People shoot people not guns?

[dmccarty]

SO here are my questions: How do you feel about gun safety instruction courses? How many have had formal training? How many haven't had formal training, but feel you know and practice very strict safety protocol? Is there anyone who feels that safety is a matter that should be left up to the individual and isn't anyone else's business? In that citizens have a right to drive cars, but only after passing written and field tests, would it make sense to require gun owners to take a class and/or pass any test? What about teenaged hunters? Thank you in advance for your thoughtful replies. Again, I am not trying to stir anything up; I am genuinely interested in your opinions.

In most/many states nowadays, to hunt you have to take a hunting safety class. If you where hunting prior to the hunting class requirement you might be able to bypass the class. My kids will have to take a class to get a license.

If you carry with a CCW permit then one has had training to get the permit to carry at least in the states I know about.

So the state already requires training for the most likey "public" firearm usage.

In the last two states I have lived one only needs to register a vehicle or posses a drivers licenese to drive said vehicle on a public road. If you drive on your place you need neither register or have a license.

I have had two 40 hours blocks of instruction on firearms and yearly qualifications. As well as a couple of clinics. NONE of these classes has taught me one thing about firearms safety that I did not know before I took any one of the classes/clinics. I was taught proper firearms safety when I was 5 or 6. Nothing new in the "adult" classes regardng firearm safety.

I have taken a few non US citizens to the range. One was English, one from Yugoslavia, and one person was from Taiwan. I sat them down in the kitchen with the pistol. Went through the manual of arms and firearm safety which maybe took an hour. If one does not get the safety in one hour they never will get it. Some people just don't get it and no amount of time in "class" will help.

I used to shoot in DCM rifle matches but no longer have the time. I have shot at quite a few ranges both public, private and government. Ranges operate pretty much the same regarding firearm safety. There is no need for government regulation.

I have seen Stupid Human Tricks on the range and off reqarding firearm safety issues. Not many though. People do stupid things with firearms, cars, tractors, chainsaws, generators, nailguns etc. Have you seen the video with the guy starting the brush fire with 5 gallons of gas?

Later,
Dan

 

[Tom_H]

I think that a recurring practical driving test should be mandatory every few years.

I fully agree with that. My MIL, is old, feeble, suffering dementia, on chemo. One Dr. told her (in writing) not to drive. She didn't stop. My wife and SIL, took the car away. MIL told another Dr. the daughters had stolen her car & he sent her to a lawyer who helped MIL swear out theft warrants against the daughters. Lawyer wouldn't listen-only cared about "winning". Wife and SIL gave up. If MIL kills herself, that's one thing. It's going to tear us up when she kills another car full of people though.

O.K. another gun question. Again, I am listening to your answers. Ron, you alluded to the 2nd amendment. What about this matter of the dependent clause at the beginning, "An armed militia being necessary for the national defense", surely the founding fathers had a reason to include that clause in the sentence. Does that not at some minimum place a qualification on the main clause? I am not trying to have a row. I just think it is a valid thing to discuss.

 

[MikePA]

What about this matter of the dependent clause at the beginning, "An armed militia being necessary for the national defense", surely the founding fathers had a reason to include that clause in the sentence. Does that not at some minimum place a qualification on the main clause?

The actual amendment reads

"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."

Nothing about an armed militia nor national defense.

The opening clause is not meant to qualify the rest of the amendment. It explains why the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed, i.e., because this right is necessary to maintain a well regulated militia and a well regulated militia is needed to maintain the security of a free state. Simple. It's not like we're trying to read the 'right to privacy' into the 4th amendment.

The Constitution is not a document that defines what people can do, it defines what the federal government can, and cannot, do.

 

[LMTC]

O.K. another gun question. Again, I am listening to your answers. Ron, you alluded to the 2nd amendment. What about this matter of the dependent clause at the beginning, "An armed militia being necessary for the national defense", surely the founding fathers had a reason to include that clause in the sentence. Does that not at some minimum place a qualification on the main clause? I am not trying to have a row. I just think it is a valid thing to discuss.

You cut off a certain amount of discussion when you make the presumption that those words are a dependent clause (and you're close, but that is not the 2nd amendment verbatim). Why can they not be simply an introductory rationale....an explanation...a statement of something that people in that time would have clearly understood?

Caveat-the following rant is not directed at any specific individual.

I'm about tired of everyone who would put any restraints on the 2nd amendment. FAR more damage is done every year by people with automobiles, and yet the requirements are extremely minimal, and it is not a constitutional right to drive. NOTHING is required in terms of training, education, knowledge of civics, economics, or anything else for people to vote, and that is an exercise with more far-reaching implications on society as a whole. Nothing in terms of training, education, etc. is required for people to exercise the right of free speech, and that too can be a very powerful thing.

Someone doesn't want to carry a firearm, fine. Someone wants to make a privately owned club/business/whatever off limits for firearms, fine, the rights of private property ownership prevail. But ANYTHING in the public domain should not have any restriction of a constitutional right placed on it, unless the exercise of that right can be shown to clearly and directly interfere with a constitutional right of another....such as the right to trial cannot be disrupted or contravened because someone else wants to make a speech during a person's trial.

It is not an issue subject to negotiation, compromise, or interpretation as far as I am concerned. While the following is not my pretext, because the existence of the Bill of Rights is sufficient unto itself, the history of governmental abuses and mass killings following restrictive firearms laws is so blatant that it simply leaves me in disbelief that anyone can support such things.

 

[Tom_H]

The actual amendment reads

"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."

Nothing about an armed militia nor national defense.

The opening clause is not meant to qualify the rest of the amendment. It explains why the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed, i.e., because this right is necessary to maintain a well regulated militia and a well regulated militia is needed to maintain the security of a free state. Simple. It's not like we're trying to read the 'right to privacy' into the 4th amendment.

The Constitution is not a document that defines what people can do, it defines what the federal government can, and cannot, do.

I didn't have the opportunity to look it up and was getting at the general idea. Again, I'm not here to fight. I am interested in your replies and rationalle. How would you respond to those who say that a "well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state" because the federal government now has a federal military which is far more effective than a militia could possibly be? This is not meant to provoke you. It is an intellectual inquiry.

 

[Bob_Skurka]

How would you respond to those who say that a "well regulated militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state" because the federal government now has a federal military which is far more effective than a militia could possibly be?

Now I'm from Indiana, so you may have to talk slow and loud to me. But the last time I checked, rights that are not given to the federal government are reserved to the state governments. Further, rights not granted to the state governments are reserved for the people. We live in a Republic which, at least by some states, takes states rights seriously. Our Indiana Constitution reads: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

By the way, Indiana does not require a safety class to obtain a CCW. Indiana actually REQUIRES the state to issue you a CCW if your application is not denied for cause within 30 days. Indiana has an instant background check and you can walk into a gun dealer, pay money, and walk out with a gun the same day (to get the gun you must pass the background check, but it pretty fast). Indiana also is a pretty darn safe state to live in, most of our crime statistics are generated in pockets of a few blighted urban areas.

As for the "federal" military, last time I checked, it was comprised, in large part, by state guard units that combine with the national military units. So when someone would comment that the federal military is far more effective than a militia, I'd ask how could that be if the federal military requires our state guard units to suppliment it, and if the two combined forces cannot wipe out the insurgents in two theaters of war we are currently fighting.

 

[N80]

The point being, that somehow, this combat vet with three combat stints under his belt, would not be allowed to drink, nor have a CC permit.

Well, that's really a side issue. That has only to do with age limits. And I agree with you on the age issue. Not sure what it has to do with non-citizens carrying guns though.

 

[Tom_H]

You cut off a certain amount of discussion when you make the presumption that those words are a dependent clause (and you're close, but that is not the 2nd amendment verbatim). Why can they not be simply an introductory rationale....an explanation...a statement of something that people in that time would have clearly understood?

Please understand that I am speaking technically. An independent clause can stand on its own as a sentence and a dependent clause cannot. The following words A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state on their own do not make a complete thought and do not constitute a sentence. However the words the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. can stand on their own and do by themselves communicate a complete thought and thus constitute a sentence. Since the second group of words could stand alone, they are known as an independent clause. Since the first group of words cannot stand alone, and only give clear meaning when connected to the independent clause, they are known as a dependent clause. Their ability to have meaning is dependent on the other clause being attached.

I am not quite sure how is it that I am cutting off discussion? Of all the things I have written in this thread, I have not attempted to rebut any other persons statement. I have only asked questions. I am listening to your answers.

Caveat-the following rant is not directed at any specific individual.

I'm about tired of everyone who would put any restraints on the 2nd amendment. FAR more damage is done every year by people with automobiles, and yet the requirements are extremely minimal, and it is not a constitutional right to drive.

I agree with you re. the cars.

NOTHING is required in terms of training, education, knowledge of civics, economics, or anything else for people to vote, and that is an exercise with more far-reaching implications on society as a whole. Nothing in terms of training, education, etc. is required for people to exercise the right of free speech, and that too can be a very powerful thing.

I agree completely. As a teacher, I try to get students to understand that with freedom comes resonsibility, the responsibility to vote, to serve community and country, to respect laws and rights of all citizens, and the responsibility to understand the viewpoints of people who stand on all sides of an issue-not to remain a fence-sitter, but to genuinely understand the rationale of each side. That is what I am attempting to do here: not to debate you but to understand your point of view.

Someone doesn't want to carry a firearm, fine. Someone wants to make a privately owned club/business/whatever off limits for firearms, fine, the rights of private property ownership prevail. But ANYTHING in the public domain should not have any restriction of a constitutional right placed on it, unless the exercise of that right can be shown to clearly and directly interfere with a constitutional right of another....such as the right to trial cannot be disrupted or contravened because someone else wants to make a speech during a person's trial.

Well said. I agree.

It is not an issue subject to negotiation, compromise, or interpretation

Is it an issue that can be subject to discussion however? It is interesting that the first right listed in the Bill of Rights was about free speech. One of my fears in this age of endless internet opportunities for media is that we no longer discuss our differences. We tend to go to sites where everyone else thinks almost the same as we do and we talk mainly to them, and not those who take a differing perspective. When we have something to say to those who don't share our own viewpoint, I see a lot of angry words simply thrown at the other person. This happens from the left and the right. I did not come here to fight. I came hoping to hear an articulate explanation of the point of view of anyone who wants to respond.

as far as I am concerned. While the following is not my pretext, because the existence of the Bill of Rights is sufficient unto itself, the history of governmental abuses and mass killings following restrictive firearms laws is so blatant that it simply leaves me in disbelief that anyone can support such things.

But can people still agree to disagree? To what extent can we respect others who do not hold the same opinion as ourselves? I am not saying I agree or disagree with your views. I am just wondering to what extent we have cut ourselves off from open talk with neighbors and fellow countrymen if we deny any legitimacy to the point of view of the other.

 

[Tom_H]

As for the "federal" military, last time I checked, it was comprised, in large part, by state guard units that combine with the national military units. So when someone would comment that the federal military is far more effective than a militia, I'd ask how could that be if the federal military requires our state guard units to suppliment it, and if the two combined forces cannot wipe out the insurgents in two theaters of war we are currently fighting.

You make a very poignant point about the current status of those two theatres. We are not being very effective in this asymetrical engagement. I would venture to say that any organized attempt to invade our homeland by conventional forces from another nation would be vastly different, however.

 

[RonMar]

What about this matter of the dependent clause at the beginning, "An armed militia being necessary for the national defense", surely the founding fathers had a reason to include that clause in the sentence. Does that not at some minimum place a qualification on the main clause? I am not trying to have a row. I just think it is a valid thing to discuss.

Mike summed it up perfectly, it is not a dependant clause, it is a description of why keeping arms in the hands of the civillian population is necessary and shal not be infringed.

The framers of the constitution had lots of reasons and recent memory of what oppressive governments are capable of if the people are powerless to stand up to them, or come to the governments defence if a powerfull military leader should decide to stage a military coup. It was so important to them and believed necessary to help safegard the first ammendment(and all the others) that it was penned in second and not 9th or 10th.

I can just imagine how things transpired during the drafting of those first 10 ammendments.
Freedom of speech, that is the most important so lets write that down first... But what if the government dosn't like what people are saying? What if they start supressing this right by force? How do we keep the government from opressing this right by force? Simple, we arm all the people so if need be, they have the ability to keep the government in control, or respond to other threats to this nation. That sounds good, that should be number 2 on our list... We need the ability to form militia and the militia needs to be armed to be of any use to the people so arms must be available.

Since the constitution was created, we also have many examples around the world of how an unarmed populus can be controlled, oppressed or slaughtered. The world and human nature have not changed, only the tools and speed by which atrocities are carried out.


Wickpedia has a good definition of militia.
Militia is the activity of one or more citizens organized to provide defense or paramilitary service, or those engaged in such activity. The word can have five somewhat different meanings:

1. Defense activity, as well as those engaged in it, when it is defense of the public, its territory, property, and laws
2. The entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy, to enforce the law, or to respond to a disaster
3. A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government
4. An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers, also called an Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces
5. The national police forces in Russia, and other former CIS countries, or the former Soviet Union: Militsiya

In any of these cases, a militia is distinct from a regular army. It can serve to supplement the regular military, or it can oppose it, for example to resist a military coup. In some circumstances, the "enemies" against which a militia is mobilized are domestic political opponents of the government, such as strikers. In many cases the role, or even the existence of a militia, is controversial. For these reasons legal restrictions may be placed on the mobilization or use of militia.
Militia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia