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

[KTM530XCW]

I'd like to see firearm safety taught in public schools. Make it mandatory that by 5th grade, all students have extensive safety training, and have hands on experience. Teach respect. Teach responsibility. Don't teach ignorance (as schools currently encourage).

How's that for hardcore?

 

[Zak]

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, but that's not what you're arguing, your argument is for a outside authority to decide what is reasonable. So whoever is in charge gets to decide what level of training, knowledge and sanity is enough to be allowed to carry a gun and then as reasonable people we should all be ok with it.

Why are you focused on just firearms? To me the fact that you want different rules for them shows an anti tendency ( besides your personal ownership of course )
A reasonable person would ensure everyone in the house knows how to swim before installing a pool ( let's have it be mandatory )
A reasonable person would learn how to use a knife, chainsaw, ax, mower, ladder etc. before having / using (make it mandatory)

I could go on and on but why bother, your mind seems made up.

 

[Partsproduction]

I could go on and on but why bother, your mind seems made up.

I was watching Hal Lindsay's TV program last week, he was talking about 5 basic God given institutions. I can't remember them all, Marriage, right to life, right to property, etc. But the one that he mentioned that I hadn't thought of was the institution of personal freedom. Freedom, an institution! What a concept.
Ronald Reagan mentioned freedom and liberty often in his speeches, now I see why. Obama hardly mentions freedom and liberty.

Freedom is the notion that you and I have the right to make our own decisions in life, to make mistakes, to decide what color our roofing is or what we will eat. The opposite is people "Much smarter than you!" deciding you will eat low carb low fat foods, (Michell Obama) have the same color roofing, etc.

Liberals seem to feel more comfortable with the lack of freedom, conservatives are big on freedom.

 

[Karma]

Safety and knowledge does not come with a gun anymore than it does with a car. Both can have deadly unintended consequences when handled by the ignorant.

Hmmm. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion can have deadly and unintended consequences when handled by the ignorant too. Heck, as we are seeing now, the right to vote can be catastrophic when handled by the ignorant! Possibly we should look into limiting these rights too?

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. Now you know the rest of the story.

Here are a couple of George Washington's quotes.

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"

-- George Washington

"A free people ought to be armed."

--George Washington


These do not sound like Washington is advocating government control of who can carry what firearm and when. Take a look at some of Thomas Jefferson's thoughts concerning firearms. Both Washington and Jefferson made it crystal clear as to what their intent was. The militia back then was considered the entirety of the people.

The Second Amendment was written to keep the government under control. Let's think about that. As paranoid as the founders were of the government, do you really think they would be proponents of letting the government regulate the right they explicitly set up to overthrow the government if it became necessary?

But back on-topic, I am a firm believer that sane people should possess the means for all forms of self defense, including lethal force, provided we can demonstrate proficiency and that we have been advised of both the responsibilities and the law.

As my criminal law professor was fond of saying, "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

Who defines sanity? Apparently many elitist types feel that they should be protected by weapons, but they somehow also should be able to regulate who else enjoys that right.

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." ("General Introduction to Psychoanalysis," S. Freud)

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!

Gun laws do not have any impact on felons!!!!! Do you not get that???? Felons carry the type of gun they want, when they want to carry it, how they want to carry it! The only people this insanity impacts are the people who follow the law. The people who are law abiding citizens are not the ones we need to worry about.

Felons are dealt with. There is forfeiture of rights. They are not allowed to own a firearm, with some exceptions laid out by the legal system. You can stop with that crap already. Felons are not allowed to carry firearms, but probably do so more than anyone.

We should have no laws that restrict the right to own and bear arms. No, we shouldn't have to get a tax stamp to own suppressors or any other classification of firearm. Why? What does that do? All it is, is extortion by the government for a right. They don't care if you have one, as long as you pay them for that right. It is ridiculous.

No requirements to own, or carry a weapon should be laid out by the government. Where do you think that would lead? Before long you would have to have the training of a Navy Seal to carry concealed. Many people in the government do not want the commoners to be armed. If they can get a foot in the door, you won't have the right to carry or own a weapon. I wonder if you would be advocating more restrictions if that was the case? Hmmm

 

[SleepynSeattle]

I'm going to completely agree with you on your opinion, with one exception. Change the words "get a CHL" ....to "become a police officer, and remain on duty"

If you wanna legislate rights concerning firearms, you should begin with LEO's. They (as a group) have the absolute WORST track record of conduct concerning the use and abuse of firearms. The beginning statement is an opinion, the second is a fact.

You cannot legislate morals, or intelligence. If you'd look at history, and actually pay attention.....you will see that EVERY example of a society's attempt to do so has eventually led to mass genocide. That's a very difficult concept to swallow, I know....but it's something you need to look at long and hard. The average citizen is responsible for the safety of themselves only. Law enforcement officers have that title because they are responsible for enforcing the law......not protecting you. Worry about yourself. Carry a gun to protect yourself. If someone else with a gun threatens you whether on purpose, or on accident.............You have the right to defend yourself! By all means, do so! Just don't try to stop me from having the right to do so as well.
In the end.....my opinion is that your opinion sucks. You have a "statist" mind set, and are a danger to others. By advocating laws which would take away the right/privileges of others, you could be defined in some circles as an enemy of the people.

 

[Father of four]

The Second Amendment was written to keep the government under control. Let's think about that. As paranoid as the founders were of the government, do you really think they would be proponents of letting the government regulate the right they explicitly set up to overthrow the government if it became necessary?

We should have no laws that restrict the right to own and bear arms. No, we shouldn't have to get a tax stamp to own suppressors or any other classification of firearm. Why? What does that do? All it is, is extortion by the government for a right. They don't care if you have one, as long as you pay them for that right. It is ridiculous.

No requirements to own, or carry a weapon should be laid out by the government. Where do you think that would lead? Before long you would have to have the training of a Navy Seal to carry concealed. Many people in the government do not want the commoners to be armed. If they can get a foot in the door, you won't have the right to carry or own a weapon. I wonder if you would be advocating more restrictions if that was the case? Hmmm

Awesome and thanks for that great post!

 

[trainsktg]

Awesome and thanks for that great post!

I'll second that.

Keith

 

[Bad Droid]

If some of you feel safer, there are many cities throughout our country where your 2nd amendment is scrutinized and over regulated by your Mommy government. I suggest you move there if it makes you feel more secure.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

Increased laws just give the gubmint more tools for controling us.
That being said, I think the current laws are silly. The CHL class in OR does not show any kind of competency with a firearm. Not that I agree with current standards, just that if we ARE going to have some requirements (which we obviously do) then the few we have should be realistic.
Psych eval? no way in ****. Eventually the gov will just be saying anyone 'clinging' to their religion is an automatic 'fail'.

 

[RVTECH]

We should have no laws that restrict the right to own and bear arms.

Playing Devil's Advocate only!

What about driving? We accept, without argument, the prevailing vehicle laws, going to the DMV to take written and driving tests, and then pay to get a license and buy federally mandated insurance to utilize probably the most widely used dangerous device on the planet, and again without argument, pull over when we see the universally accepted red and blue signal in our rear view and comply with a municipal, or state employee who, after issuing a citation, may (or may not) exceed his or her job description by subjecting us to a counseling session usually based on his or her opinion as opposed to education. Just a thought.

 

[The Quiet Man]

Playing Devil's Advocate only!

What about driving? We accept, without argument, the prevailing vehicle laws, going to the DMV to take written and driving tests, and then pay to get a license and buy federally mandated insurance to utilize probably the most widely used dangerous device on the planet, and again without argument, pull over when we see the universally accepted red and blue signal in our rear view and comply with a municipal, or state employee who, after issuing a citation, may (or may not) exceed his or her job description by subjecting us to a counseling session usually based on his or her opinion as opposed to education. Just a thought.

Invalid, apples and oranges, comparison. One has to do with the moral right of self defense, and constitutionally protected rights. The other does not.

 

[Stomper]

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.

I vote: NO!


I'd like to think you are getting at additional training on the LEGAL use of deadly force as a private citizen, but I suspect you are implying more than that. I'd like to know if you even HAVE a DD214? If you did, then you would KNOW that behind the wepons quals listed on a DD214 is EXTENSIVE training on the handling, maintenance, and implementation of said weapon. Not to mention hours upon hours on a firing line, then of course qualifying by hitting the target for the required number of times to achieve Marksman, Sharpshooter, or Expert.

I have "Expert" weapons quals marked on my DD214 for the following:

1. M16A1 Rifle
2. M203 Grenade Launcher
3. M72(LAW)
4. AT4 (Rocket Launcher)
5. M60 Machinegun
6. M1911A1 .45 cal Pistol
7. .38 cal Revolver
8. M2 .50 cal Machinegun
9. M19 Grenade Launcher
10. Bayonette
11. Hand Grenades
12. M9 9mm Pistol

Over 17 years later I could STILL pick up any one of those weapons, break them down, maintain/repair them, put them back together, load them, then shoot your face off (or blow your house up) w/o much mental effort because of all the training, teaching, and useage I've done with them. I'd wager that I'm "over qualified" for a CHL.

Like Trlsman said, being BORN is qualification enough to claim your 2A rights. The use of force is simple, you are justified (as a citizen/civilian) to use deadly force to prevent loss of life or serious physical injury/harm to yourself or other persons. This is based on the means, intent, and opportunity available to the perpetrator (BTW- I'm happy enough to supply a throw away knife to them if they want it... ). If you aren't bright enough to figure that out then natural selection will take care of it... M'kay?

 

[eriknemily]

I have "Expert" weapons quals marked on my DD214 for the following:

1. M16A1 Rifle
2. M203 Grenade Launcher
3. M72(LAW)
4. AT4 (Rocket Launcher)
5. M60 Machinegun
6. M1911A1 .45 cal Pistol
7. .38 cal Revolver
8. M2 .50 cal Machinegun
9. M19 Grenade Launcher
10. Bayonette
11. Hand Grenades
12. M9 9mm Pistol

Over 17 years later I could STILL pick up any one of those weapons, break them down, maintain/repair them, put them back together, load them, then shoot your face off (or blow your house up) w/o much mental effort because of all the training, teaching, and useage I've done with them. I'd wager that I'm "over qualified" for a CHL.

Then I humbly submit that we should have regulations that deny overqualified persons such as yourself from having a CHL. You obviously would not give a would be criminal a fair chance of surviving an encounter. Either that or you could just give it up voluntarily in the name of fairness and progressive thought.

 

[trainsktg]

I believe Veterans should NOT be allowed to own or carry firearms. They are on the government's potential domestic terrorist list, so that's good enough for me.

Keith irony: off)

 

[Samuel]

I don't think we need any qualifications, pyschological evaluations, knowledge or practical test. These tests can be subjective, and used to discriminate against people. I know, because I've been through all these steps for the hiring process to become a police officer.

In fact, through my own personal experience, the license itself can be used to discriminate against people for no justifiable reason. I had the Pasco, Washington Police Chief illegally deny me a non-resident Washington Concealed Pistol License a while ago. The Police Chief thought he had discretionary power, but several phone calls from Washington State Reps & Senators promptly corrected him.

I have seen situations where the license process itself can prohibit a law-abiding citizen from being able to protect themselves and their love ones until it's approved.

I think we need to move toward the style Vermont laws on concealing firearms, which there is no license required. The only problem I have with Vermont's law is not being able to carry on school grounds.

This is coming from someone who is a firearms instructor, who's business would be cut drastically if the law would change, and will shortly become a police officer.

Note - My views DO NOT reflect my department which I'm employed with.

 

[Stomper]

Then I humbly submit that we should have regulations that deny overqualified persons such as yourself from having a CHL. You obviously would not give a would be criminal a fair chance of surviving an encounter. Either that or you could just give it up voluntarily in the name of fairness and progressive thought.

I believe Veterans should NOT be allowed to own or carry firearms. They are on the government's potential domestic terrorist list, so that's good enough for me.

Keith irony: off)

Oh the SNARKINESS!!

 

[gogoDawgs]

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!

 

[zeezee]

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.

**** NO!!!!! We have too much government running our daily lives. Permission to hunt, permission to purchase a fire arm, permission to carry concealed, permission to buy a silencer and then not able to fire it and on and on and on. We do not need big brother thinking for us. If some twerp screws up, jail him and if he murders someone sentence him to death. But to ask the rest of us to pay is beyond stupid!

 

[Partsproduction]

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.

I think Reagan would agree, and that is why he used the terms liberty and freedom so often.

Freedom comes with responsibility, that's a given. Unfortunately not everyone understands that, and they are the ones who end up in prison, or losing their rights because of felonies.

One depiction of the opposite is the book 1984, I wonder, would the OP like to live under the circumstances alluded to in the book?

OP, I'm sorry you seem to be getting ganged up on, but you should have known better!

 

[trainsktg]

As of now, the poll stands at 98 'nays' and 5 'yeahs'. That's about 1 in 20 in favor of more laws.

I think the same statistic holds true for people who believe the Earth is flat, and that the United States never landed on the Moon.

Keith