TexasCHLforum.com

extremist wrote:Personally, I think there is no convincing one side or the other. You either believe in Liberty (all of it) or you don't. Based on Charles' comment a few posts back, it is understood that Heller allows the FedGov to "infringe" on the 2nd, and we all accept that.

I still believe the 2nd says what it says, "Shall not be infringed".

That means I believe everything, starting with NFA '34 should go.

It may never happen, but that is what I believe.

James

Pariah3j wrote:

rotor wrote:

jkurtz wrote:For those of you that think some level of training should be required, what level of training would you be satisfied with?

I ask because the training to receive an LTC is pretty sub-par, yet a lot of you saying some training should be required seem to be satisfied with the current standard. I haven't taken the test in about seven years, but if I recall, most the the test is just common sense and only a few questions cover laws specific to the state. The range portion isn't exactly difficult either. I am sure most people on this forum could pass the range qualification with their eyes closed. The fact is, the current level of required training doesn't prepare anyone to use their gun in the real world.

Personally, I don't think there should be any required level of training. However, if there has to be, it should be meaningful and cover real world problems such as shooting from the draw, drawing from concealment, retention and gun grabs, shoot/don't shoot scenarios, etc.

Sub-par compared to what? The range portion isn't hard because you have already had training I assume. Some of my fellow test takers needed instruction in how to use their guns. The classroom part is CHL-16 stuff which everyone should be familiar with.
When I was in my 50's I took a welding course at one of the high schools. I can't imagine that I would have gone ahead with my arc welder without some instruction. I am sure some people could but not me. Safe firearm use is not something one is instinctually born with. Nobody seems to object to hunter safety courses for kids. I don't know what a minimum exam would be like. I learned safe firearm use as a cub scout. Not everyone grows up with parents that can pass on these skills to their children. I work with my grandson all the time. Finger off the trigger till you are ready to shoot. I have said it a thousand times.

I don't think any reasonable person is objecting to the idea that some level of training/teaching needs to be obtained or sought out. The argument is against government mandated training. You wanted to know how to weld, so you took the class - were you required by the state to take that class before you could pick up and operate the welding machine ? That's the difference.

It scares me that we have a topic where someone needs to be convinced that constitutional carry is a good thing. This is probably one of the most pro 2A, gun rights friendly places, and if someone on this forum needs to be 'convinced' about Const. carry then we're screwed. Because on the un-gun friendly side we have groups like the "Mothers who demand stupid stuff" and other anti groups that hate guns because they make them feel bad, out of pure ignorance, or some other nonsensical reason. The left has for 100 years been nudging and framing the conversation, and sadly a whole lot of people have started to buy into their madness.

Doug.38PR wrote:
Well, you can't have a free society without taking some risks. Or, more to the point, you can't live life without taking some risk. You are always going to have accidents. The most common reaction anti-gun people give for supporting "gun control" is: "Oh, sure we need gun control. I know a lot of people I wouldn't trust with a gun." But that's not how we are supposed to live in a society of free men. You hold people accountable for what they do, not what they might do because you or I may not trust them. You are always going to have people who make mistakes and do things without thinking. You hope they learn from it. If they don't, then sooner or later they must face the consequences. But, if somebody is REALLY so dangerous that they shouldn't have a gun...then they probably shouldn't be out of prison or the nuthouse...in fact it's very possible that they shouldn't be walking around breathing.