Messages
1,383
Reactions
3,466
I try to shoot anyone shooting at me. What you doing other than stumping?
I've offered a question that requires an answer. As for "stumping" (a term I'm unfamiliar with) I suggest that unless you've been in a situation as I've described, you may not have considered all the dynamics involved in a gunfight. It isn't like Call of Duty or some other game. There's nothing more sickening than to nudge someone that you've just shot to death, to see if they're really dead. It's also sickening to knock on the door of a home and inform the mom/dad/wife/etc. that their loved one was killed in a gun battle. Conversations about concealed carry or intervention in a gunfight, should be considered carefully so that a plan of action or inaction is in place and the individual has an honest and a better idea of the responsibilities we have as gun owners and carriers. It should begin with the great question; can I take another person's life in defense of my own? If the answer is no, then I suggest that person not carry a gun because they may very well be killed with that same firearm. If the answer is yes, then that leads to the next question: should I carry a live round in the chamber and so on, until a complete thought process has occured and decisions made at every juncture.
 
"Superficial"? Unfortunately, your perspective seems jaded by your adoration of Mr. Sowell. His is simply one opinion that is not shared by conventional wisdom. I have no wish to try to change your mind on this matter. Instead, I say enjoy your views and share them as you desire. I'm through with the topic.
Yes, I am excited by Sowell. His work has required me to change my mind about more than anyone else in my life. ( I enjoy being forced to change my mind about things.) His work has also answered many questions that puzzled me for decades that no one else was addressing. Satisfying .
 
Messages
3,314
Reactions
4,397
"Am I truly comfortable carrying a device that can kill another person(s)?"

I would think a military person would understand that virtually everything you carry with you is capable of killing another person.

Also, all this concern over what might happen seems a bit misguided when we can look at what has happened. The situation today is not greatly different than it has been for decades. People don't go around blasting away at the bad guys, missing and killing hordes of good guys. Life is good. Take a breath, have a beer or a smoke or whatever. :)
Of course good words even better in the Bender voice ! I for one am with you 100% brother we know whats up and unfortunately some are not even comfortable in their own skin !
 
Messages
3,314
Reactions
4,397
I've offered a question that requires an answer. As for "stumping" (a term I'm unfamiliar with) I suggest that unless you've been in a situation as I've described, you may not have considered all the dynamics involved in a gunfight. It isn't like Call of Duty or some other game. There's nothing more sickening than to nudge someone that you've just shot to death, to see if they're really dead. It's also sickening to knock on the door of a home and inform the mom/dad/wife/etc. that their loved one was killed in a gun battle. Conversations about concealed carry or intervention in a gunfight, should be considered carefully so that a plan of action or inaction is in place and the individual has an honest and a better idea of the responsibilities we have as gun owners and carriers. It should begin with the great question; can I take another person's life in defense of my own? If the answer is no, then I suggest that person not carry a gun because they may very well be killed with that same firearm. If the answer is yes, then that leads to the next question: should I carry a live round in the chamber and so on, until a complete thought process has occured and decisions made at every juncture.
Back in the day there was no ABS it was between your ears most have lost touch ! The same basic principal applies use what god gave you if you don't have a dog in the fight walk away and live another day . If you come at me or are a threat to my family it is on and the fires of hell will rain upon you ! I don't mean you personally for the record but you know what I mean .
 
Messages
18,151
Reactions
44,917
I've offered a question that requires an answer. As for "stumping" (a term I'm unfamiliar with) I suggest that unless you've been in a situation as I've described, you may not have considered all the dynamics involved in a gunfight. It isn't like Call of Duty or some other game. There's nothing more sickening than to nudge someone that you've just shot to death, to see if they're really dead. It's also sickening to knock on the door of a home and inform the mom/dad/wife/etc. that their loved one was killed in a gun battle. Conversations about concealed carry or intervention in a gunfight, should be considered carefully so that a plan of action or inaction is in place and the individual has an honest and a better idea of the responsibilities we have as gun owners and carriers. It should begin with the great question; can I take another person's life in defense of my own? If the answer is no, then I suggest that person not carry a gun because they may very well be killed with that same firearm. If the answer is yes, then that leads to the next question: should I carry a live round in the chamber and so on, until a complete thought process has occured and decisions made at every juncture.
The "don't carry if you can't kill" mantra has been worried to a nubbin on lots of boards like this one, and found lacking. Most folks don't know what they're capable of until they're tested. I wouldn't be surprised if you've experienced exactly that yourself, given your background. To return to the theme of my previous post, history tells us that it's not at all common for a citizen to be disarmed and killed with their own weapon; This is a fake narrative pushed by the anti-gun press and politicians. Please don't feed their movement.
 
Messages
3,314
Reactions
4,397
The "don't carry if you can't kill" mantra has been worried to a nubbin on lots of boards like this one, and found lacking. Most folks don't know what they're capable of until they're tested. I wouldn't be surprised if you've experienced exactly that yourself, given your background. To return to the theme of my previous post, history tells us that it's not at all common for a citizen to be disarmed and killed with their own weapon; This is a fake narrative pushed by the anti-gun press and politicians. Please don't feed their moveme

The "don't carry if you can't kill" mantra has been worried to a nubbin on lots of boards like this one, and found lacking. Most folks don't know what they're capable of until they're tested. I wouldn't be surprised if you've experienced exactly that yourself, given your background. To return to the theme of my previous post, history tells us that it's not at all common for a citizen to be disarmed and killed with their own weapon; This is a fake narrative pushed by the anti-gun press and politicians. Please don't feed their movement.
Nobody knows till that time has come but assure you that you had better be right with your god whoever it is some of us have no issue sending you on your merry way to your 100 virgin men !
 
Messages
24
Reactions
28
For those of you who have taken the CHL classes and training, which I believe is supposed to include proper gun handling and shooting these days... have you ever felt a little worried that some of the people taking the class weren't exactly "prepared" to be carrying a firearm on their person in public?

I took mine quite some time ago, but I don't think things have changed much judging by the conversations I've had with people lately... some of the people in my class seemed a bit "out of their comfort zone" with their chosen weapon during our classes....

Your experiences?
 
Messages
542
Reactions
800
In my experience, even though a CHL holder "trains" the determination of "enough" is still subjective. I've also seen older CHL holders for 20+ years or older Vets get to a point where their reaction time and their decisionmaking ability gets slower and slower to a point where you need to be realistic about your true skills and not carry.

I'm 68, and I've seen my reaction time slow a bit even in the last 5 years. To counter that I recertify every year for holster draw to measure how competent I am at taking on that HUGE responsibility.

If you decide for me when I shouldn't carry, it's no different than a Government official deciding what I carry, how I carry, and where I carry. This sounds a lot like California, New York, and New Jersey deciding our 2A rights insofar as CHL rights. I'm not going there, if you get my drift.
 
Messages
5,367
Reactions
10,664
I don’t think there should be mandatory training. With that said if you’re going to carry a gun I think it’s a huge responsibility and should be taken seriously.

I know people personally that I would consider a liability/dangerous (not in a good way) in regards to concealed carry. But that’s not my call to make. All I can do is keep my distance and be situationally aware of not only “bad guys” but also “good guys” who think the class to get a CHL is enough to qualify you to stick a loaded pistol in your waistband…..

This is just MY OPINION.
 
Messages
331
Reactions
573
When I took my CHL class 30+ years ago I distinctly remember the instructor telling everyone at the beginning of the class that he would not pass and give a certificate to anyone that could not handle basic safety, loading, firing and making safe their weapon. Specifically, if you point a gun, loaded or not, at ANYONE during the course of the class you are out! And I believed him!

These days CHL classes can be taken online and you can get a CHL without ever having touched a gun in your life. I don't think this is right. I appreciated the CHL class I took and think an in person hands on with a range day class should be required for a CHL.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
780
Reactions
2,018
When I took my course.. What was otherwise a fairly unmemorable experience regarding the other attendees that day; there was one older couple in the class that really stood out to me.

They seemed primarily interested in picking the instructor's brain about when it would be justified to shoot someone; more in a 'first-resort' sort of way, opposed to a 'last-resort' sort of way. I got a serious 'blood lust' vibe from them, so much so, that I still remember them to this day.

As for training et. al.

While I'm vehemently opposed to government mandated training/permits - If it's to be required by law, it ought to be no-cost, easily accessible and available to everyone - Much like voting is intended to be.. I do, however, believe that something like a firearms owner's pamphlet ought to come in the box when a person buys a firearm. Something that goes over the importance of responsible firearm ownership, safety etc. It could even be a simple printed card. I understand that some of the safe-operation issues are usually addressed in the model-specific manual in the box, but of course there's always going to be those that skip reading manuals.

It could be as simple as:

"CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR NEW FIREARM! THE TOOL THAT YOU NOW HAVE HAS THE POWER OF LIFE AND DEATH AT YOUR FINGERTIPS. WITH GREAT POWER COMES GREAT RESPONSIBILITY. IT IS IMPORTANT TO BECOME FAMILIAR AND PROFICIENT WITH THE ASSEMBLY AND OPERATION OF THIS FIREARM IN A SAFE MANOR. READ THE DAMN MANUAL."

Perhaps, they could even print the above on both sides of the barrel or something. 🤡
 
Last Edited:
Messages
4,285
Reactions
10,591
The cost of shooting this year has limited my activities quite a bit. And I already have what I need. I can imagine a new shooter not getting much hands on practice with their gear.

One of the few things Oregon did right was not blocking access to firearms for a very long time. 114 mainly affects new shooters, who largely haven't been shooting up people willy-nilly. So I doubt the "Gun crimes" statistics will change due to 114.
 
Messages
780
Reactions
2,018
My understanding of the meaning of "well regulated" at the time it was written is law abiding.
This is a common issue that comes up with the Antis misdefining the term in their arguments as a justification to 'regulate' firearms ownership.

When most think of the modern use of the term 'regulation'; the definition that often comes to mind is to: 'control' or 'supervise'. -- IE 'Hunting regulations', 'Tax regulations', 'Insurance regulations' etc.

However...

In common usage, the term 'regulation' in the 18th century meant 'well-ordered' or 'well-trained' -- AKA 'organized' and 'proficient'. There are numerous references to this established usage; where the authors/signers referred to it as representing such.

What's of utmost importance to recognize is that the Prefatory Clause of the 2A is merely an acknowledgment that an organized and proficient armed people is necessary for the security of free-state. It is not a mandate, nor an order.

The Bill of Rights sets no mandates, or requirements upon the people. It only sets limits and restricts governmental power to infringe on those rights.

It is not called: "The Bill Of Allowances And Special Permissions Under Certain Conditions".
 
Messages
27
Reactions
29
^ - What @solv3nt said.

BM 114 was a direct to voter initiative.

My understanding was that Washington SB 5078 originally had language similar to Oregon BM 114 regarding the possession of 11+ mags.

But, because SB 5078 went through the state legislative process (committees, house, senate, etc.) the pro-2A legislators were able to REMOVE the language about only possessing an 11+ mag on your private property, or at a competition, range, educational event or hunting, and that you can only transport those mags separately from the firearm in a locked container.

Please don't misunderstand me, I DO NOT think SB 5078 is a "good compromise" bill.

But the 14 states in the union that have the option of direct voter initiative legislation continue to be at great risk for continued attacks like BM 114.

I realize this doesn't address the OP's training issue. I was just agreeing with @solv3nt.

Just babbling - like an old dude.

Take what you like and leave the rest.

Cheers.
There were good reasons for making this a representative republic rather than a direct democracy. The founding fathers recognized the inability of the public to effectively govern themselves directly, emotion and ignorance easily overrule good governance. The citizen initiative sounds good to the general public, but in reality, leads to many unintended consequences. That is why most states that allow it also include a provision that allows the legislature to override the initiative process after a period of time. The problem is those same voters elect their representatives based on the same ignorance and emotion. This leads to authoritarian rule and the decline of civilization. ("...we have given you a Republic, if you can keep it...").
I ascribe to the 66% theory. 66% of the populace are slobbering idiots and the other 33% are suspect.
 
Messages
16,972
Reactions
41,145
There were good reasons for making this a representative republic rather than a direct democracy. The founding fathers recognized the inability of the public to effectively govern themselves directly, emotion and ignorance easily overrule good governance. The citizen initiative sounds good to the general public, but in reality, leads to many unintended consequences. That is why most states that allow it also include a provision that allows the legislature to override the initiative process after a period of time. The problem is those same voters elect their representatives based on the same ignorance and emotion. This leads to authoritarian rule and the decline of civilization. ("...we have given you a Republic, if you can keep it...").
I ascribe to the 66% theory. 66% of the populace are slobbering idiots and the other 33% are suspect.

That is also why the system of "direct election" of senators was not what the framers of the U.S. Constitution had in mind, we should do away with the 17th amendment.
 
There were good reasons for making this a representative republic rather than a direct democracy. The founding fathers recognized the inability of the public to effectively govern themselves directly, emotion and ignorance easily overrule good governance. The citizen initiative sounds good to the general public, but in reality, leads to many unintended consequences. That is why most states that allow it also include a provision that allows the legislature to override the initiative process after a period of time. The problem is those same voters elect their representatives based on the same ignorance and emotion. This leads to authoritarian rule and the decline of civilization. ("...we have given you a Republic, if you can keep it...").
I ascribe to the 66% theory. 66% of the populace are slobbering idiots and the other 33% are suspect.
Yes, the people sometimes do stupid things. But governing elites invariably make the size of the government ever bigger, the taxes ever higher, and their control over that government more absolute and irretrievable. In Oregon we would have long since had sales taxes on top of high income taxes if not for the ability of citizens to vote down or reverse sales taxes.

Actually the founding fathers were nearly all elites. Idle elites by our standards. The Southerners nearly all had slaves. Most of the Northern founding fathers had servants. What pissed these elites off about Britain was its upper class did not treat upper class colonists as upper class . They treated them like inferiors. Northern elites were also pissed off because they excelled at trade including smuggling. And the point of colonies from the point of view of colonial powers was to be exploited so as to make the colonizers wealthy at the expense of the colonials. So Brits wanted Americans to ship gold and silver, lumber, tobacco, furs, and sugar to Britain, not build their own ships and industries and compete for trade. Our founding fathers didn't consider you a citizen or allow you to vote unless you owned property. And were male if course.
 

Upcoming Events

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top