TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:I think you guys are entirely missing the point. At one time in this country every man was responsible for his own actions, good or bad. If bad, he suffered the consequences. Therefore it behooved him to know the law, understand the difference between right and wrong and comprehend his responsibilities toward other citizens. Today, we are taught that everything is someone else's responsibility. E.g. It's the police who protect you, so you don't have to know anything about guns. In that environment, it's foolhardy to expect people to return to the former state without some training in what that means.

If you want constitutional carry, you first must fix the culture.

Surely you have plenty of examples from the many states that do not require training, then. (I could certainly find incidents from the states that DO require training, I'd wager)

Yes, of course instruction and training is a good thing. Hell, it's a great thing.

But government mandated training in order to be granted the privilege of exercising your Right is not. And there are literally millions of licensed carriers out there in states that do not require training. Where are all of the problems that arise from that?

You need to look up Warren v. District of Columbia. It is NOT the police responsibility to protect you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._ ... f_Columbia" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.

I don't, entirely, agree with a need for a training requirement, but I am somewhat conflicted, as I do also recall the reason for the formation of the NRA, and the reason for the founding of the "Director of Civilian Marksmanship", ie, the military discovered that a lot of its volunteers and most of its conscripts hardly had any idea which end of a gun went bang.

I, for one, think there is a two part answer to training:

First; Reintroduce optional marksmanship classes and interscholastic competitions even down to the grade school level, get them early and often, and offer a glitzy set of rewards for progress. Upgrade the Eddie Eagle program and combine it with the Appleseed Project, and teach marksmanship along with safety.

Second; Universal service, military, Peace Corps, whatever, but everybody, with few exceptions, serves somehow, and they all attend "basic training" with at least a rudimentary class in firearms safety. Shorten the term of service, say a year, and no reserve component except for military, and that primarily voluntary.

Not marksmanship, reserve that for the military aspect, just plain old "common sense" safe handling, just as I taught my kids. Recall that even Peace Corps members have been forced to defend themselves, and they are likely to be going into areas where they will come into contact with firearms and at the least they need to be able to make a gun safe and clear a gun without endangering those around them. Back in the '60s there was a story going around about a Peace Corps young lady who had taken possession of a gun and while trying to remove the magazine, stuck her finger in the trigger guard and shot herself and two others with a full auto burst.

baldeagle wrote:I think you guys are entirely missing the point. At one time in this country every man was responsible for his own actions, good or bad. If bad, he suffered the consequences. Therefore it behooved him to know the law, understand the difference between right and wrong and comprehend his responsibilities toward other citizens. Today, we are taught that everything is someone else's responsibility. E.g. It's the police who protect you, so you don't have to know anything about guns. In that environment, it's foolhardy to expect people to return to the former state without some training in what that means.

If you want constitutional carry, you first must fix the culture.

I, me , and mine are not part of the culture that needs fixing.

The parts that need fixing are not going to be fixed by schooling and book learning.

Anygunanywhere

We are lucky that anyone who is willing to spend the time and money to have a CHL is willing to spend a bit more and learn how to shoot and how to carry and how to defend himself with his carry piece. A "cost of entry" to CHL make those who having a passing interest in firearms to avoid CHL and carrying altogether. Thus, avoiding irresponsible carrying of a firearms.

It was a joke that some anti-gun journalist who never touched a firearm in his life, purchased a handgun, got CHL and he does not know if he is capable or willing to carry or shoot his handgun, ever!.

It is true it is right, a 2ndA right for all. However, would you allow an "insane person" to have access to firearms? Simply not. Same, for 4 yrs old kid, you would not hand him a loaded 1911.

anygunanywhere wrote:

baldeagle wrote:I think you guys are entirely missing the point. At one time in this country every man was responsible for his own actions, good or bad. If bad, he suffered the consequences. Therefore it behooved him to know the law, understand the difference between right and wrong and comprehend his responsibilities toward other citizens. Today, we are taught that everything is someone else's responsibility. E.g. It's the police who protect you, so you don't have to know anything about guns. In that environment, it's foolhardy to expect people to return to the former state without some training in what that means.

If you want constitutional carry, you first must fix the culture.

I, me , and mine are not part of the culture that needs fixing.

The parts that need fixing are not going to be fixed by schooling and book learning.

Anygunanywhere

So what do you suggest?

Beiruty wrote:We are lucky that anyone who is willing to spend the time and money to have a CHL is willing to spend a bit more and learn how to shoot and how to carry and how to defend himself with his carry piece. A "cost of entry" to CHL make those who having a passing interest in firearms to avoid CHL and carrying altogether. Thus, avoiding irresponsible carrying of a firearms.

It was a joke that some anti-gun journalist who never touched a firearm in his life, purchased a handgun, got CHL and he does not know if he is capable or willing to carry or shoot his handgun, ever!.

It is true it is right, a 2ndA right for all. However, would you allow an "insane person" to have access to firearms? Simply not. Same, for 4 yrs old kid, you would not hand him a loaded 1911.

You are correct that a crazy man should not have access to firearms but reality is cruel. I would not hansd a 4 year old a loaded 1911. There are idiots that will.

Beiruty, no amount of legislation, restrictions, or so called common sense gun laws or requirements are going to prevent this. Never.

Stop taking away my freedom and liberty because of the crazies and idiots.

Anygunanywhere

Beiruty wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

baldeagle wrote:I think you guys are entirely missing the point. At one time in this country every man was responsible for his own actions, good or bad. If bad, he suffered the consequences. Therefore it behooved him to know the law, understand the difference between right and wrong and comprehend his responsibilities toward other citizens. Today, we are taught that everything is someone else's responsibility. E.g. It's the police who protect you, so you don't have to know anything about guns. In that environment, it's foolhardy to expect people to return to the former state without some training in what that means.

If you want constitutional carry, you first must fix the culture.

I, me , and mine are not part of the culture that needs fixing.

The parts that need fixing are not going to be fixed by schooling and book learning.

Anygunanywhere

So what do you suggest?

I suggest the antis and government leave me alone.

The world would be a much better place if the government stop trying to fix everything and just stick to what it is constitutionally allowed to do.

Let everyone deal with their own problems. That is how wisdom is learned.

Those that cannot learn the rules of life will soon all perish.

Life is cruel. Liberty is cruel. Lessons are tough.

Anygunanywhere

Beiruty wrote:So what do you suggest?

Stop making government mandates forcing me to pay money, take classes, qualify, and have a permit in order to exercise my 2A right to bear arms.

If you disagree then Im still waiting for crime stats of states that do not require permits to exercise their rights.

It is interesting to me that many folks who own guns will say that new laws and background checks with not prevent gang bangers and other criminals from getting guns, but somehow our current CHL requirements are keeping the guns our of idiots hands?

I will go one step further and say can anyone point to any incidence involving someone carrying unlicensed under the MPA who was "untrained and unlicensed" causing a problem?

steveincowtown wrote:It is interesting to me that many folks who own guns will say that new laws and background checks with not prevent gang bangers and other criminals from getting guns, but somehow our current CHL requirements are keeping the guns our of idiots hands?

I will go one step further and say can anyone point to any incidence involving someone carrying unlicensed under the MPA who was "untrained and unlicensed" causing a problem?

There is no evidence supporting that untrained and unlicensed people carrying cause any problems. I have ask for proof multiple times and no one has presented such. Their opinion makes as much sense and Sen Feinstein saying that this new AWB will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and save childrens lives.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Beiruty wrote:We are lucky that anyone who is willing to spend the time and money to have a CHL is willing to spend a bit more and learn how to shoot and how to carry and how to defend himself with his carry piece. A "cost of entry" to CHL make those who having a passing interest in firearms to avoid CHL and carrying altogether. Thus, avoiding irresponsible carrying of a firearms.

It was a joke that some anti-gun journalist who never touched a firearm in his life, purchased a handgun, got CHL and he does not know if he is capable or willing to carry or shoot his handgun, ever!.

It is true it is right, a 2ndA right for all. However, would you allow an "insane person" to have access to firearms? Simply not. Same, for 4 yrs old kid, you would not hand him a loaded 1911.

You are correct that a crazy man should not have access to firearms but reality is cruel. I would not hansd a 4 year old a loaded 1911. There are idiots that will.

Beiruty, no amount of legislation, restrictions, or so called common sense gun laws or requirements are going to prevent this. Never.

Stop taking away my freedom and liberty because of the crazies and idiots.

Anygunanywhere

I am not suggesting more laws or restrictions. I am suggesting spreading awareness and knowledge about firearms safety.

Beiruty wrote: I am not suggesting more laws or restrictions. I am suggesting spreading awareness and knowledge about firearms safety.

I am good with spreading awareness. I am good with seeking knowledge. I never said I wasn't.

Anygunanywhere

Look at all the traffic laws we have and we still have auto accidents due to negligence and human error. Look at how many kids drink, use tobacco and participate in unhealthy lifestyles. Government has tried to fix these things and it hasn't worked.

More laws are not the answer and mandating schools to try to fix the culture is not the answer. Culture starts at home and is reflected in the community where each of us resides.

We have to promote fixing the home before we can fix the societal issues and that is not government's responsibility.

nightmare69 wrote:

baldeagle wrote:I think you guys are entirely missing the point. At one time in this country every man was responsible for his own actions, good or bad. If bad, he suffered the consequences. Therefore it behooved him to know the law, understand the difference between right and wrong and comprehend his responsibilities toward other citizens. Today, we are taught that everything is someone else's responsibility. E.g. It's the police who protect you, so you don't have to know anything about guns. In that environment, it's foolhardy to expect people to return to the former state without some training in what that means.

If you want constitutional carry, you first must fix the culture.

Surely you have plenty of examples from the many states that do not require training, then. (I could certainly find incidents from the states that DO require training, I'd wager)

Considering that I didn't say a single word about firearms training, your response is quite interesting.

Let me repeat. If you want constitutional carry, you first must fix the culture.

What do I mean by that? Your rights don't exist in a vacuum. You live in a constitutional republic where the people decide what the laws will be. If you want less restrictions on your rights, you're going to have to change the culture so that people understand those rights and understand what restrictions mean. You change the culture by training/teaching/education - whatever label you want to use.

Everything else is meaningless blather. You can moan and groan about your rights until you turn blue in the face and nothing will change until you change the culture.

This is where 2nd Amendment rights activists often miss the boat. They demand that everyone change to accommodate their view without even bothering to explain why that's a good thing or work to get people to understand why restricting our rights is a bad thing.

The only thing that a new law achieves is creating more criminals.

Anygunanywhere