Poll: Should the government make more requirements in order to get a CHL?

[Father of four]

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE..... not the right of the Gov to make laws, rules and regulations against the Peoples right.

If laws,rules amd regulations needs to be made then We should vote on it.
It seems if we let the people who work for Us in OUR government are left uncontrolled they will make and pass laws, rules and regulations to remove our rights until we do what they say is our right.

THAT IS NOT what the 2nd Amendment was made for!

The need to ask for permission is not a right.

 

[U201491]

What are your thoughts?

I think they should. Too many gun totting idiots ruin this priviledge for us. They think they are hard core just because the gov't gave them permission to carry a gun legally just becaused they passed a measly background check, paid the fees and took the class.

I also think they should be required to take an actual firearm practical for gun handling, shooting, and safety, instead of just the DD214 or taking the 3 hour class.

A very ODD question for a pro firearms forum !

 

[U201491]

The second amendment is an incomplete idea.
The original Constitution was intended to avoid having a standing army in peacetime as we have now. Instead, Pennsylvania's constitution and militia was the pattern the founding fathers used to provide for national defense when they granted the right to keep and bear arms. (Check out George Washington's views on a standing army for extra credit.)

That's why it begins with, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." The preamble which many choose to ignore for whatever reason. QUOTE]

Right out of the mouths of the Brady bunch. Good lord

 

[trainsktg]

A private facility like Tacoma Rifle and Pistol club can institute whatever training requirements they wish. They are reducing their liability and insurance rates, if nothing else. Also, at a range, people are expected to actually shoot their weapons and the chance of an accident occuring is proportionately much higher than anywhere else...I'd wager that the vast majority of CHL holders never will handle
their weapons in self defense.

 

[Partsproduction]

Pennsylvania's constitution and militia was the pattern the founding fathers used to provide for national defense when they granted the right to keep and bear arms.

Dead wrong on one point, the founders specifically stated that they were acknowledging the rights granted us by God. In fact, if we take God out of the equation there are no rights!

All the BOR's are God given and the whole point of the BOR's is that government must not be allowed to steal power from God by denying rights given by him. This understanding is absolutely crucial to any correct reading of the bill of rights, and our government in the whole as envisioned by the founders.

 

[nx302stang]

All great points from everybody.

Basically, the 2A doesn't specify which 'arms' we have the right to carry in the statement of, 'right to bear arms.'

Basically, everybody should be allowed to open carry their weapon of choice, whether they are a law abiding citizen or a felon. We shouldn't also have to pay a fee to get our CHL's, background check. Heck, we shouldn't even have to have CHL's and have to go through a BG check in the first place.

Also, the 2A doesn't specify that we couldn't own SBR's, suppressors, and machine guns. With or without the tax stamp.

Let's give all the felons guns, and let's all chop off our shotguns, make home made suppressors, modify our semi auto's to full auto and start carrying openly, anywhere and anytime!

 

[sprice37]

Now we have proof that the socratic method works.

 

[nx302stang]

Yup, might as well be a free for all eh'?

 

[Trlsmn]

A very ODD question for a pro firearms forum !

I disagree, it is a very good question and one that should be discussed on a Pro-firearms forum.

 

[giddyupgo55]

You should not need a pemit to carry.

 

[The Quiet Man]

I view the OP's statements as anti-gun. The very essence of the Brady Bunch and other anti-gun organizations is the elimination of firearm possession by those people they "feel" uncomfortable with being armed. While even the most anti-gun folks believe firearms should be used to protect them from evil, it is their opinion that those protectors be "officials of some kind". They want to limit or eliminate access to firearms for all those "nuts" who make them feel uncomfortable. The OP's statements consistently go down that road despite the fact that he claims to be pro-gun. He is "pro-gun" to the extent those with firearms don't make him feel threatened or uncomfortable... and that makes him anti-gun in my opinion. After all, he is just being "reasonable"... and that surely is a good thing, right? Kind of like Chuck Schumer or Rosie when you think about it.

 

[nx302stang]

I view the OP's statements as anti-gun. The very essence of the Brady Bunch and other anti-gun organizations is the elimination of firearm possession by those people they "feel" uncomfortable with being armed. While even the most anti-gun folks believe firearms should be used to protect them from evil, it is their opinion that those protectors be "officials of some kind". They want to limit or eliminate access to firearms for all those "nuts" who make them feel uncomfortable. The OP's statements consistently go down that road despite the fact that he claims to be pro-gun. He is "pro-gun" to the extent those with firearms don't make him feel threatened or uncomfortable... and that makes him anti-gun in my opinion. After all, he is just being "reasonable"... and that surely is a good thing, right? Kind of like Chuck Schumer or Rosie when you think about it.

To me, any reasonable person, should reasonable know how to use his/her firearm correctly. If you're gonna carry a firearm, shouldn't you reasonably know how to use it? Any reasonable person would think so.

 

[The Quiet Man]

To me, any reasonable person, should reasonable know how to use his/her firearm correctly. If you're gonna carry a firearm, shouldn't you reasonably know how to use it? Any reasonable person would think so.

Of course, anyone planning to handle or shoot a firearm should know how it works. Of course, people should understand firearm safety. However, you are imposing arbitrary requirements as to who and under what circumstances law-abiding people with no record of mental illness should be allowed to own and carry. I, as a prudent and responsible gun owner, am responsible for my own conduct and safety when handling or carrying my legally owned firearms. Society properly establishes penalities for those who misuse firearms.

I am one of those people with a DD214 with pistol qualification that you apparently feel is "inadequate" as proof in your mind that I am qualified to own, handle, and safely carry a firearm. Where do you come off judging who and what level of experience is adequate? You have no clue as to my or anyone else's qualifications, experience, or level of proficiency. You are responsible for your own training and conduct while armed, not for that of others with CHLs.

The safety record and conduct of CHL holders across the nation has demonstrated no need for more stringent "requirements", yet you persist in your elitist theory that there are far too many unqualified people out there making it harder for the rest of us. I haven't seen evidence of your claims that additional government imposed requirements are necesary.

 

[wwkii]

wow the guy who started this thread is seriously misguided . he sounds like a typical liberal from portland . well hopefully he grows up and learns about the bill of rights . if you gave the government that much power i would bet money they would just take your rights away.

 

[Teufel_Hunden]

Are you kidding?

Lets just enforce the existing laws and move on.


Not only NO......... H - E - double hockey stick NO!


T_H

 

[gehrheart]

In my mind and way of thinking, the current laws (as well as most federal laws and agencies dept. ect) are illegal. I am a firm believer that unless the constitution spells it out, then the federal government can make no laws or gov. entities. Remember we are a republic. The states can not override a federal law (that should only be based on the right from the constitution) No where Do I see the right for the federal gov to infringe on my right to own and bare arms in any way or form.

 

[trainsktg]

As said previously, the Constitution does not grant rights, it acknowledges the rights granted by God. A huuuuge difference.

Keith

 

[Partsproduction]

Let's give all the felons guns, and let's all chop off our shotguns, make home made suppressors, modify our semi auto's to full auto and start carrying openly, anywhere and anytime!

So, you don't understand that prohibitions against such weapons don't stop, or even slow down, crime? You don't understand that libtards come up with such prohibitions so they can "feel" like they are stopping crime, while they hinder schools from teaching morals that actually do effect crime rates?

In short, you believe every moronic liberal argument without question, and question every logical argument based on facts. Here's a fact for you to reject;

Since people in many states have had the right to defend themselves with deadly force crime has fallen, is that bad?

"In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, University of Maryland scholar John Lott's analysis of crime report data claims a statistically significant effect of concealed carry laws on crime, with more permissive concealed carry laws correlated with a decrease in overall crime. Lott studied FBI crime statistics from 1977 to 1993 and found that the passage of concealed carry laws resulted in a murder rate reduction of 8.5%, rape rate reduction of 5%, and aggravated assault reduction of 7%."

 

[Hawaiian]

I have mixed feelings on this. I will say no to more regulation to our 2nd Amendment rights. However, I am concerned with the huge number of first time gun buyers and first time concealed handgun permits issued. Not out of fear for the general public, but for the new players. I have some neighbors and coworkers who bought their first gun or got their first concealed carry permit after the election. That 3 hour class did not teach them all they need to know to be able to hit what they shoot at or more importantly, when they can use deadly force. I have preached the importance of getting additional training. Not all listen. They just wanted to have a gun and a permit to carry it legally. This scares me. We have a million new gun owners that did not do their homework. If they screw up, the anti's will use it against us all.
So, there is something to be said about required training. Think in the terms of self preservation of rights on this one. Most of us here on this forum, have trained to shoot straight and know the laws that pertain to the use of deadly force. Most of the new players have not a clue to what they are doing. And when they screw up, we will all be painted with the same brush by the anti's.

 

[Father of four]

I do not know you Hawaiian.

Therefore you should not be able to own a firearm or have a CHL?

No.