Woman shot in head on zoom call, by toddler

Hit said:
Thats great and all but I dont like being flagged by morons at the shooting range and I dont want to be robbed/killed by a criminal who has a gun because he broke into some soccer moms suv and found it in the glovebox.

I am all for a barrier to entry for firearm ownership.... as well voting (land owning tax payers). But I never get my way.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately for you, you didn't write the 2nd Amendment.
 
Charlie said:
What behavior is not acceptable for someone with a knife, bow and arrow, ball bat, chain, large rock, or anything else that can be used to harm people? Why should firearms be different?

The age should be up to the parents. I got my first shotgun at 11 and bought my first handgun at about 14. I had already been shooting for several years. The parents are supposed to be responsible for their children and should be the ones to decide the age question.
Click to expand...


Now there is an answer I can live with. I don't remember the exact age but dad taught me and my brother about firearms at a very early age. I did the same with my daughter and if I live long enuff will do the same with my grandson. And thru all of that there was not an ounce of government involvement.
 
Get Off My Lawn said:
That, my friend, is a greased slide the Jim Crow Dems embrace.
The founders had phenomenal insight to write the BOR in a way that's timeless.

I believe everyone should have an education on what a firearm is, isn't and how to safely handle them. Setting up gubmint mandates creates other problems.

What would you suggest as a barrier?
Click to expand...
A lot of ppl replied/disagreed with me so I will try to give a blanket answer instead a polluting this thread.

I never suggested taking away rights. On the other hand, I think there is nothing wrong with a barrier for entry which begins with what you suggested (military/vet/leo being excluded of course). There needs to be legit vetting..... meaning weapons handling, storage, carrying, drawing from holster. These rubber stamp pay to play CC courses are not good enough. Perhaps my attitude changed after I had to take a concealed carry course after moving to NC. After seeing so much ignorance and unsafe weapons handling I actually felt less safe knowing these people would be carrying in public. A lifetime ago when I carried weapons for a living, if you had 1 safety violation you were gone. Call it gate keeping or un American, that is just the way I feel about 'casual gun ownership'.
 
SPST said:
Never suggested taking away rights, just adding barriers to use them? Sounds like taking away rights to me?
Click to expand...
How is that taking away rights? There is already plenty of barriers to exercise that right. To expect some proficiency and competence in using a weapon is less egregious than non violent felons losing their rights which most people seem fine with.
 
Hit said:
How is that taking away rights? There is already plenty of barriers to exercise that right. To expect some proficiency and competence in using a weapon is less egregious than non violent felons losing their rights which most people seem fine with.
Click to expand...
Shall not be infringed?
 
Hit said:
How is that taking away rights? There is already plenty of barriers to exercise that right. To expect some proficiency and competence in using a weapon is less egregious than non violent felons losing their rights which most people seem fine with.
Click to expand...
I believe felons should have the right to protect themselves if they have concluded their sentence. I agree that people should have knowledge of safe gun handling but not as a requirement to own or carry a gun. I'm not saying this is the safest thing in the world but such is the price for freedom of self protection.
 
Hit said:
How is that taking away rights? There is already plenty of barriers to exercise that right. To expect some proficiency and competence in using a weapon is less egregious than non violent felons losing their rights which most people seem fine with.
Click to expand...
Who is going to decide how proficient one must be to qualify? The standards can be set so high that nobody can qualify. Just because there are barriers already in place does not mean that they should already be in place. It certainly does not make it fine to impose more barriers. Being able to refuse to allow you to exercise your right means it is not actually a right but a privilege.

Punish the guilty. Do not prepunish the innocent because they might possibly be able to do evil.

I can not think of any legitimate argument that can be made to justify the barriers that already exist or any increase in the barriers cooked up in the future by those who want to disarm us. None.
 
Hit said:
What do you call the NFA and permit process? Hate to break it to you but that is just a bumper sticker slogan at this point. Our 'conservative' Supreme Court still refuses to hear gun cases.
Click to expand...
Check their schedule for Nov. 3rd
 
Last edited:
Hit said:
A lot of ppl replied/disagreed with me so I will try to give a blanket answer instead a polluting this thread.

I never suggested taking away rights. On the other hand, I think there is nothing wrong with a barrier for entry which begins with what you suggested (military/vet/leo being excluded of course). There needs to be legit vetting..... meaning weapons handling, storage, carrying, drawing from holster. These rubber stamp pay to play CC courses are not good enough. Perhaps my attitude changed after I had to take a concealed carry course after moving to NC. After seeing so much ignorance and unsafe weapons handling I actually felt less safe knowing these people would be carrying in public. A lifetime ago when I carried weapons for a living, if you had 1 safety violation you were gone. Call it gate keeping or un American, that is just the way I feel about 'casual gun ownership'.
Click to expand...
Nope, none of the above. A right is a right. You have to take the good with the bad. Voting isn't a right so in that case I think you need to pass a current events test.
 
Goofyfoot2001 said:
Nope, none of the above. A right is a right. You have to take the good with the bad. Voting isn't a right so in that case I think you need to pass a current events test.
Click to expand...
A current events test? That sounds like the kind of thing that would fail a guy based on his media propaganda network choice.
Land ownership and/or employment status...skin in the game requirements make more sense to me.
 
Hit said:
What do you call the NFA and permit process? Hate to break it to you but that is just a bumper sticker slogan at this point. Our 'conservative' Supreme Court still refuses to hear gun cases.
Click to expand...
There are lots of infringements on gun ownership now. When I was a kid you could order a gun right out of the Sears & Roebuck catalog, no questions asked. We didn't go around shooting people or "accidentally" shooting family members back then. I wonder how we survived without any government instructions?
People who think that the gov will protect and look out for them are the same guys that think the stripper at the nightclub really likes them.
 
Last edited:
Hit said:
A lot of ppl replied/disagreed with me so I will try to give a blanket answer instead a polluting this thread.

I never suggested taking away rights. On the other hand, I think there is nothing wrong with a barrier for entry which begins with what you suggested (military/vet/leo being excluded of course). There needs to be legit vetting..... meaning weapons handling, storage, carrying, drawing from holster. These rubber stamp pay to play CC courses are not good enough. Perhaps my attitude changed after I had to take a concealed carry course after moving to NC. After seeing so much ignorance and unsafe weapons handling I actually felt less safe knowing these people would be carrying in public. A lifetime ago when I carried weapons for a living, if you had 1 safety violation you were gone. Call it gate keeping or un American, that is just the way I feel about 'casual gun ownership'.
Click to expand...
Where did you move from?
 
SPST said:
There are lots of infringements on gun ownership now. When I was a kid you could order a gun right out of the Sears & Roebuck catalog, no questions asked. We didn't go around shooting people or "accidentally" shooting family members back then. I wonder how we survived without any government instructions?
People who think that the gov will protect and look out for them are the same guys that think the stripper at the nightclub really likes them.
Click to expand...
Thats the benefit of growing up in a homogenous and high trust society, lucky you. Those days are long gone. I think you are missing the point of my posts. There is nothing wrong with a more informed and better trained society when it comes to firearms. As far as I am concerned, if you cant respect weapons and others around you when you are handling them, you have no business owning a firearm.
 
Hit said:
VA, vets get a pass on the course.
Click to expand...
So you favor restrictions that you're exempt from yourself?


Edit...came back to add

I'm a refugee from the People's Republik of Illinoyistan. We had basic requirements infringements to get a carry license that included 16 hours of "training" and a shooting qualification. If a person had hunter safety, or .mil experience they were cut to 8-12 hours. Guess why we had these requirements? The lawmakers will tell you they were ensuring that people had some basic training...much like your stated condition. But that doesn't really ring true in practice. They had 16 hours required to act as an impediment to people getting their qualification behind them. It meant taking two days off of work or giving up the whole weekend. It also meant paying an instructor for his time for 16 hours. (Initially classes were running like $250. ) The police were not carved out in the bill. If they wanted their FCCL they needed to take the training too.

Todd Vandermyde was our NRA rep at the time and he was at the table while the bill was being negotiated. According to him the original ask was 40 hours of training. That says infringement was the goal.
 
Last edited:
Timfoilhat said:
So you favor restrictions that you're exempt from yourself?
Click to expand...
My post was saying that in VA, veterans do not have to take a concealed carry course. They get finger printed and thats it. I have put in my time and am not a liability to others when carrying a weapon. Service to your country should come with some perks besides preferred parking at Harris Teeter.
 
Hit said:
I never suggested taking away rights. On the other hand, I think there is nothing wrong with a barrier for entry which begins with what you suggested (military/vet/leo being excluded of course). There needs to be legit vetting..... meaning weapons handling, storage, carrying, drawing from holster.
Click to expand...

Vetting by whom? Government?


Hit said:
These rubber stamp pay to play CC courses are not good enough.
Click to expand...

I submit they go too far, as I do not believe a free citizen should be required to obtain a government issued permission slip to carry a concealed weapon.
 
Last edited:
Hit said:
My post was saying that in VA, veterans do not have to take a concealed carry course. They get finger printed and thats it. I have put in my time and am not a liability to others when carrying a weapon. Service to your country should come with some perks besides preferred parking at Harris Teeter.
Click to expand...
I think you're saying you're a "but". As in, I support the 2nd, but...

I've not served, thank you for your service.

That said, there's plenty of people who did serve that'll flag you on a range. I've got hundreds of hours of training and I've been flagged by LEO and Vets countless times. These so called professionals have allowed complacency to override safety 101 that anyone with a proper upbringing in a house with guns had pounded in them as a child. Which gets to the point, safety should start at home and safety should be taught in the schools. Marksmanship with air guns should be a school sport and a semester in PE classes. That's about the only regulation surrounding guns you'll hear me advocate for. Everything else is a slippery slope towards control, and that control covers both of us because I don't think either of us qualify as "elite class".
 
Hit said:
A lot of ppl replied/disagreed with me so I will try to give a blanket answer instead a polluting this thread.

I never suggested taking away rights. On the other hand, I think there is nothing wrong with a barrier for entry which begins with what you suggested (military/vet/leo being excluded of course). There needs to be legit vetting..... meaning weapons handling, storage, carrying, drawing from holster. These rubber stamp pay to play CC courses are not good enough. Perhaps my attitude changed after I had to take a concealed carry course after moving to NC. After seeing so much ignorance and unsafe weapons handling I actually felt less safe knowing these people would be carrying in public. A lifetime ago when I carried weapons for a living, if you had 1 safety violation you were gone. Call it gate keeping or un American, that is just the way I feel about 'casual gun ownership'.
Click to expand...

The problem with your statement is WHO, exactly, gets to conduct this needed vetting for people to exercise a right.

The "who" is, by definition, the government. The very same entity for which the proscription "shall not be infringed" was levied against.

You know what a "right" is which must be so legislated? It's a "privilege". A privilege which can be denied to all but the elite in power at the drop of hat, without any due process at all.

Gun ownership SHOULD be a casual thing. It once was, in fact, and only became otherwise when the government decided to start "legitimately vetting" who can and cannot own/possess them.

Like those nasty black people, for example. Can't have them endowed with the power to stand up for their own rights. Nooooo, that would challenge those who hold the reigns of power.

Or like those who are not a part of the elite in places like NYC or Chicago. Can't have them going around with the ability to defend themselves like the rich or politically connected. Nooooo, that would challenge those who hold the reigns of power.

"Legit vetting" is part of the same lexicon as "common sense gun control" and is neither "legit" nor "common sense".
 
Hit said:
To expect some proficiency and competence in using a weapon is less egregious than non violent felons losing their rights which most people seem fine with.
Click to expand...
RetiredUSNChief said:
The problem with your statement is WHO, exactly, gets to conduct this needed vetting for people to exercise a right.
Click to expand...

@Hit I really have some issues with your statement. I went to high school with two folks who got married right out of college after dating for about five years. The wife was home alone in our small hometown a few years ago when a junky broke in on her armed with a crowbar. She picked up her 22lr revolver, which her daddy had given her and hadn't been fired in about 40 years, and fired three shots at the intruder. She was not "competent" with the gun, missing wildly, but it probably saved her life. The intruder hastily exited through a glass storm door and left some blood on the broken glass. Based on your evaluation of her abilities and training she wouldn't have been able to legally keep her daddy's gun and would, most likely, have ended up beaten, raped or worse.

You might call it "gate keeping." Around here we call it hubris.
 
Last edited:
Thank God we can have debate and disagreement ...at present. As the first ammendment continues to fall we may not have this privilege in the future.
The 2nd will erode next and folks know this to be probable and dont want any language that may speed up that erosion.
Rooster
 
Hit said:
There needs to be legit vetting
Click to expand...
SPST said:
Never suggested taking away rights, just adding barriers to use them?
Click to expand...
Brawny said:
I agree that people should have knowledge of safe gun handling
Click to expand...
Charlie said:
Who is going to decide how proficient one must be to qualify?
Click to expand...
Timfoilhat said:
A current events test?
Click to expand...
Timfoilhat said:
So you favor restrictions that you're exempt from yourself?
Click to expand...
Schattenreiter said:
The problem, as I see it is, if you have a so called gateway/barrier is that those in charge can and will constantly move said gateway/ barrier.
Click to expand...
RetiredUSNChief said:
"Legit vetting" is part of the same lexicon as "common sense gun control" and is neither "legit" nor "common sense".
Click to expand...
In my Best Doc Holiday voice.............I know, let's have a spelling contest!
 
@Hit would you look at this another way? What if there were no restrictions on purchase, possession or carry, but there were public school courses on safe handling and proficiency in 5th thru 12th grades? Also available to all the private school and home school kids. Nobody must take them to exercise their rights, but they are available at no cost.

It goes against the anti gun playbook, but free courses for adults would likely reduce accidental shootings.
 
Timfoilhat said:
A current events test? That sounds like the kind of thing that would fail a guy based on his media propaganda network choice.
Land ownership and/or employment status...skin in the game requirements make more sense to me.
Click to expand...
Exactly, those that get the real news get to vote, those that get their news from the mainstream media do not.
 
I have an absolutely wild idea. Hear me out…this is extreme and goes against my communist ideals…but:

What if we let people own what they want, go where they want, worship how they want, and do what they want as long as it doesn’t harm another person or put them in immediate and actual danger? Hear me out y’all…I know this is wild. But then we can just concentrate on punishing people who harm others and save a load of money by not churning every Tom, Dick, and Jamal through the legal system when they do something mildly distasteful to us.

You wanna smoke weed with your gay neighbors? Awesome! Just don’t drive. You want to collect water on your own land? Sweet, just don’t flood my property. You wanna buy a fully automatic AR-47? Rock on! Let the big dog eat! Just don’t aim it at anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Schattenreiter said:
supercalifragilisticexpialidocio
Click to expand...

Are you talking about Ghandi?

He was said to be able to predict some future events with great accuracy. He walked bare footed many miles on his journey to the sea to make salt. That made his feet very tough. His vegetarian diet left him frail and caused him to have bad breath.

He was a super calloused fragile mystic vexed by halitosis.
 
B00ger said:
I have an absolutely wild idea. Hear me out…this is extreme and goes against my communist ideals…but:

What if we let people own what they want, go where they want, worship how they want, and do what they want as long as it doesn’t harm another person or put them in immediate and actual danger? Hear me out y’all…I know this is wild. But then we can just concentrate on punishing people who harm others and save a load of money by not churning every Tom, Dick, and Jamal through the legal system when they do something mildly distasteful to us.

You wanna smoke weed with your gay neighbors? Awesome! Just don’t drive. You want to collect water on your own land? Sweet, just don’t flood my property. You wanna buy a fully automatic AR-47? Rock on! Let the big dog eat! Just don’t aim it at anyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Wait, wait, wait...back your horse up there, Kemosabe!

That didn't sound like "legit vetting" to me!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom