM:
> 
> Still in your corner my friend!


Thanks, my friend! Y'boy is feeling like he is surrounded. SHWEW!


----------



## GCBHM

TAPnRACK said:


> My brain hurts from reading this thread...


Just try to imagine how my brain feels right about now. I'm really stunned to be honest.


----------



## pic

Does anybody know about the Fukien #% dam chickens in Hawaii??


----------



## GCBHM

pic said:


> Does anybody know about the Fukien #% dam chickens in Hawaii??


I don't have a clue, but Hawaii sounds nice about now. It's dreary and freezing in Alabama today. Oh, and it was sunny and 70 yesterday. Go figure!


----------



## pic

Could this thread be summarized in short text please.


----------



## GCBHM

pic said:


> Could this thread be summarized in short text please.


Don't do it!


----------



## pic

Is this the thread about the chickens?


----------



## GCBHM

pic said:


> Is this the thread about the chickens?


OH...well...sure, why not!


----------



## TAPnRACK

Lets talk about something we all agree on...

Glocks!

Best gun ever, right?


----------



## GCBHM

TAPnRACK said:


> Lets talk about something we all agree on...
> 
> Glocks!
> 
> Best gun ever, right?


Right! That's exactly what I was thinking. And 1911s suck!


----------



## desertman

TAPnRACK:
Yeah! Lets talk about Glocks! Best gun ever? Well that certainly is debatable. I'm carrying a few on me right now. Want to argue?


----------



## Steve M1911A1

GCBHM said:


> Right!...And 1911s suck!


Now you just wait one cotton-pickin' minute...

You better put lots of Vaseline on that damn' Glock of yours, because I'm gonna shove it right up your...

:watching:

Is it time for a group hug, yet?


----------



## desertman

Steve M1911A1:
Glock or something that rhymes with it?


----------



## GCBHM

Gentlemeeeeeeeeen...


----------



## Steve M1911A1

desertman said:


> Steve M1911A1:
> Glock or something that rhymes with it?


Gluck, the classical-music composer?
Clara Cluck, the opera-singing Disney character?
Daffy Duck, Elmer Fudd's nemesis?
Focke, the German aircraft designer?
Tuck, the medicated pad?
Or was it something else you were thinking of?

Don't mess with me, man: I have a Black Belt in English grammar and punctuation, and I know how to use it.


----------



## paratrooper

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Gluck, the classical-music composer?
> Clara Cluck, the opera-singing Disney character?
> Daffy Duck, Elmer Fudd's nemesis?
> Focke, the German aircraft designer?
> Tuck, the medicated pad?
> Or was it something else you were thinking of?
> 
> Don't mess with me, man: I have a Black Belt in English grammar and punctuation, and I know how to use it.


You forgot Sandra Fluke.


----------

