Gun Legislation

[Roland Deschain]

They're not necessarily unscrupulous just because the do exactly what the law requires. The class has to be conducted by a certified instructor (not hard to get that designation - see Ombud's post) and must be 8 hours, with 50 rounds live fire, hitting 21 out of 30. If an instructor does that, s/he's done what is required. One of the websites I referenced basically guaranteed everyone will pass. The written test required (and no, I don't know what your particular instructor had) is easier than the drivers' license test. It's pretty easy to find the specific requirements in any state - and none of them require anything that would reasonably be considered "proficient." One cannot become "proficient" in 50 rounds, no matter how quickly you learn.

The proficiency is proven by being able to hit the 21 of 30...not learned. As I asked earlier (and you have not answered by the way) do you even know what the required target is? The written test is relatively easy in that it is based in the law that allows deadly force for self defense...it is a basically a when can you shoot and when can't you.

[O Really]

They're not necessarily unscrupulous just because the do exactly what the law requires. The class has to be conducted by a certified instructor (not hard to get that designation - see Ombud's post) and must be 8 hours, with 50 rounds live fire, hitting 21 out of 30. If an instructor does that, s/he's done what is required. One of the websites I referenced basically guaranteed everyone will pass. The written test required (and no, I don't know what your particular instructor had) is easier than the drivers' license test. It's pretty easy to find the specific requirements in any state - and none of them require anything that would reasonably be considered "proficient." One cannot become "proficient" in 50 rounds, no matter how quickly you learn.

The proficiency is proven by being able to hit the 21 of 30...not learned. As I asked earlier (and you have not answered by the way) do you even know what the required target is? The written test is relatively easy in that it is based in the law that allows deadly force for self defense...it is a basically a when can you shoot and when can't you.

The target can be either "bullseye" type or "silhouette" type. But saying that this course makes one proficient in handgun use is like saying taking the Richard Petty Experience in Orlando makes one a "proficient' race car driver.

[O Really]

Ya see, Roland, your problem is that I don't fit in with your imagined stereotype of what a "liberal" ought to be. Based on what you said you've taken, I've got way more firearms training than you with regard to self and home defense, I've got at least as good understanding of the law, and I've been issued concealed carry permits from (apparently) more states than you. And yet, I despise the NRA, I still favor regulation of firearms and more stringent requirements for training for those who want to carry them around. That obviously causes your brain to strain, because as a liberal, I should be calling for the jackboots to come get your guns. And as a gun owner and trained user, I should oppose any restriction on use or ownership of firearms. So you have to be against anything I say even if it would make sense to you if a fellow NRA member said it. Stop looking at life through stereotypes and expand your world.

[Roland Deschain]

Ya see, Roland, your problem is that I don't fit in with your imagined stereotype of what a "liberal" ought to be. Based on what you said you've taken, I've got way more firearms training than you with regard to self and home defense, I've got at least as good understanding of the law, and I've been issued concealed carry permits from (apparently) more states than you. And yet, I despise the NRA, I still favor regulation of firearms and more stringent requirements for training for those who want to carry them around. That obviously causes your brain to strain, because as a liberal, I should be calling for the jackboots to come get your guns. And as a gun owner and trained user, I should oppose any restriction on use or ownership of firearms. So you have to be against anything I say even if it would make sense to you if a fellow NRA member said it. Stop looking at life through stereotypes and expand your world.

I've never said that you did not have a good understanding of the law...others here...not so much. We simply disagree on what we consider to be adequate training and are debating that issue and others surrounding it. Unlike others here, you are capable of civil debate and I actually enjoy our "battles". I am curious...with all the reciprocal agreements why did you find it necessary to obtain CCP's from multiple states unless you change residency quite often? Yes, I am an NRA member and I support most of their positions. However, my view of gun regulation has nothing to do with my association with them. I believe the Second Amendment is not open to interpretation, it plainly says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and to me that means if I want to own an AK-47 or a Remington 760 I can. I also look at the far left liberal quacks like Feinstein, Boxer, Clinton and others with the attitude that if we give them an inch and allow government to regulate one "type" of firearm it will not be long until they will be regulating all of them.....to me that is unacceptable based on The Constitution. I enjoy our debates so don't take things personally we just see things a bit differently.

On another note.....I did not say the course "made" a person proficient in handgun use...the course only verifies that they are.

[Ombudsman]

I believe the Second Amendment is not open to interpretation, it plainly says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, and to me that means if I want to own an AK-47 or a Remington 760 I can..

Then you don't understand anything about the Constitution. The entire thing is open to interpretation. That's the purpose of the Supreme Court. You claim it's not open to interpretation then turn around and offer your own subjective interpretation. What it "plainly says" is that a right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Literally that means that if you are allowed to own some type of weapon, then your right has not been infringed. It doesn't mean you get to own damn thing you please. This was "interpreted" in United States v. Miller, which stated that types of weapons can be limited and to do so is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

[Roland Deschain]

Roland Deschain ran away from all of it, as he always does.

Oh, vrede, I apologize. I forgot you were there. You may go now.

[O Really]

I am curious...with all the reciprocal agreements why did you find it necessary to obtain CCP's from multiple states unless you change residency quite often? .

Because of the utter stupidity of having state by state permitting instead of one national permit with one standard. In my case, my Florida permit isn't accepted by Maine or Wisconsin. Wisconsin only issues resident permits, but accepts some other states. Maine isn't accepted by Wisconsin, but North Carolina is. Thus I have Florida, Maine, and North Carolina permits, and none of them required me to do much more than fill out a form and show I've taken a "course" where I shot 50 rounds. At least the Maine questionnaire is longer. Why do I want to carry a weapon in Maine and Wisconsin? Because I go to the North Woods.

[neoplacebo]

That's funny; the other day I found a West Virginia concealed carry permit (made out to "bearer" and valid through 2015) in a box of Raisin Bran.

[O Really]

That's funny; the other day I found a West Virginia concealed carry permit (made out to "bearer" and valid through 2015) in a box of Raisin Bran.

And you demonstrated your "proficiency" by actually being able to read it and by having enough teeth to eat Raisin Bran.

[Ombudsman]

That's funny; the other day I found a West Virginia concealed carry permit (made out to "bearer" and valid through 2015) in a box of Raisin Bran.

Maybe you'll find one for NC in your Fruity Pebbles tomorrow. Then you can have a gun fight in Roland's saloon, Sundance style. I can just hear Roland now, "I-I-I didn't know you was Neoplacebo when I said you was cheatin'."

[homerfobe]

A Beretta Jetfire testimonial.

This is a story of self-control and marksmanship by a brave, cool-headed woman with a small pistol against a fierce predator.
What is the smallest caliber that you would trust to protect yourself?

Here is her story:


"While out walking along the edge of a bayou just below Houma, Louisiana with my soon to be ex-husband discussing property settlement and other divorce issues, we were surprised by a huge 12-ft. alligator suddenly emerging from the murky water and charging us with its large jaws wide open. She must have been protecting her nest because she was extremely aggressive.
If I had not had my little Beretta Jetfire .25 caliber pistol with me, I would not be here today! Just one shot to my estranged husband's knee cap was all it took. The gator got him easily and I was able to escape by just walking away at a brisk pace.
It's one of the best pistols in my collection! Plus ... the amount I saved in lawyer's fees was more than worth the purchase price of the gun.

[O Really]

Here's a couple of "good guys" with concealed permits... http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/pair ... 67661.html

[O Really]

...the people with CCP's are still the good guys, have proven their proficiency, and I fully support those people having the right to carry their gun wherever they choose.

Yeppers - and nobody who has had their "proficiency" demonstrated or verified through their CCP ummm "training" would never get into an altercation of road rage or a bar fight.

[O Really]

I was thinking about Roland's contention that concealed weapons permit holders were "the good guys" and should be allowed to go armed into bars. I understand the concept - certainly there are a lot of criminals who don't bother to get permits. Nevertheless, the permit itself still means little in determining if the armed citizen is a "good guy." For example, in 2006 (latest year I could find easily), Florida issued concealed handgun permits to more than 1,400 people who plead guilty or no contest to felonies; 216 people with outstanding warrants, including for murder; 28 people with active domestic violence restraining orders against them; and 6 registered sex offenders. Relatively small percentage of the thousands of permits issued, but it's still a bunch of "not so good guys" running around with permits. Further, in the four years from when "stand your ground" was passed (2005-2009), ”justifiable homicides” in Florida increased from 43 to 105. Keep in mind that the Florida permit is the one most accepted by other states.

[Roland Deschain]

I was thinking about Roland's contention that concealed weapons permit holders were "the good guys" and should be allowed to go armed into bars. I understand the concept - certainly there are a lot of criminals who don't bother to get permits. Nevertheless, the permit itself still means little in determining if the armed citizen is a "good guy." For example, in 2006 (latest year I could find easily), Florida issued concealed handgun permits to more than 1,400 people who plead guilty or no contest to felonies; 216 people with outstanding warrants, including for murder; 28 people with active domestic violence restraining orders against them; and 6 registered sex offenders. Relatively small percentage of the thousands of permits issued, but it's still a bunch of "not so good guys" running around with permits. Further, in the four years from when "stand your ground" was passed (2005-2009), ”justifiable homicides” in Florida increased from 43 to 105. Keep in mind that the Florida permit is the one most accepted by other states.

Using that logic, due to a few rogue police officers all police officers are bad. I guess that since we have had a few go bat crazy and on killing sprees then we should disarm all cops??? Yes, there will always be a few who slip through the cracks of any system...whether it be a CCP process or hiring for a law enforcement agency. However, that does not change the fact that the vast majority of those who hold CCP's are still "the good guys".

[O Really]

Using that logic, due to a few rogue police officers all police officers are bad. I guess that since we have had a few go bat crazy and on killing sprees then we should disarm all cops??? Yes, there will always be a few who slip through the cracks of any system...whether it be a CCP process or hiring for a law enforcement agency. However, that does not change the fact that the vast majority of those who hold CCP's are still "the good guys".

Of course the vast majority of those who hold CCP's are "good guys." So are the vast majority of people who don't choose to carry firearms. But I never said the permit program should be ended; I say it should be strengthened. I would never suggest cops should be disarmed, but I say when one of them shoots an unarmed guy in his own car in his own backyard, or breaks into the house on the wrong side of the street, that there should be more than a rubber-stamp investigation.

[O Really]

So -Roland, would you support a single national standard for CCP, national card, good everywhere?

[Ombudsman]

I was thinking about Roland's contention that concealed weapons permit holders were "the good guys" and should be allowed to go armed into bars. I understand the concept - certainly there are a lot of criminals who don't bother to get permits. Nevertheless, the permit itself still means little in determining if the armed citizen is a "good guy." For example, in 2006 (latest year I could find easily), Florida issued concealed handgun permits to more than 1,400 people who plead guilty or no contest to felonies; 216 people with outstanding warrants, including for murder; 28 people with active domestic violence restraining orders against them; and 6 registered sex offenders. Relatively small percentage of the thousands of permits issued, but it's still a bunch of "not so good guys" running around with permits. Further, in the four years from when "stand your ground" was passed (2005-2009), ”justifiable homicides” in Florida increased from 43 to 105. Keep in mind that the Florida permit is the one most accepted by other states.

Using that logic, due to a few rogue police officers all police officers are bad.

But your logic was that those with CCP's aren't criminals and therefore should be trusted to enter a bar armed. That clearly isn't the case so find a new argument or admit yours is a loser.

[Roland Deschain]

So -Roland, would you support a single national standard for CCP, national card, good everywhere?

Of course I would. However, I'm not sure how that would jive with that whole 'states rights" thing but I'd rather see a national program as opposed to what we have right now.

[Ombudsman]

So -Roland, would you support a single national standard for CCP, national card, good everywhere?

Of course I would. However, I'm not sure how that would jive with that whole 'states rights" thing but I'd rather see a national program as opposed to what we have right now.

I think you mean "jibe" but other than that, this is first reasonable thing you've stated. How about national gun registry?