JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I have no formal training. I simply grew up with a family and friends who loved guns and was taught firearms use and safety all my life. Do you think those men would put up with me doing something unsafe around them while hunting or around the campfire? I got my butt chewed more than once. I also got taught how to shoot and how to reload.

Nothing is certain. You could be good. You could be bad and lucky. You also could be average. Needless to say training is not always a determining factor either - plenty of police officers shoot themselves. Some of them also grew up shooting and hunting, in addition their formal training.
 
Just a thought, Manditory firearm safety training in school from say the 5th grade on for everyone. No required training for owning, carrying whatever else. Everyone recieves the same training whether you own or plan to own or do not own firearms.

Making anything mandatory is already horse manure in my opinion.
Make it an elective and move it up to or around the 10th grade, then I'd be somewhat in support of your proposal. Also I'd treat a class like that as a place where all students from all walks of life can feel safe with who they are in a class like that.
 
I want NO more laws, thank you. In fact I'd like to see every law passed in the last 40 years repealed. If we lived without it for 200 years, and since I grew up without it, I can live without it now.

I've already lost enough of my freedom, thank you.
 
I want NO more laws, thank you. In fact I'd like to see every law passed in the last 40 years repealed. If we lived without it for 200 years, and since I grew up without it, I can live without it now.

I've already lost enough of my freedom, thank you.

Only 40 years?
So the Gun Control Act of 1968 and National Firearms Act (1934) are okay with you? ;)
 
Should firearms or firearm owners be subject to testing to receive a license to carry a firearm?
The Argument Against
Author Nick Smith


No, no, no... it says "....shall not be infringed." no training, no class, no license, nada...the government is to be absent from a citizens right to 'keep' (own) and 'bear' (carry, open or concealed).

Now for one minute let's tear apart this stupid licensing idea.

You take ONE test to drive a car when you are 16 and then NEVER have to prove competency again. The test is simple, multiple choice and teaches you nothing that you can't read on your own. You take ONE driving test and then NEVER have to prove your ability ever again, EVER. Your driver’s license is recognized in any of the 50 states. Therefore, you can have learned to drive in Alaska with very little traffic, yet your license is good in New York, New York or Los Angeles, CA.

You can therefore be 66 years old and have not taken a test, written or physical in 50 YEARS. Do you think cars have changed in the last 50 years? The 'you have to have a license to drive' argument doesn't hold water, it is a joke. How many times driving have you said to yourself; 'that old man shouldn't be driving', 'that woman shouldn't be driving', 'that immigrant shouldn't be driving', 'that teenager shouldn't be driving?' We have all said this to ourselves. The argument simply is ridiculous and is now null and void.

And even with licensing, we still have; drunk drivers, negligent drivers, hit and runs, get away (from crime) drivers, stolen cars, speeding in school zones and more.

YOU SEE THAT LICENSING DRIVERS (AND CARS) DOES NOTHING TO PREVENT CRIME FROM CARS...OR FROM DRIVERS.

We must all simply accept that we choose to live in a free society. In a free society their are inherit risks and there is evil and there is great joy. Part of living in a free society is that we must accept responsibility for our actions. There are things in a free society that people will always not like and will always be opposed to and never agree upon, we must learn to accept that and yet choose to live together in peace and respect.

LIVE FREE OR DIE!
 
it says "....shall not be infringed." no training, no class, no license, nada...the government is to be absent from a citizens right to 'keep' (own) and 'bear' (carry, open or concealed).

Perhaps when he gets to sit on the panel of SCOTUS, he can write that down in the majority opinion. Until then it's just an empty talk from a random person.
 
And his opinion, as judged by SCOTUS, is just as valid as yours, mine, or anyone else.

Actually you are wrong on that one. SCOTUS already issued an opinion that certain regulations, including certain licensing requirements are permissible.

I am tired of arguing this point really. People disregard decisions of the SCOTUS, appealing to the "how it should be" approach instead of "how it is". We have a well-established system, and if somebody doesn't like how SCOTUS perverts the Constitution... well, call for a Constitutional Convention or start a rebellion.
 
Having 13 years (combined active and reserve) military service I had the basics of firearm's safety down. The part that I got the most out of (and it seems like most on here are ignoring) is the LEGAL aspects of carrying (concealed or otherwise). It seems like about 25% or better in my class would have had problems (or at least would have violated laws) based on their answers in class (myself included).
 
Actually you are wrong on that one. SCOTUS already issued an opinion that certain regulations, including certain licensing requirements are permissible.

I am tired of arguing this point really. People disregard decisions of the SCOTUS, appealing to the "how it should be" approach instead of "how it is". We have a well-established system, and if somebody doesn't like how SCOTUS perverts the Constitution... well, call for a Constitutional Convention or start a rebellion.

Where in the 214 page McDonald decision does it say what I have bolded?

Here is what the court has said on page 39-40 regarding what regulatory measures may still be valid.

"We made it clear in Heller that our hold-ing did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill," "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali-fications on the commercial sale of arms."" (pg 39-40 McDonald v Chicago)

Unless you can quote the case to not make assertions as to what you think exists in the decision.
 
Where in the 214 page McDonald decision does it say what I have bolded?

Here is what the court has said on page 39-40 regarding what regulatory measures may still be valid.

"We made it clear in Heller that our hold-ing did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill," "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and gov-ernment buildings, or laws imposing conditions and quali-fications on the commercial sale of arms."" (pg 39-40 McDonald v Chicago)

Unless you can quote the case to not make assertions as to what you think exists in the decision.

That's your mistake - looking at McDonald case in this context. Significance of McDonald v. Chicago is the result of incorporation of 2nd Amendment. You've got to look at the Heller v. DC for the licensing.
 
Quote it then.

Well, for example this :

Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
 
I am tired of arguing this point really. People disregard decisions of the SCOTUS, appealing to the "how it should be" approach instead of "how it is". We have a well-established system, and if somebody doesn't like how SCOTUS perverts the Constitution... well, call for a Constitutional Convention or start a rebellion.

Right, let's argue right vs wrong within the framework established by the infallible SCOTUS, the same body that ruled congress has unlimited economic power (Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and nullified the 5th Amendment (Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), among other outrages.

Does any patriot really give a damn what a bunch of government lawyers have to say about liberty?

The rebellion will come soon enough if the government continues to rape the country, and it will be started by people who think about "how it should be".
 
Why would you accept the authority of the law when the government behind the system is monstrously corrupt, as Ron Paul would argue?

Just read this and see if it changes your mind: The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

Let me put it this way... There is a law that I disagree with. Say it's a gun-related law. What can I do about it ? bubblegum about it on the NWF forum ? What results will it yield ? Some conservative member will pop up, and will blame Obama for all the bad luck firearms owners are having. Instead of doing that, I support organizations like SAF, who use guided weapons of ad-hoc litigation to address those problems. Use the system to fix the system itself. Problem solved.

Sorry, I've already had a few drinks, and I just can't be serious about this stuff anymore tonight :D
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top