Posted on 06/03/2011 7:42:31 PM PDT by marktwain
This is poll about whether Wisconsin should have Constitutional Carry or a permit system that requires training.
It needs to be freeped. Currently 36% Constitutional Carry, 64% Permit and mandatory training.
Yes 19%
No 81%
Total votes: 23,375.
This is about typical on these sort of polls. Four to one in our favor, and in an Anti-gun newspaper, put forward in a question favorable to the anti-freedom types.
The people are becoming educated and immunized to the propaganda doled out by the old media.
I hope that Governor Walker is paying attention. The poll may not be scientific, but it does measure intensity.
Freerepublic is a place for vigorous, but polite discussion. You seem to do quite well. You will always be welcome on these threads.
...And who gets to set the "competency" bar, that is the guise the anti-gunners have been using against us for years, Lets not be the group adding water to the already "slippery slope".
Most people will do what they feel comfortable with, if they require training, most will seek it out from one source or the other. But if a citizens "misuses" this right... the Law, if properly used, will take care of the problem. This is not just some whimsical idea, a lot of us grew up where we could store our hunting rifles in the school locker.
We just need to get back to common sense... and forcing a citizen to complete a "competency" test to exercise a right is not the way to go about it.
Perhaps, but by whom? Should the government, the very entity that the second amendment is designed to defend against, have ANY say in where, when, or if any individual citizen of the US gets training?
I never said that. That's your idea not mine. The majority of our population lives where they can't find a place to shoot or bring a gun to school and that was true in 1900 too.
If a woman gets a job at a hospital and needs to go to a rough part of town at night, can she take steps to defend herself, or does she need to wait for a state-approved class and then a license?
That happened to my wife in California. There was no realistic possibility of getting a permit, so she quit after 2 weeks. In some states, it would take months for her to sign up for, take classes, and get a license. Does she have no right to self defense prior to that?
Also - most self-defense gunfights take place at <10 feet. How much training does it take to pull a snub nosed revolver, raise your arm and fire with 3 feet between muzzle and bad guy?
Arizona has it right. BTW, I got my CCW license in Arizona the same day it was no longer required.
Another point: a couple of months ago, some friends visited from Australia. We explained gun safety, and we went out shooting with one experienced American to each Australian. They had a blast, so to speak, and by the end of 2 hours were shooting better than a lot of folks I saw qualifying in the military. But of course, that training was not approved by the state...
FRiend, I never called for mandatory state training, just that some type of training would be preferable, be it by a husband, uncle, grandfather, friend, etc; and you're right, at 10 feet, you pretty much just have to point and shoot.
I've just seen a few idiots with guns that scare the hell out of me, from a safety stand-point.
I believe we agree completely!
OK. There was a guy in my CCW class who was told he couldn’t use his gun for the test because it was too likely to explode in his hand...so yes, there is certainly a lot of value in getting training. (The gunsmith giving the class estimated the revolver was at least 80 years old, and poorly cared for...)
I never said that. That's your idea not mine.
Yeah, I'm afraid you did...
Imagine the differences it would make if virtually every child were taught firearms safety, handling and care by competent instructors.
Just shows how slippery this subject is, these days we have a government that cannot be trusted... everything they do is behind the curtain, and anytime we accept their premise when arguing this subject, we start off at a deficit in the fight.
This is must always be our base line... "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
You know as well as I, that one of the Lefts crowning achievements would be to find a way to, with a stroke of a pen, remove a citizens Rights due to "competency issues".
After all, as the anti-2A people constantly tell us:
...There are only a few that have the "need" to carry a weapon. State/Local and/or Federal Law Enforcement are really the only people with enough training and stability to carry these deadly devices.
...The common citizen just doesn't have the proper accreditation to carry a weapon safely, even returning military vets need to be completely checked out, after all who could possibly be stable after years of non stop combat operations.
You must also know, that they already have an active goal of challenging "competency" in many areas with regard to the 2nd Amendment as the stories roll through FR weekly, and you also know that they have been attempting to institute it for years.
I'm just sayin... Lets not help the Leftists/Anti-2A dirtbags out, no citizen should need government generated "qualifiers" on a Natural Right, in order to have, use and practice them.
Thanks for the comment, you are exactly right. I wasn’t aware that the federal law had been effectively replaced by Wis law saying the same thing.
I'll say it again, I never said that.
Yeah, I'm afraid you did...
No, I did not. You can't read and that's not my problem.
Yes (13%)
No (87%)
Total Responses: 34755
OMG! (gasp) I never in a million years saw that one coming... See ya around the threads FRiend. ;-)
I’m sure you didn’t. I am also pretty sure you graduated high school even though you never achieved a competent level of reading comprehension. There was no government requirement that you had to do that to exercise your right to read and write. But somehow you extrapolate that taking a firearms course in school would be a defacto certification. Amazing! I guess you can come up with anything when you make things up and project them on other’s words. ;^)
I don’t see why it would present a problem.
We will probably never know; micro managing, control-freakish politicians render implementation of such a concept unlikely.
This has been an interesting thread. Young American males are now growing up with the risk of committing a punishable offense if they so much as draw a picture of a handgun or make a hand gesture resembling a handgun.
It seems inconceivable that so many folks would be willing to allow these same young men to carry in the community without training, for fear of infringing a 2dA right.
One can wonder if these same folks would also find recklessly shouting “Fire” in a crowded auditorium permissible, based on a 1stA right to free speech.
In exercising the Second Amendment, the equivalent would be shooting a firearm in a crowded auditorium without justification.
Obviously, if there really is a fire, then shouting fire is permissible.
Well, that's just the point. Your system doesn't allow them to carry without training. Unless they break the rules. It's just as good as the current systems in use, in that unless you break the rules, you WILL have been trained prior to carrying. If you break the rules, you may be carrying without being trained and the authorities won't find out till after the fact, but that's the same story with the rules as they're normally implemented. The only difference I can find is that your system only keeps them from compiling a database. They only come into possession of the knowledge whether someone has been trained after a shooting in which that person has been involved, and that person becomes involved with the system even under normal rules as well. There is no new risk as defined by a statist, so they can't object (but of course they will anyway).
The only weakness I see is when the private trainer issues your card. It probably should bear your name, or the cops are going to try to discount it, claim it wasn't you that was trained. If it bears your name, and the trainer is attesting that the person bearing that name was trained, then if he's sensible he's going to want to see your driver's license and issue the card in that name. And he'll no doubt keep records. So the record of your training still exists SOMEWHERE and could be compromised by normal data breaches or improper information leakage to the government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.