Blog

A Navy SEAL Sniper’s Perspective on Firearms Ownership & The NRA in America

*This post has been edited from its original to provide more clarity into my position on the NRA. 

I’m writing this in response to a recent stir about my intent to run for an NRA board seat.

I first joined the NRA when I decided to attend the NRA Range Development course in 2005. I was there to learn about private range operations and the hurdles of getting shooting ranges approved in California. I learned that getting a shooting range approved in California is almost harder than getting Spotted Owl on the menu at a Sierra Club gala.

I took military leave from the SEAL sniper course to attend the Las Vegas NRA Range Development conference in 2005. I remember sitting in the conference room as the attendees were going around the room introducing themselves, “Joe from Colorado, gun show owner”, “Bob from Montana, gun smith…” When it came to my turn, I stood up, kept a straight face, and told them I was a representative of the Sierra Club who was attending to find ways to shut down shooting ranges across the nation. I’m pretty sure one guy had a stroke, and the rest were just north of apoplectic. When I told them I was bullshitting them and gave them my background as a Navy SEAL, the tension disappeared and the room erupted in laughter.

I never shot much as a kid, aside from shooting clay pidgeons off the bow of the boat I worked on. I hunted quite a bit, but it was with my spear gun, not a rifle. I learned to shoot in the Navy, and only became an expert with a weapon by the time I finished my first SEAL platoon work up. It was there that I was given a shot to attend sniper school with my best friend Glen Doherty (later killed in Benghazi, Libya).

My first exposure to the firearms hot button came when I spoke out in defense of school shootings and compromise on my personal blog. Things heated up again more recently when I announced that I’m going to run for a 2015 NRA board seat on my author Facebook page.

Many people I’ve encountered on social media lately have misinterpreted my position on the 2nd Amendment. Lately, I’ve heard people develop wild and ungrounded conclusions about my position on the 2nd Amendment. Some think that I’m automatically talking about Americans giving up their right to keep and bear arms, and 2nd Amendment compromise. They couldn’t be more wrong.

In the dark corners of the Internet they lurk, call names, and make ridiculous emotion-based (not fact-based) assumptions. I’ve heard it all, and I’ll take this on the chin. To be honest, I could have been clearer on my position in the past. However, do keep in mind that the word “compromise,” a term I’ve used before, comes in many forms; sometimes it includes sitting down with your adversaries and having an intelligent conversation and debate on major issues.

What have I learned since getting out of the Navy in 2006? Few things will stir people up in this country like the 2nd Amendment. It’s right up there with gay marriage and abortion. And I’ve learned that you can’t have a conversation with a fanatic.

“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind, and won’t change the subject.” – Winston Churchill

Some Facts About Me

  • I’m Canadian-born American citizen by birth (by a US parent).
  • I grew up hunting fish (Halibut, Yellowtail, Bass, nothing was safe) and Lobster in the kelp forests of the Channel Islands with my spear gun.
  • I bought my first gun when I was a new SEAL at Team 3. I still have it – an HK USP .45.
  • Favorite gun manufacturer: Rifle-Blaser Handgun-HK
  • I was an M-60 Gunner in my first platoon (It’s one bad ass area weapon!)
  • I am a certified SEAL sniper, sniper instructor, and US Army-trained stinger missile gunner.
  • The snipers in the Teams used to go on Navy-sponsored hunting trips, mostly white tail.
  • I shot my first buck in 2002 at 443 yards with my issued .300 Win Mag in Washington State.
  • I served in the Navy from 1993-2006.
  • I own (don’t tell on me):
    • Remington 300 Win Mag w/Night Force 15x Mil Dot optic
    • HK .45 USP
    • HK .45 USP compact (carried this in Afghanistan and Iraq)
    • Sig Sauer 1911 .45 “Nightmare”
    • Glock 19 9MM
    • Mossberg 12 GA Stainless mMrine (I love my stainless)
  • My wish list for 2014:
    • S&W 686 .357
    • Blaser .338/.308 with Schmidt & Bender Mil Dot optic
    • HK UMP .45
    • A good .308 suppressed semi-auto with short range scope and red dot (my Zombie gun)

Some favorites

photo 5
50lb California halibut speared off of Santa Cruz Island

Brandon-webb-head-sniper

A Snap Shot Perspective of My Views on Gun Ownership & The 2nd Amendment

  • The 2nd Amendment is inherent in America’s cultural DNA
  • Limiting magazine capacity is impractical
  • Punishing law abiding gun owners is not the solution
  • I believe everyone who owns a gun should attend a basic firearms & range safety qualifications course and that these courses should be standardized
  • The NRA should be like PADI or NAUI and encourage gun ranges to only accept NRA basic qualified shooters on the range.
  • Few people outside of America understand how important firearms ownership is to Americans
  • Background checks are a good idea but should take minutes, not days
  • Often gun laws are made by people who don’t use, own, or understand firearms
  • Mass shootings have to be dealt with head-on or America will face more gun restrictions and erosion of 2nd Amendment rights.
  • NRA training needs to be brought up to date.
  • Legislation on increasing the prevention of severely mentally ill folks (e.g. paranoid schizophrenia)from gaining access to firearms seems logical. Increase the early warning signs
  • Dogs/handlers at schools and colleges are better than armed guards, in my opinion. Dogs are an incredible resource to use in these situations
  • Guns aren’t the problem, mental illness is the problem. It’s like punishing responsible automobile owners (which kill more people annually) because of drunk drivers killing innocent people on the road
  • I believe we should be able to concealed-carry and open-carry where practical (e.g., not on an elementary school campus or an airplane)
  • Guns are guns and people should be able to own and obtain a permit to own everything, short of an anti-tank weapon or WMD, if they’re properly trained/certified
  • The NRA should take a strong leadership position when it comes to legislation affecting ownership pro and con, not just a “supporter” of legislation. The perception from the left is that the NRA is an uncompromising organization
  • I think the current NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre, could do more to a lot more to improve how the NRA is viewed by the rest of America, especially the youth.
  • If elected to the board I would be one of 76, but I would do my best to make sure we hold the elected leaders accountable, and work on ways to promote and engage the responsible youth in this country. They are the future, and you cannot ignore the decline in youth firearms participation and membership.
  • I believe the 2nd Amendment is a right we should keep and hold dear

Hopefully this clarifies my position.  If you want to read a great book about why good Americans can be so divided on these issues, the I’d suggest “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt.

I’ll be happy to address more specific questions when I go forward with a petition to get on the 2012 board ballot. To the name callers, and haters of the Inter-web I have nothing to say to people who can’t change the subject. To the rest, thanks for your support regardless of your NRA membership or vote.

2nd Amendment – 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.

brandon-webb

 

Comments(186)

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    I agree with you. I live in NJ and the paperwork required to purchase a long gun is nuts. To purchase a handgun it is prohibitive. The fact that I have to pay money to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights is repugnant. Background checks should be done at the gun shop. I believe in instant background checks. The NRA which I have belonged to for almost 40 years is against background checks which is just insane. No criminal should have a firearm. A criminal who is caught with one should get a minimum of 10 years. If he/she commits a crime while in possession of a firearm they should do 25 to life. I am a former SEAL. Class 57 SEAL TEAM ONE 70-73

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    I agree with you. I live in NJ and the paperwork required to purchase a long gun is nuts. To purchase a handgun it is prohibitive. The fact that I have to pay money to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights is repugnant. Background checks should be done at the gun shop. I believe in instant background checks. The NRA which I have belonged to for almost 40 years is against background checks which is just insane. No criminal should have a firearm. A criminal who is caught with one should get a minimum of 10 years. If he/she commits a crime while in possession of a firearm they should do 25 to life. I am a former SEAL. Class 57 SEAL TEAM ONE 70-73

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    I agree with you. I live in NJ and the paperwork required to purchase a long gun is nuts. To purchase a handgun it is prohibitive. The fact that I have to pay money to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights is repugnant. Background checks should be done at the gun shop. I believe in instant background checks. The NRA which I have belonged to for almost 40 years is against background checks which is just insane. No criminal should have a firearm. A criminal who is caught with one should get a minimum of 10 years. If he/she commits a crime while in possession of a firearm they should do 25 to life. I am a former SEAL. Class 57 SEAL TEAM ONE 70-73

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    I agree with you. I live in NJ and the paperwork required to purchase a long gun is nuts. To purchase a handgun it is prohibitive. The fact that I have to pay money to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights is repugnant. Background checks should be done at the gun shop. I believe in instant background checks. The NRA which I have belonged to for almost 40 years is against background checks which is just insane. No criminal should have a firearm. A criminal who is caught with one should get a minimum of 10 years. If he/she commits a crime while in possession of a firearm they should do 25 to life. I am a former SEAL. Class 57 SEAL TEAM ONE 70-73

    • GeorgePayne

    • 10 years ago

    First of all no one should be required to have a “permit” to own an firearm.  Second I retired after 22+ years Army and have qualified with all military firearms and fought in two “wars” so the NRA cannot possibly improve my ability to safely handle such firearms.  I can and have passed the background checks which is more than ample for me or anyone to possess firearms.  The 2nd Amendment in my opinion is very specific and any law/regulation that limits our right to keep and bear arms is on its face unconstitutional.

    • GeorgePayne

    • 10 years ago

    First of all no one should be required to have a “permit” to own an firearm.  Second I retired after 22+ years Army and have qualified with all military firearms and fought in two “wars” so the NRA cannot possibly improve my ability to safely handle such firearms.  I can and have passed the background checks which is more than ample for me or anyone to possess firearms.  The 2nd Amendment in my opinion is very specific and any law/regulation that limits our right to keep and bear arms is on its face unconstitutional.

    • steelhorse

    • 10 years ago

    Good luck Brandon lucky for me i live in Ohio so i dont have to go though the crap u guys in ca. do but one election can change that we still have policitions call for gun control but at this point in time it doesn’t go anywhere but i’m always watching can’t trust none of them

    • steelhorse

    • 10 years ago

    Good luck Brandon lucky for me i live in Ohio so i dont have to go though the crap u guys in ca. do but one election can change that we still have policitions call for gun control but at this point in time it doesn’t go anywhere but i’m always watching can’t trust none of them

    • HugeFan

    • 10 years ago

    Alright, Chief. You sold me and have my vote. I like your vision and ideas. I would respectfully request that should your views change one way or the other that you make it known and explain it to us, your constituency. That said, I’m re-signing up my 10 year dormant NRA membership because I believe in you and feel that you will do your absolute best to follow through on your promises. My grandfather was a SCPO and he always did what he said, I wouldn’t expect anything less from a man of your credentials and reputation. Go get ’em!

    • HugeFan

    • 10 years ago

    Alright, Chief. You sold me and have my vote. I like your vision and ideas. I would respectfully request that should your views change one way or the other that you make it known and explain it to us, your constituency. That said, I’m re-signing up my 10 year dormant NRA membership because I believe in you and feel that you will do your absolute best to follow through on your promises. My grandfather was a SCPO and he always did what he said, I wouldn’t expect anything less from a man of your credentials and reputation. Go get ’em!

    • KineticFury

    • 10 years ago

    Just posted on the SOFREP thread, and while I don’t agree with everything, the straightforward approach is appreciated on my end.
    “Fortune Favors the Bold”

    • KineticFury

    • 10 years ago

    Just posted on the SOFREP thread, and while I don’t agree with everything, the straightforward approach is appreciated on my end.
    “Fortune Favors the Bold”

    • Desertratkuwait

    • 10 years ago

    The revision of someones views are usually only to silence previous
    criticisms, Funny that the changed statements were the most volatile. 
    The beliefs behind those views usually still exist they are just masked
    to be more acceptable to the masses.It’s called being political, not
    truthful.  Like Obama’s public views on healthcare changed from single
    payer only to a crony capitalist version, his beliefs didn’t change just
    the message did. For an example I will give you this. As for your change on your stance “Guns are Guns”  .51cal and larger “Anti Tank “rifles like the Boys and Laht rifles are currently legal to own within the NFA rules. But by your “revised statement” they shouldn’t be. This is just one example that shows his change was not very well thought out.        
            

    For Brandon Webb:

     Care to answer to the threat you made on Facebook? How about an apology to your fellow PTSD diagnosed Veterans you dishonored by your threats of violence because of an opposing view? It only feeds the lefts assertion that all Veterans with PTSD are all violent and need to have their rights stripped from them. That Sir, even tarnishes your Trident.    

    There has been no compromise with the anti gun crowd, They have gained and we have lost. I noticed that you have taken this quote from William Church hill off your “stance” . “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind, and won’t change the subject.” – Winston Churchill    What do you think the anti gun crowd is?  Their actions and in spite of the changing views of average Americans, are to double down and even propose more violations and limits. Your posting of that quote was originally meant to apply to the Pro Second Amendment Crowd and not the left. That is an insult that is not taken lightly by pro Second Amendment supporter and shouldn’t be forgotten or forgiven.Either you believe.” Shall Not Be Infringed” or you don’t. And by both versions of your views, you don’t. 

    Mental Illness. Thats a hot button issue surely, But mass shootings account for less then 1% of gun crime. It;s not a gun rights stance, it is purely political one Being a self admitted diagnosed Veterian with PTSD how would you approach that issue? The government will go at this by one of two ways, They will take a blanket “any and all” approach or it will be a Doctors reporting requirement biased on the “Feelings” of the medical professional much like we are just now seeing evolve with the New York State SAFE Act. Think to your self , Have you under treatment from your therapist made a statement that could be considered questionable or harmful to either yourself or others ? You diffidently did on in an open forum and even went so far as to brag about it you your viewers.I would also like to point out that the doctors political views may come into play. I would hate to find out a medical professionals political stance on gun control by a confiscation order and possible arrest and/or confinement delivered by a SWAT team at 3am.

    • Desertratkuwait

    • 10 years ago

    The revision of someones views are usually only to silence previous
    criticisms, Funny that the changed statements were the most volatile. 
    The beliefs behind those views usually still exist they are just masked
    to be more acceptable to the masses.It’s called being political, not
    truthful.  Like Obama’s public views on healthcare changed from single
    payer only to a crony capitalist version, his beliefs didn’t change just
    the message did. For an example I will give you this. As for your change on your stance “Guns are Guns”  .51cal and larger “Anti Tank “rifles like the Boys and Laht rifles are currently legal to own within the NFA rules. But by your “revised statement” they shouldn’t be. This is just one example that shows his change was not very well thought out.        
            

    For Brandon Webb:

     Care to answer to the threat you made on Facebook? How about an apology to your fellow PTSD diagnosed Veterans you dishonored by your threats of violence because of an opposing view? It only feeds the lefts assertion that all Veterans with PTSD are all violent and need to have their rights stripped from them. That Sir, even tarnishes your Trident.    

    There has been no compromise with the anti gun crowd, They have gained and we have lost. I noticed that you have taken this quote from William Church hill off your “stance” . “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind, and won’t change the subject.” – Winston Churchill    What do you think the anti gun crowd is?  Their actions and in spite of the changing views of average Americans, are to double down and even propose more violations and limits. Your posting of that quote was originally meant to apply to the Pro Second Amendment Crowd and not the left. That is an insult that is not taken lightly by pro Second Amendment supporter and shouldn’t be forgotten or forgiven.Either you believe.” Shall Not Be Infringed” or you don’t. And by both versions of your views, you don’t. 

    Mental Illness. Thats a hot button issue surely, But mass shootings account for less then 1% of gun crime. It;s not a gun rights stance, it is purely political one Being a self admitted diagnosed Veterian with PTSD how would you approach that issue? The government will go at this by one of two ways, They will take a blanket “any and all” approach or it will be a Doctors reporting requirement biased on the “Feelings” of the medical professional much like we are just now seeing evolve with the New York State SAFE Act. Think to your self , Have you under treatment from your therapist made a statement that could be considered questionable or harmful to either yourself or others ? You diffidently did on in an open forum and even went so far as to brag about it you your viewers.I would also like to point out that the doctors political views may come into play. I would hate to find out a medical professionals political stance on gun control by a confiscation order and possible arrest and/or confinement delivered by a SWAT team at 3am.

    • Desertratkuwait

    • 10 years ago

    I stand corrected , You did republish the quote from Churchill, and went even further and used it to insult users of the most popular gun forum in the country, AR15.com. This shows definite flaws in your character and a childish reaction to criticism. Not any traits that are needed on the Board of directors of the NRA. A leopard never changes his spots, he just repositions to make them better camouflage.

    • Desertratkuwait

    • 10 years ago

    I stand corrected , You did republish the quote from Churchill, and went even further and used it to insult users of the most popular gun forum in the country, AR15.com. This shows definite flaws in your character and a childish reaction to criticism. Not any traits that are needed on the Board of directors of the NRA. A leopard never changes his spots, he just repositions to make them better camouflage.

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    It never hurts to check the background of a potential weapons buyer as long as it is quick. An instant background check shouldn’t be a problem.

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    It never hurts to check the background of a potential weapons buyer as long as it is quick. An instant background check shouldn’t be a problem.

    • Desertratkuwait

    • 10 years ago

    For most buyers the current background check is instant. Unless you share a name and state of residence with a convicted felon or choose not to use your SSN. The recent panic buying did extend waiting times for some due to record numbers of gun transfers.But the tech issues will happen.  I usually buy between 5-7 firearms a year from FFL dealers and have been doing so for the past 10 years and have never had to leave without a firearm I was attempting to buy, The biggest problem with approvals is on the NFA side of the house. I cant kill someone with a suppressor unless I beat them to death with it, but approval takes 6-8 months.to get one of those.

    • Desertratkuwait

    • 10 years ago

    For most buyers the current background check is instant. Unless you share a name and state of residence with a convicted felon or choose not to use your SSN. The recent panic buying did extend waiting times for some due to record numbers of gun transfers.But the tech issues will happen.  I usually buy between 5-7 firearms a year from FFL dealers and have been doing so for the past 10 years and have never had to leave without a firearm I was attempting to buy, The biggest problem with approvals is on the NFA side of the house. I cant kill someone with a suppressor unless I beat them to death with it, but approval takes 6-8 months.to get one of those.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    I agree with almost all of this statement/article with a couple exceptions.  First off NO American should be TOLD they cannot have a gun, trained or not and NO Permit should be required to even own a tank OR a noise suppressor.  The US Constitution says NOTHING about exceptions for age or criminal status.  Either adhere to it or try to change it under the auspices of Article V or shut the hell up.  Now all that being said, even though I TOTALLY believe in ALL Americans right to keep and bear ARMS, we SHOULD be held responsible for our ACTIONS with those arms.  There are and SHOULD be laws about HOW arms are used and if those laws are broken then there should be sever and swift punishment.  ANY restrictions on ownership is strictly against the US Constitution. PERIOD!  READ it!  I bet I don’t have 3 friends that have read the US Constitution even if they’ve taken oath to support it.  Start out reading the Declaration of Independence, which is a valid document to this day, and the read the preamble (describes WHY it was written) to the us Constitution, go to Article VI and read ALL of that (describes WHO and what is affected by the document) and then read the rest.  Please do not gloss over it, READ it.  It was written so a 6th grader could read and comprehend it and no one would EVER need a lawyer to exercise their rights. Although I am an NRA basic pistol instructor I think the NRA is taking the wrong path. They brag about fighting this battle or jumping that hurdle, the REAL way to heal a wound is NOT to bandaid the cut and wipe up the blood, it is to heal the wound.  The blood will stop and there is no further risk of infection.  The NRA should go after Constitutional rights and stop stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    I agree with almost all of this statement/article with a couple exceptions.  First off NO American should be TOLD they cannot have a gun, trained or not and NO Permit should be required to even own a tank OR a noise suppressor.  The US Constitution says NOTHING about exceptions for age or criminal status.  Either adhere to it or try to change it under the auspices of Article V or shut the hell up.  Now all that being said, even though I TOTALLY believe in ALL Americans right to keep and bear ARMS, we SHOULD be held responsible for our ACTIONS with those arms.  There are and SHOULD be laws about HOW arms are used and if those laws are broken then there should be sever and swift punishment.  ANY restrictions on ownership is strictly against the US Constitution. PERIOD!  READ it!  I bet I don’t have 3 friends that have read the US Constitution even if they’ve taken oath to support it.  Start out reading the Declaration of Independence, which is a valid document to this day, and the read the preamble (describes WHY it was written) to the us Constitution, go to Article VI and read ALL of that (describes WHO and what is affected by the document) and then read the rest.  Please do not gloss over it, READ it.  It was written so a 6th grader could read and comprehend it and no one would EVER need a lawyer to exercise their rights. Although I am an NRA basic pistol instructor I think the NRA is taking the wrong path. They brag about fighting this battle or jumping that hurdle, the REAL way to heal a wound is NOT to bandaid the cut and wipe up the blood, it is to heal the wound.  The blood will stop and there is no further risk of infection.  The NRA should go after Constitutional rights and stop stepping over a dollar to pick up a dime.

    • kevinzeng98

    • 10 years ago

    I agree very much with what you said/stated.  As a teacher I think dogs in the school would be the best option.  I also think schools should hire vets as their handlers.  I think public education should actively seek to hire vets to be their K9’s.   I think their experience, leadership, and most importantly, LIFE skills make them a perfect fit.

    • kevinzeng98

    • 10 years ago

    I agree very much with what you said/stated.  As a teacher I think dogs in the school would be the best option.  I also think schools should hire vets as their handlers.  I think public education should actively seek to hire vets to be their K9’s.   I think their experience, leadership, and most importantly, LIFE skills make them a perfect fit.

    • Chief Kohler

    • 10 years ago

    As an NRA member I will NOT support your bid to become an NRA member. I don’t agree with you as follows:
    The 2nd Amendment is inherent in America’s cultural DNA – It’s not about culture. It’s about natural rights.
    I believe everyone who owns a gun should attend a basic firearms & range safety qualifications course and that these courses should be standardized- Did you attend a qualification course before you started this blog or SOFREP? Why should you have to get qualified to exercise some rights and not others?
    Background checks are a good idea but should take minutes, not days- Did you go a background check before you exercised your First Amendment rights?
    Legislation on increasing the prevention of severely mentally ill folks (e.g. paranoid schizophrenia) from gaining access to firearms seems logical. – But it will not work.
    I believe we should be able to concealed-carry and open-carry where practical (e.g., not on an elementary school campus or an airplane) – Gun free zones like schools and malls are not effective.
    Guns are guns and people should be able to own and obtain a permit to own everything, short of an anti-tank weapon or WMD, if they’re properly trained/certified- Again, why the need of a permit?
    The NRA should take a strong leadership position when it comes to legislation affecting ownership pro and con, not just a “supporter” of legislation. The perception from the left is that the NRA is an uncompromising organization. – Wonder how the ACLU would feel if anyone would be required to obtain a permit anytime they want to exercise one of their rights. I bet they would be very uncompromising.
    I think the current NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre, could do more to a lot more to improve how the NRA is viewed by the rest of America, especially the youth. – Like what, roll over?

    • Chief Kohler

    • 10 years ago

    As an NRA member I will NOT support your bid to become an NRA member. I don’t agree with you as follows:
    The 2nd Amendment is inherent in America’s cultural DNA – It’s not about culture. It’s about natural rights.
    I believe everyone who owns a gun should attend a basic firearms & range safety qualifications course and that these courses should be standardized- Did you attend a qualification course before you started this blog or SOFREP? Why should you have to get qualified to exercise some rights and not others?
    Background checks are a good idea but should take minutes, not days- Did you go a background check before you exercised your First Amendment rights?
    Legislation on increasing the prevention of severely mentally ill folks (e.g. paranoid schizophrenia) from gaining access to firearms seems logical. – But it will not work.
    I believe we should be able to concealed-carry and open-carry where practical (e.g., not on an elementary school campus or an airplane) – Gun free zones like schools and malls are not effective.
    Guns are guns and people should be able to own and obtain a permit to own everything, short of an anti-tank weapon or WMD, if they’re properly trained/certified- Again, why the need of a permit?
    The NRA should take a strong leadership position when it comes to legislation affecting ownership pro and con, not just a “supporter” of legislation. The perception from the left is that the NRA is an uncompromising organization. – Wonder how the ACLU would feel if anyone would be required to obtain a permit anytime they want to exercise one of their rights. I bet they would be very uncompromising.
    I think the current NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre, could do more to a lot more to improve how the NRA is viewed by the rest of America, especially the youth. – Like what, roll over?

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    Desertratkuwait I live in New Jersey. The Background check takes weeks. Once you have a long gun purchasers permit you are good to go. You can buy any amount of long guns anytime. Pistol permits can be obtained individually. Every time I want to buy a handgun I have to apply for a new permit and pay for it. I moved from Winslow Township NJ to Waterford NJ a distance of less than a mile. My purchasers permit from Winslow is no good in Waterford. I have to be reprinted and checked again. The fingerprinting is no longer done at the Police station. I have to go to Trenton or some other facility. I am Disabled Vietnam Veteran, Former SEAL and honorably discharged. I have no criminal record. I have owned firearms since I was 12 years old and am now 62. Having to be investigated and to pay for the right to exercise my 2nd amendment rights is total bullshit.

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    Desertratkuwait I live in New Jersey. The Background check takes weeks. Once you have a long gun purchasers permit you are good to go. You can buy any amount of long guns anytime. Pistol permits can be obtained individually. Every time I want to buy a handgun I have to apply for a new permit and pay for it. I moved from Winslow Township NJ to Waterford NJ a distance of less than a mile. My purchasers permit from Winslow is no good in Waterford. I have to be reprinted and checked again. The fingerprinting is no longer done at the Police station. I have to go to Trenton or some other facility. I am Disabled Vietnam Veteran, Former SEAL and honorably discharged. I have no criminal record. I have owned firearms since I was 12 years old and am now 62. Having to be investigated and to pay for the right to exercise my 2nd amendment rights is total bullshit.

    • Desertratkuwait

    • 10 years ago

    Those are NJ State requirements,not Federal and unfortunately the NRA could empty the coffers entirely and not make a dent in that fight.  I was raised in Buena NJ until I was 12 and spend the days of my youth riding motorcycles,3 wheelers and shooting my Crossman 2200 pellet gun in a small patch of woods across the street. Any of these actions would be meet with great disapproval and the later would be meet with a SWAT Team today. NJ is a prime example of where compromise has been shown to be nothing but a ruse, Since the passageof Assembly Bill 165 in 1966 ( The reason my Father first Joined the NRA) not one right has been regained  since and NJ firearms owners have slowly given up more and more rights in order to try and even keep arms. One of my problems with Brandon and his comprise attitude is that he doesn’t know the history of Gun Control in the US and lends most of his restriction arguments on a recent trend of very public mass shootings which like the progressive’s he doesn’t even acknowledge has decreased over time and only accounts for less then a percentage point of gun crime. His argument begins with Newtown CT, our fight for the Second Amendment goes back to post Civil war times. I feel for those like you who are behind enemy lines in the Gun Control fight.

    • Desertratkuwait

    • 10 years ago

    Those are NJ State requirements,not Federal and unfortunately the NRA could empty the coffers entirely and not make a dent in that fight.  I was raised in Buena NJ until I was 12 and spend the days of my youth riding motorcycles,3 wheelers and shooting my Crossman 2200 pellet gun in a small patch of woods across the street. Any of these actions would be meet with great disapproval and the later would be meet with a SWAT Team today. NJ is a prime example of where compromise has been shown to be nothing but a ruse, Since the passageof Assembly Bill 165 in 1966 ( The reason my Father first Joined the NRA) not one right has been regained  since and NJ firearms owners have slowly given up more and more rights in order to try and even keep arms. One of my problems with Brandon and his comprise attitude is that he doesn’t know the history of Gun Control in the US and lends most of his restriction arguments on a recent trend of very public mass shootings which like the progressive’s he doesn’t even acknowledge has decreased over time and only accounts for less then a percentage point of gun crime. His argument begins with Newtown CT, our fight for the Second Amendment goes back to post Civil war times. I feel for those like you who are behind enemy lines in the Gun Control fight.

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    Desertratkuwait Do you have a problem with instant background checks? The ability to buy/own a firearm in NJ has become more difficult as each new administration takes over. NJ is a Blue state and tney love gun control.

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    Desertratkuwait Do you have a problem with instant background checks? The ability to buy/own a firearm in NJ has become more difficult as each new administration takes over. NJ is a Blue state and tney love gun control.

    • k2keller

    • 10 years ago

    Brandon, I would like to agree with you on a couple of points and disagree on a few. The main issue with regard to mass shootings is certainly a mental health issue. We do a very poor job of caring for and managing individuals with mental disease. Until we do, we will see no significant improvement in the number of mass shootings. Background checks have only a nominal impact, due to the ready availability of weapons. At first blush, I also like your idea of using dogs as an asset. I’m going to give that more thought and shop the idea around to the law enforcement I work with.
    While I am a big proponent of training and practice to increase competence, mandating (as opposed to encouraging and supporting) that for gun owners would have a very small impact. The great majority of gun violence is committed by people who deliberately bring a gun with the intent of committing a crime. Sure, they don’t always intend to kill someone, but shit happens. I take care of a lot of shooting victims as part of my job, and those people who can lawfully possess weapons are rarely involved. Fix the mental health system and the criminal justice system (both of which are broken), and you will make progress.
    Thank you for your service!

    • k2keller

    • 10 years ago

    Brandon, I would like to agree with you on a couple of points and disagree on a few. The main issue with regard to mass shootings is certainly a mental health issue. We do a very poor job of caring for and managing individuals with mental disease. Until we do, we will see no significant improvement in the number of mass shootings. Background checks have only a nominal impact, due to the ready availability of weapons. At first blush, I also like your idea of using dogs as an asset. I’m going to give that more thought and shop the idea around to the law enforcement I work with.
    While I am a big proponent of training and practice to increase competence, mandating (as opposed to encouraging and supporting) that for gun owners would have a very small impact. The great majority of gun violence is committed by people who deliberately bring a gun with the intent of committing a crime. Sure, they don’t always intend to kill someone, but shit happens. I take care of a lot of shooting victims as part of my job, and those people who can lawfully possess weapons are rarely involved. Fix the mental health system and the criminal justice system (both of which are broken), and you will make progress.
    Thank you for your service!

    • ugloid

    • 10 years ago

    Universal back ground checks are backdoor registration. Do you see what is happening in NYC? Letters DEMANDING you voluntarily curtail your Constitutional rights! You know what comes next, arrests and convictions. I don’t care if you were the Commandant of the Seals, you are wrong, and I have already written the NRA letting them know how I feel about you. Yes, Democrats ARE wanting to take away our guns, and people with your attitude enables their plots to disarm America!

    • ugloid

    • 10 years ago

    Universal back ground checks are backdoor registration. Do you see what is happening in NYC? Letters DEMANDING you voluntarily curtail your Constitutional rights! You know what comes next, arrests and convictions. I don’t care if you were the Commandant of the Seals, you are wrong, and I have already written the NRA letting them know how I feel about you. Yes, Democrats ARE wanting to take away our guns, and people with your attitude enables their plots to disarm America!

    • ugloid

    • 10 years ago

    Universal back ground checks are backdoor registration. Do you see what
    is happening in NYC? Letters DEMANDING you voluntarily curtail your
    Constitutional rights!

    • ugloid

    • 10 years ago

    Universal back ground checks are backdoor registration. Do you see what
    is happening in NYC? Letters DEMANDING you voluntarily curtail your
    Constitutional rights!

    • Desertratkuwait

    • 10 years ago

    I have no problem with instant background checks. Other then I have to put the manufacturer, type ,model, and SN of the weapon i wish to purchase on the form I currently, baring any tech glitches, enjoy them today. Your delay in background checks is because of state requirements. Anything short of a Constitutional Convention of the States will not solve NJ’s issues from outside it’s borders. Your fight exists within your own borders.

    • Desertratkuwait

    • 10 years ago

    I have no problem with instant background checks. Other then I have to put the manufacturer, type ,model, and SN of the weapon i wish to purchase on the form I currently, baring any tech glitches, enjoy them today. Your delay in background checks is because of state requirements. Anything short of a Constitutional Convention of the States will not solve NJ’s issues from outside it’s borders. Your fight exists within your own borders.

    • fiftycaltx69

    • 10 years ago

    So, to “prevent” someone with “mental illness” from committing a “mass shooting”, should everyone over the age of 10 be “certified” “non-psychotic” every 30 days?  You do realize that mental illness can stage from “normal” to “raving madman” in 30 days, right?  Any other RIGHTS you want to give away?

    • fiftycaltx69

    • 10 years ago

    So, to “prevent” someone with “mental illness” from committing a “mass shooting”, should everyone over the age of 10 be “certified” “non-psychotic” every 30 days?  You do realize that mental illness can stage from “normal” to “raving madman” in 30 days, right?  Any other RIGHTS you want to give away?

    • k2keller

    • 10 years ago

    fiftycal, I can see where you could read that into my post, but that is not what I would intend. How to improve the treatment of the mentally ill would take a book, not a post or two. I am merely pointing out that what we are doing now regarding the mentally ill isn’t working. A vast overhaul would be required and is unlikely. We can’t prevent mass shootings. We can, however, do a better job with our mentally ill.

    • k2keller

    • 10 years ago

    fiftycal, I can see where you could read that into my post, but that is not what I would intend. How to improve the treatment of the mentally ill would take a book, not a post or two. I am merely pointing out that what we are doing now regarding the mentally ill isn’t working. A vast overhaul would be required and is unlikely. We can’t prevent mass shootings. We can, however, do a better job with our mentally ill.

    • Desertratkuwait

    • 10 years ago

    I agree that’s why I am for a background check only, Not putting the weapon manufacturer,model, SN and type of weapon on a form. that is stored for life. If my criminal background is what matters,it should be a yes or no check block and should be kept on file only with the dealer and only released to a third party by court order.  This is one reason I tend to buy via private sale as much as possible.

    • Desertratkuwait

    • 10 years ago

    I agree that’s why I am for a background check only, Not putting the weapon manufacturer,model, SN and type of weapon on a form. that is stored for life. If my criminal background is what matters,it should be a yes or no check block and should be kept on file only with the dealer and only released to a third party by court order.  This is one reason I tend to buy via private sale as much as possible.

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    ugloid Living in a state that has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country having instant background checks would be a breeze compared to what we go through now. The federal and state governments already know when you purchase a firearm legally anyway.

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    ugloid Living in a state that has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country having instant background checks would be a breeze compared to what we go through now. The federal and state governments already know when you purchase a firearm legally anyway.

    • thebronze

    • 10 years ago

    Sorry Brandon, I’m an NRA member and can’t support you either.
    Caleb Giddings, a well-known member of the shooting world, says things better than I can in re: your candidacy and your positions.
    http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/12/10/a-critical-look-at-brandon-webbs-perspective-on-gun-rights
    I think he’s right.  You fundamentally don’t “get” what the 2nd Amendment is all about and you seem much too willing to compromise, for compromise’s sake.  I don’t give two-shits if the Left sees us as uncompromising.  They should.  Because we shouldn’t.  Their goal is to take away our guns, by ANY means necessary.  The sooner you realize that, the better off you’ll be.
    The anti-gun people never compromise and neither should we.  I won’t compromise by voting for you.

    • thebronze

    • 10 years ago

    Sorry Brandon, I’m an NRA member and can’t support you either.
    Caleb Giddings, a well-known member of the shooting world, says things better than I can in re: your candidacy and your positions.
    http://www.gunnuts.net/2013/12/10/a-critical-look-at-brandon-webbs-perspective-on-gun-rights
    I think he’s right.  You fundamentally don’t “get” what the 2nd Amendment is all about and you seem much too willing to compromise, for compromise’s sake.  I don’t give two-shits if the Left sees us as uncompromising.  They should.  Because we shouldn’t.  Their goal is to take away our guns, by ANY means necessary.  The sooner you realize that, the better off you’ll be.
    The anti-gun people never compromise and neither should we.  I won’t compromise by voting for you.

    • thebronze

    • 10 years ago

    More reasons why I won’t vote for you Brandon (below).  You’re a retired CPO (and SEAL) and yet you seem to be pretty impetuous and immature.  You’re a no-go at this station.  You are NOT the flag carrier that gun-owners need to protect our 2nd Amendment Rights.

    http://soldiersystems.net/2013/12/06/what-do-you-think-about-brandon-webbs-candidacy-for-nra-board-of-directors/comment-page-2/#comment-412989

    • thebronze

    • 10 years ago

    More reasons why I won’t vote for you Brandon (below).  You’re a retired CPO (and SEAL) and yet you seem to be pretty impetuous and immature.  You’re a no-go at this station.  You are NOT the flag carrier that gun-owners need to protect our 2nd Amendment Rights.

    http://soldiersystems.net/2013/12/06/what-do-you-think-about-brandon-webbs-candidacy-for-nra-board-of-directors/comment-page-2/#comment-412989

    • charred9x30

    • 10 years ago

    Re: thebronze. Your sources are garbage. As an NRA member, SOF vet and reasonably intelligent human being, it is plainly obvious that “Gun Nut Media” (Caleb Giddings) doesn’t poke a hole in a single one of Mr. Webb’s points. Not one. He argues with them, but through ad hominem attacks, hyperbole, or more commonly by responding “duh” or “hello!”. Is Mr. Giddings a high school student? Are you? Please show that you have more intelligence than this. By the way – it looks to me like you’re a police officer. Thanks for your service. But don’t ever mistake that service for putting you in the position to speak down to a SEAL or any other vet. That even goes for if you are a veteran. You should know better. And, no, it doesn’t matter if they are running for election to a private board of directors.

    • charred9x30

    • 10 years ago

    Re: thebronze. Your sources are garbage. As an NRA member, SOF vet and reasonably intelligent human being, it is plainly obvious that “Gun Nut Media” (Caleb Giddings) doesn’t poke a hole in a single one of Mr. Webb’s points. Not one. He argues with them, but through ad hominem attacks, hyperbole, or more commonly by responding “duh” or “hello!”. Is Mr. Giddings a high school student? Are you? Please show that you have more intelligence than this. By the way – it looks to me like you’re a police officer. Thanks for your service. But don’t ever mistake that service for putting you in the position to speak down to a SEAL or any other vet. That even goes for if you are a veteran. You should know better. And, no, it doesn’t matter if they are running for election to a private board of directors.

    • Desertratkuwait

    • 10 years ago

    Sorry charred9x30 I’m a fellow Vet and I’ll speak my mind when I good and damn well feel like it. Regardless of your “feelings” which are pretty strong towards Mr Webb. His opinions are extremely vague and those that aren’t are paramount to Brady and Gifford’s calls for licensing and registration. Who are you to limit another American’s right of free speech? Why because he isn’t a SEAL? Hate to tell you but being an Ex Navy SEAL only qualifies you to be an Ex Navy SEAL. It doesn’t make you a Rhodes scholar, an expert on Constitutional Law or a Historian on gun control which is painfully obvious to anyone who has read either version of his personal perspectives. You may want to look at any of the other Constitutional right you don’t agree with.and question if someones DD214  makes them “more equal then others” Because most of us that have served do not.

    • Desertratkuwait

    • 10 years ago

    Sorry charred9x30 I’m a fellow Vet and I’ll speak my mind when I good and damn well feel like it. Regardless of your “feelings” which are pretty strong towards Mr Webb. His opinions are extremely vague and those that aren’t are paramount to Brady and Gifford’s calls for licensing and registration. Who are you to limit another American’s right of free speech? Why because he isn’t a SEAL? Hate to tell you but being an Ex Navy SEAL only qualifies you to be an Ex Navy SEAL. It doesn’t make you a Rhodes scholar, an expert on Constitutional Law or a Historian on gun control which is painfully obvious to anyone who has read either version of his personal perspectives. You may want to look at any of the other Constitutional right you don’t agree with.and question if someones DD214  makes them “more equal then others” Because most of us that have served do not.

  1. Compromise for the sake of compromise is what got the UK and Australian gun owners groups f****d.

  2. Compromise for the sake of compromise is what got the UK and Australian gun owners groups f****d.

    • thebronze

    • 10 years ago

    charred9x30 Tough shit.  I served 23 1/2 years in the Mil and I’ve earned the right to say what I said.  I don’t give a shit if you’re an SOF vet or not.  My service is NO LESS valid than yours, so EABOD.

    • thebronze

    • 10 years ago

    charred9x30 Tough shit.  I served 23 1/2 years in the Mil and I’ve earned the right to say what I said.  I don’t give a shit if you’re an SOF vet or not.  My service is NO LESS valid than yours, so EABOD.

    • thebronze

    • 10 years ago

    kevinzeng98 Dogs are the best option?  Are you REALLY that retarded?

    • thebronze

    • 10 years ago

    kevinzeng98 Dogs are the best option?  Are you REALLY that retarded?

    • kevinzeng98

    • 10 years ago

    Ok super genius. Do you work in a large school in a liberal state, with a liberal school board and administration? There is no way you are ever going to.get armed guards or employees who can cc. Despite gang and drug problems they still limit police to just two officers for 4000+ students. So knowing guns will never be allowed on or in a school, dogs are the best option.

    • kevinzeng98

    • 10 years ago

    Ok super genius. Do you work in a large school in a liberal state, with a liberal school board and administration? There is no way you are ever going to.get armed guards or employees who can cc. Despite gang and drug problems they still limit police to just two officers for 4000+ students. So knowing guns will never be allowed on or in a school, dogs are the best option.

    • K9Handler

    • 10 years ago

    k2kellerBRAZIL, IN — Children were subjected to a “simulated raid” of a party so
    they could witness police searching citizens with dogs and look for
    reasons to arrest them in a “drug awareness” event.  The idea went from
    bad to worse when one of the children was attacked by the police dog as
    it sniffed them for drugs.

    • K9Handler

    • 10 years ago

    k2kellerBRAZIL, IN — Children were subjected to a “simulated raid” of a party so
    they could witness police searching citizens with dogs and look for
    reasons to arrest them in a “drug awareness” event.  The idea went from
    bad to worse when one of the children was attacked by the police dog as
    it sniffed them for drugs.

    • K9Handler

    • 10 years ago

    kevinzeng98
    As for K9’s in a school setting, they have their issues as well. http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/police-perform-simulated-drug-raid-on-5th-graders-child-attacked-by-police-dog/

    • K9Handler

    • 10 years ago

    kevinzeng98
    As for K9’s in a school setting, they have their issues as well. http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/police-perform-simulated-drug-raid-on-5th-graders-child-attacked-by-police-dog/

    • kevinzeng98

    • 10 years ago

    I am sure. But at least we can argue dogs. Once you say guns, the discussion is over. I just think if it’s the best option versus doing nothing

    • kevinzeng98

    • 10 years ago

    I am sure. But at least we can argue dogs. Once you say guns, the discussion is over. I just think if it’s the best option versus doing nothing

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    The student who brought the shotgun to school in Colorado and shot two students purchased his shotgun legally. The only thing that this proves is that no system is fool proof. Police officers have used their firearms to commit murder as have others who have gone through proper channels to obtain firearms. The copious amounts of paperwork and red tape that some municipalities and state require to legally purchase and own a firearm do nothing to prevent these kinds of random acts of violence. That being said I am still in favor of instant background checks for purchasing firearms at dealers and gun shows. It does prevent some criminals from buying weapons and that is the best we can do without going overboard.

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    The student who brought the shotgun to school in Colorado and shot two students purchased his shotgun legally. The only thing that this proves is that no system is fool proof. Police officers have used their firearms to commit murder as have others who have gone through proper channels to obtain firearms. The copious amounts of paperwork and red tape that some municipalities and state require to legally purchase and own a firearm do nothing to prevent these kinds of random acts of violence. That being said I am still in favor of instant background checks for purchasing firearms at dealers and gun shows. It does prevent some criminals from buying weapons and that is the best we can do without going overboard.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    SEAL76 Sir, Here is the basic problem I see with your comment.  YOU took an oath to support and defend the US Constitution and ALL enemies foreign and domestic, right?  You write eloquently and have a pretty decent head on your shoulders and I’ll bet my last dime you’re a bad mofo if needed to be.  I salute you on all fronts for your service.  Here’s the deal, the second amendment says NOTHING about background checks or ANY other restrictions about “ARMS”.  That simply means that if you can find one and afford it then one could purchase a nuclear submarine legally.  Background checks “infringes” on one’s purchase and is therefore unconstitutional, the same one you took oath to support.  I really don’t care if a guy/gal has a criminal background or wants a noise suppressor or whatever, I ONLY care about HOW THEY USE IT!.  I think there should be severe and swift punishment for using arms for illicit purposes but NOT to purchase arms of ANY type. That is strictly protected by the US Constitution.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    SEAL76 Sir, Here is the basic problem I see with your comment.  YOU took an oath to support and defend the US Constitution and ALL enemies foreign and domestic, right?  You write eloquently and have a pretty decent head on your shoulders and I’ll bet my last dime you’re a bad mofo if needed to be.  I salute you on all fronts for your service.  Here’s the deal, the second amendment says NOTHING about background checks or ANY other restrictions about “ARMS”.  That simply means that if you can find one and afford it then one could purchase a nuclear submarine legally.  Background checks “infringes” on one’s purchase and is therefore unconstitutional, the same one you took oath to support.  I really don’t care if a guy/gal has a criminal background or wants a noise suppressor or whatever, I ONLY care about HOW THEY USE IT!.  I think there should be severe and swift punishment for using arms for illicit purposes but NOT to purchase arms of ANY type. That is strictly protected by the US Constitution.

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    flybob SEAL76 I agree with your assessment of the 2nd Amendment. It also says, A well regulated militia etc. and that does imply some sort of regulation and perhaps an obligation to join a local militia and drill on a regular basis without pay.It might even you’d have to take a course in firearm safety if the left wing decided to push. I’d rather go the instant background check route.

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    flybob SEAL76 I agree with your assessment of the 2nd Amendment. It also says, A well regulated militia etc. and that does imply some sort of regulation and perhaps an obligation to join a local militia and drill on a regular basis without pay.It might even you’d have to take a course in firearm safety if the left wing decided to push. I’d rather go the instant background check route.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    SEAL76flybob Sir, what does the first part of the second amendment have to do with the second?  Let’s examine the clause.  “A well regulated militia,( noun) being necessary to the security of a free state, (COMMENT on the noun) the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, (noun) shall not be infringed. (verb preventing the prohibition of noun)  To make it more easily understood let’s change ONLY the nouns.  How about changing “militia” to library and “arms” to books.  Libraries, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear books, shall not be infringed.  Would that insinuate that the right of the people to keep and bear books would only be in libraries?  The founders meant for the government to NOT have a standing army.  That is in article I.  In the 17 enumerated powers of congress it says they can MAINTAIN a navy but may only fund the army for a period of 2 years. They knew the king had a brutal army that oppressed the people and did not want that to happen here.  Therefore they meant for ALL able bodied men to be part of the militia to protect the country if an invader got past the navy.  We were NOT supposed to have a standing army after the revolution and that is WHY congress was given the power to “call up the militia” when needed.  I know you took oath to support and defend the Constitution but have you REALLY read it?  I mean you no offense, I’m just asking respectfully.  I hadn’t REALLY read it until the last few years and I’m 58.  I recommend you read the entire Declaration of Independence, a still valid document ( notice we have a DUTY to throw off a government under certain conditions and almost ALL of the grievances listed to king George are now being committed by our OWN government) and then read the Preamble to the US Constitution (lists the REASONS for the Constitution) and then go to article VI (lists WHO is affected by the Constitution and what IS the SUPREME law of the land and the oaths to be taken, JUDGES are ALL in violation of their oaths!) and THEN read the rest of it.  You really can’t get a grip on the Constitution without doing that if you ask me.  Article VI should have been the first article but I didn’t write it.  I was actually amazed to find out that not ONE word of the US Constitution was written to limit the people (with the exception of the 18th amendment which was repealed by the 21st amendment), the US Constitution was written to LIMIT GOVERNMENT ONLY!  No offense but the background route is an infringement on our second amendment rights.  If one does not like that then fine, use article V to change it, otherwise we do not get the luxury of using the parts we like and disregarding the parts we do not.  🙂

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    SEAL76flybob Sir, what does the first part of the second amendment have to do with the second?  Let’s examine the clause.  “A well regulated militia,( noun) being necessary to the security of a free state, (COMMENT on the noun) the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, (noun) shall not be infringed. (verb preventing the prohibition of noun)  To make it more easily understood let’s change ONLY the nouns.  How about changing “militia” to library and “arms” to books.  Libraries, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear books, shall not be infringed.  Would that insinuate that the right of the people to keep and bear books would only be in libraries?  The founders meant for the government to NOT have a standing army.  That is in article I.  In the 17 enumerated powers of congress it says they can MAINTAIN a navy but may only fund the army for a period of 2 years. They knew the king had a brutal army that oppressed the people and did not want that to happen here.  Therefore they meant for ALL able bodied men to be part of the militia to protect the country if an invader got past the navy.  We were NOT supposed to have a standing army after the revolution and that is WHY congress was given the power to “call up the militia” when needed.  I know you took oath to support and defend the Constitution but have you REALLY read it?  I mean you no offense, I’m just asking respectfully.  I hadn’t REALLY read it until the last few years and I’m 58.  I recommend you read the entire Declaration of Independence, a still valid document ( notice we have a DUTY to throw off a government under certain conditions and almost ALL of the grievances listed to king George are now being committed by our OWN government) and then read the Preamble to the US Constitution (lists the REASONS for the Constitution) and then go to article VI (lists WHO is affected by the Constitution and what IS the SUPREME law of the land and the oaths to be taken, JUDGES are ALL in violation of their oaths!) and THEN read the rest of it.  You really can’t get a grip on the Constitution without doing that if you ask me.  Article VI should have been the first article but I didn’t write it.  I was actually amazed to find out that not ONE word of the US Constitution was written to limit the people (with the exception of the 18th amendment which was repealed by the 21st amendment), the US Constitution was written to LIMIT GOVERNMENT ONLY!  No offense but the background route is an infringement on our second amendment rights.  If one does not like that then fine, use article V to change it, otherwise we do not get the luxury of using the parts we like and disregarding the parts we do not.  🙂

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    flybob SEAL76 You have obviously given the matter some very serious thought. I agree that our 2nd amendment rights should not be infringed in any way. However that ship has sailed. We have tons of paperwork to complete and background checks that take weeks and sometimes months to complete in NJ. Handgun permits are given at the discretion of the Chief of Police in many towns NJ. I mean the right to carry not purchase. That is an infringement and without legislation nothing will change. If we had one federal requirement like an instant background check (for all the good that does) and the rest of the state and local laws were abolished that would certainly be better than what we have now. There is no way that we will ever go back to the pre Kennedy assassination days when the liberals started to destroy our 2nd Amendment.

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    flybob SEAL76 You have obviously given the matter some very serious thought. I agree that our 2nd amendment rights should not be infringed in any way. However that ship has sailed. We have tons of paperwork to complete and background checks that take weeks and sometimes months to complete in NJ. Handgun permits are given at the discretion of the Chief of Police in many towns NJ. I mean the right to carry not purchase. That is an infringement and without legislation nothing will change. If we had one federal requirement like an instant background check (for all the good that does) and the rest of the state and local laws were abolished that would certainly be better than what we have now. There is no way that we will ever go back to the pre Kennedy assassination days when the liberals started to destroy our 2nd Amendment.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    We should NEVER have that thought.  The ship hasn’t sailed brother unless we let it.  If we let these 535 traitors convince us that THEY are the law and not the US Constitution then we are done.  We might as well run up the hammer and sickle if that’s the case.  We MUST take a stand and throw these crooked bastards out!  They’re winning by hook and or crook and it HAS to stop!  It will take all of us together to win this.  America is over if we accept the status quo.  We MUST be men and do something.  According to Article VI the laws in NJ are “notwithstanding” and they are NOT unless you do nothing to MAKE them get the truth.  That means doing whatever it take to MAKE them either see the truth and live by it or throwing them ALL out.  We can’t win unless we play.  The alternative is leave our children with less freedom than we had and it will get worse with every generation.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    We should NEVER have that thought.  The ship hasn’t sailed brother unless we let it.  If we let these 535 traitors convince us that THEY are the law and not the US Constitution then we are done.  We might as well run up the hammer and sickle if that’s the case.  We MUST take a stand and throw these crooked bastards out!  They’re winning by hook and or crook and it HAS to stop!  It will take all of us together to win this.  America is over if we accept the status quo.  We MUST be men and do something.  According to Article VI the laws in NJ are “notwithstanding” and they are NOT unless you do nothing to MAKE them get the truth.  That means doing whatever it take to MAKE them either see the truth and live by it or throwing them ALL out.  We can’t win unless we play.  The alternative is leave our children with less freedom than we had and it will get worse with every generation.

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    SEAL76flybobYour
    issues here arethe result of New Jersey’s corrupt government and a
    population who have gone to sleep and ALLOWED their state government to
    violate their FEDERAL rights under the Constitution. Don’t try and
    reduce the rest of us to the low level of NJ. I will not even visit that
    state, nor New York. I refuse to subject myself to their laws, nor will
    I spend a dime to support such tyrannical regimes as your two state
    governments. 

    Back to parsing the words of the Second
    Article of Ammendment: the SUBJECT of the entire sentence is the word
    “right”. The VERB  is “infringe”, with two critical modifiers: the
    negative, and the future imperative “shall be”. The root of the entire
    Article is “right (shall not be” infringed”. All other words are
    descriptive, set the stage, explain why..

    As to the
    term “arms”, research into the language wod word meanings of that time
    indicate “arms” refers to any weapon, of militray grade, capable of
    being transported and deployed by one person. THus, nuclear subs are not
    “arms”, nor is the modern tank., warship, etc. However, BMG 50,
    Bazookas, grenade lanuchers, shoulder fired AA missles, all are arms.

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    SEAL76flybobYour
    issues here arethe result of New Jersey’s corrupt government and a
    population who have gone to sleep and ALLOWED their state government to
    violate their FEDERAL rights under the Constitution. Don’t try and
    reduce the rest of us to the low level of NJ. I will not even visit that
    state, nor New York. I refuse to subject myself to their laws, nor will
    I spend a dime to support such tyrannical regimes as your two state
    governments. 

    Back to parsing the words of the Second
    Article of Ammendment: the SUBJECT of the entire sentence is the word
    “right”. The VERB  is “infringe”, with two critical modifiers: the
    negative, and the future imperative “shall be”. The root of the entire
    Article is “right (shall not be” infringed”. All other words are
    descriptive, set the stage, explain why..

    As to the
    term “arms”, research into the language wod word meanings of that time
    indicate “arms” refers to any weapon, of militray grade, capable of
    being transported and deployed by one person. THus, nuclear subs are not
    “arms”, nor is the modern tank., warship, etc. However, BMG 50,
    Bazookas, grenade lanuchers, shoulder fired AA missles, all are arms.

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    I’d oppose an exclusive status for NRA in the training department. Many other systems are in place, and are at least as effecitve. Appleseed is unequalled in rifle marksmanship training, and is by far the cheapest out there.. $40 for a weekend of the best live fire training anywhere. Front Sight, OFA, and many others are equall valid. To exclude all the other valid and accessible means of training from even shooting on a gun range is wrong. NRA are great, but far from the best, or only. Let each range det their own standards… and I know of many who wholeheartedly support and recognise Appleseed. If NRA want to  maintain “density” in the training business, fine.. let them earn it by supplying better and more affordable training. SO far, their prodiucts have not convinced me to vote with MY wallet. Relinquish their exclusive hold on “mandatory training” and go back to EARNING it with superior products at better prices. Let the Free Market validate their training.

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    I’d oppose an exclusive status for NRA in the training department. Many other systems are in place, and are at least as effecitve. Appleseed is unequalled in rifle marksmanship training, and is by far the cheapest out there.. $40 for a weekend of the best live fire training anywhere. Front Sight, OFA, and many others are equall valid. To exclude all the other valid and accessible means of training from even shooting on a gun range is wrong. NRA are great, but far from the best, or only. Let each range det their own standards… and I know of many who wholeheartedly support and recognise Appleseed. If NRA want to  maintain “density” in the training business, fine.. let them earn it by supplying better and more affordable training. SO far, their prodiucts have not convinced me to vote with MY wallet. Relinquish their exclusive hold on “mandatory training” and go back to EARNING it with superior products at better prices. Let the Free Market validate their training.

    • TyreByter

    • 10 years ago

    First, thank you for your service. I have to agree with other commenters here that I would not vote for you for the NRA board.  In this day and age there is no compromise with the anti Second Amendment crowd.  Their goal is complete evisceration of the Second Amendment. The Democrat Party Liberals Leftists Progressives, whatever you want to call them ARE DOMESTIC ENEMIES of ALL the Constitution. This is an enemy that must be DEFEATED.  Preferably at the ballot box and in the courts.  Personally I think the NRA has been too soft and too willing to play the Washington game of “compromise”.  However what they do they do well.  But I also belong to GOA, CCRKBA, NAFGR.

    The NRA is under attack because it is effective.  Doesn’t matter who leads, Heston or LaPierre.  What I found remarkable is after Sandy Hook and NRA’S call to arm teachers and administrators there was a mass epiphany among teachers all across the Country that they are the first line of defense and sacrificial lambs.  When NRA instructors around the country offered free training the response was immediate and forceful.  LaPierre and the NRA were right on target and those with the most to lose understood that fact. As it turns out it appears that the Arapahoe shooter was almost immediately confronted by an armed “resource officer”, ending his rampage most likely saving lives.

    Back to the Bill of Rights.  The other mistake I believe you make is taking literally the phrase in the Second Amendment; “well regulated”.  The definition at the time described a state of readiness, preparedness after extensive drilling in the military arts not governed by laws or modern day regulation.

    • TyreByter

    • 10 years ago

    First, thank you for your service. I have to agree with other commenters here that I would not vote for you for the NRA board.  In this day and age there is no compromise with the anti Second Amendment crowd.  Their goal is complete evisceration of the Second Amendment. The Democrat Party Liberals Leftists Progressives, whatever you want to call them ARE DOMESTIC ENEMIES of ALL the Constitution. This is an enemy that must be DEFEATED.  Preferably at the ballot box and in the courts.  Personally I think the NRA has been too soft and too willing to play the Washington game of “compromise”.  However what they do they do well.  But I also belong to GOA, CCRKBA, NAFGR.

    The NRA is under attack because it is effective.  Doesn’t matter who leads, Heston or LaPierre.  What I found remarkable is after Sandy Hook and NRA’S call to arm teachers and administrators there was a mass epiphany among teachers all across the Country that they are the first line of defense and sacrificial lambs.  When NRA instructors around the country offered free training the response was immediate and forceful.  LaPierre and the NRA were right on target and those with the most to lose understood that fact. As it turns out it appears that the Arapahoe shooter was almost immediately confronted by an armed “resource officer”, ending his rampage most likely saving lives.

    Back to the Bill of Rights.  The other mistake I believe you make is taking literally the phrase in the Second Amendment; “well regulated”.  The definition at the time described a state of readiness, preparedness after extensive drilling in the military arts not governed by laws or modern day regulation.

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    Just as soon as the Democrats in Congress vote to tie Federal funding to High Schools for marksmanship training (predicated on the Fed’s duty to provision the militia), then I’ll support your position.  Or, maybe I’ll compromise a little.  When each State provides for a basic Constitution course to register to vote, then I’ll support your position (provided that the Daughters of the American Revolution prepares the test.)Gun ranges have, in my experience, the most intensive supervision of any sport.  Let’s bring all the novices we can find to the range and introduce them to shooting sports.  Then, they will be eager to take a course.  It’s counterproductive to put training as an impediment to supervised initial experience with shooting.
    Mass shootings are a problem.  What is the solution for dealing with them “head-on”?  Of all the safety concerns faced by Americans, mass shootings are just about the least statistically significant; a fact endorsed by even the Centers for Disease Control.  It is that fact which must be emphasized.  Each such shooting evidences the futility of gun-free zones.  Why is an elementary school an impractical place to carry?  How is it different from a high school, college, or mall?  Perhaps an airplane is different; but exactly how different is it?  So different that  military or off-duty/retired police should not carry on airplanes? Were we better off on 9/11 with no armed military or police on those 4 airliners?  
    Mental illness is an issue in its own right; it’s not exclusively a gun issue.  We fall for the gun-control playbook.  Erect as many barriers to 2A rights based on any thin pretext of mental illness and, eventually, only the police will be found sane enough to carry guns.  It is probably futile to imagine that we will find a reliable mental-illnes marker for violence.  The best we should expect to do is prosecute violent behavior and commit the insane to mental treatment according to an adversarial process refereed by a judicial process.
    We need not address a woman’s right to choose a nuclear bomb as her personal means of self-defense.  It’s rather pointless to say that if a woman has no right to a nuclear weapon then she has no right to a hat-pin.  However, we should not be so eager to concede the point of all weapons outside of pistols, rifles and shotguns.  The ultimate objective of the 2A was to protect the right of the People to oppose a standing army.  The 2A was not about shooting sports nor hunting nor event the right of individual self-defense.  It was about the right of the People collectively to oppose tyranny enforced by a standing army.  Today, we have SWAT teams arming themselves with armored personnel carriers; and, a few with .50 calibre machine guns.  Whom are these SWAT teams targeting?  The Taliban?  Let’s not surrender our reserved right to the arms we might need – today more than ever before – to the means of an effective defense against tyranny.

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    Just as soon as the Democrats in Congress vote to tie Federal funding to High Schools for marksmanship training (predicated on the Fed’s duty to provision the militia), then I’ll support your position.  Or, maybe I’ll compromise a little.  When each State provides for a basic Constitution course to register to vote, then I’ll support your position (provided that the Daughters of the American Revolution prepares the test.)Gun ranges have, in my experience, the most intensive supervision of any sport.  Let’s bring all the novices we can find to the range and introduce them to shooting sports.  Then, they will be eager to take a course.  It’s counterproductive to put training as an impediment to supervised initial experience with shooting.
    Mass shootings are a problem.  What is the solution for dealing with them “head-on”?  Of all the safety concerns faced by Americans, mass shootings are just about the least statistically significant; a fact endorsed by even the Centers for Disease Control.  It is that fact which must be emphasized.  Each such shooting evidences the futility of gun-free zones.  Why is an elementary school an impractical place to carry?  How is it different from a high school, college, or mall?  Perhaps an airplane is different; but exactly how different is it?  So different that  military or off-duty/retired police should not carry on airplanes? Were we better off on 9/11 with no armed military or police on those 4 airliners?  
    Mental illness is an issue in its own right; it’s not exclusively a gun issue.  We fall for the gun-control playbook.  Erect as many barriers to 2A rights based on any thin pretext of mental illness and, eventually, only the police will be found sane enough to carry guns.  It is probably futile to imagine that we will find a reliable mental-illnes marker for violence.  The best we should expect to do is prosecute violent behavior and commit the insane to mental treatment according to an adversarial process refereed by a judicial process.
    We need not address a woman’s right to choose a nuclear bomb as her personal means of self-defense.  It’s rather pointless to say that if a woman has no right to a nuclear weapon then she has no right to a hat-pin.  However, we should not be so eager to concede the point of all weapons outside of pistols, rifles and shotguns.  The ultimate objective of the 2A was to protect the right of the People to oppose a standing army.  The 2A was not about shooting sports nor hunting nor event the right of individual self-defense.  It was about the right of the People collectively to oppose tyranny enforced by a standing army.  Today, we have SWAT teams arming themselves with armored personnel carriers; and, a few with .50 calibre machine guns.  Whom are these SWAT teams targeting?  The Taliban?  Let’s not surrender our reserved right to the arms we might need – today more than ever before – to the means of an effective defense against tyranny.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPA Here’s the problem with your comments.  I WOULD tend to agree with you and in a perfect world you make GREAT points.  There are a couple pretty big problems with your ideas though.  First off the 2nd amendment says “shall not be infringed”,  Obtaining a permit for ANYTHING IS an infringement because it leaves the person applying to the mercy of those who judge them.  In other words if the person, or those above them, taking the application says you shouldn’t have an “arm” then you won’t get it.  The second amendment says NOTHING about convicted felon or of diminished mental capacity.  Fine, maybe it SHOULD but the simple fact remains that it DOESN’T. That means that if you want to limit ANYONE then you have the authority to limit ANYONE.  How about if the law read “people with keds”? Therefore if you want to limit ANYONE it will take a Constitutional amendment to either repeal or alter the second amendment.  EITHER is VERY VERY dangerous.  Think about the spirit of the second amendment.  The entire reason was basically 4 fold.  To defend the country if an invader got past the Navy (ALL able bodied men were expected to be part of the militia and we were NOT supposed to have a standing army after the revolution…read article I and article II, the congress has the power to call UP the militia and the president is the commander in chief WHEN, and ONLY WHEN, called up), to feed one’s self and family, to protect ones belongings (see the 4th amendment), and to PREVENT TYRANNY FROM GETTING A FOOTHOLD.  Remember we had just retained freedom from a tyrannical government and the founder’s COMPLETE intent in the US Constitution was to LIMIT GOVERNMENT, NOT the people.  Not one single word in the US Constitution limits the people in ANY way (except for the 18th amendment and that was repealed by the 21st amendment).  By admitting there should be training or permits you are effectively admitting the government has the authority to demand SOMETHING prior to ALLOWING us to have arms. THAT is an infringement.  Also remember the founders knew the weapons had already improved and they were well aware they would improve more in the future and their intent was to make CERTAIN the people had at LEAST the “arms” to defend themselves from a tyrannical government like the one they had just risked life and limb to get away from. They knew we would be challenged maybe even over and over again and THAT is the reason they used the word “arms” instead of muskets or bowie knives which were the technological marvels of the day.  What would happen if they had said “assault rifles” and the government came out with lasers?  We wouldn’t have a chance. We are SUPPOSED to be able to “throw off” a government that doesn’t respond to the people (read the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which is still a valid document).  I like your ideas and if we could trust our government your ideas would be welcome but the day we’re living in where we are actually FAR more oppressed than we were when we started the Revolutionary war and it is getting worse by the day.  We no longer live by Constitutional law, we live in tyranny and if we don’t stand up like men we will NEVER be free again.  Just one man’s opinion on that part.  The rest is fact, not conjecture.  Make no mistake, I mean you no offense, I’m just calling them the way I see em.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPA Here’s the problem with your comments.  I WOULD tend to agree with you and in a perfect world you make GREAT points.  There are a couple pretty big problems with your ideas though.  First off the 2nd amendment says “shall not be infringed”,  Obtaining a permit for ANYTHING IS an infringement because it leaves the person applying to the mercy of those who judge them.  In other words if the person, or those above them, taking the application says you shouldn’t have an “arm” then you won’t get it.  The second amendment says NOTHING about convicted felon or of diminished mental capacity.  Fine, maybe it SHOULD but the simple fact remains that it DOESN’T. That means that if you want to limit ANYONE then you have the authority to limit ANYONE.  How about if the law read “people with keds”? Therefore if you want to limit ANYONE it will take a Constitutional amendment to either repeal or alter the second amendment.  EITHER is VERY VERY dangerous.  Think about the spirit of the second amendment.  The entire reason was basically 4 fold.  To defend the country if an invader got past the Navy (ALL able bodied men were expected to be part of the militia and we were NOT supposed to have a standing army after the revolution…read article I and article II, the congress has the power to call UP the militia and the president is the commander in chief WHEN, and ONLY WHEN, called up), to feed one’s self and family, to protect ones belongings (see the 4th amendment), and to PREVENT TYRANNY FROM GETTING A FOOTHOLD.  Remember we had just retained freedom from a tyrannical government and the founder’s COMPLETE intent in the US Constitution was to LIMIT GOVERNMENT, NOT the people.  Not one single word in the US Constitution limits the people in ANY way (except for the 18th amendment and that was repealed by the 21st amendment).  By admitting there should be training or permits you are effectively admitting the government has the authority to demand SOMETHING prior to ALLOWING us to have arms. THAT is an infringement.  Also remember the founders knew the weapons had already improved and they were well aware they would improve more in the future and their intent was to make CERTAIN the people had at LEAST the “arms” to defend themselves from a tyrannical government like the one they had just risked life and limb to get away from. They knew we would be challenged maybe even over and over again and THAT is the reason they used the word “arms” instead of muskets or bowie knives which were the technological marvels of the day.  What would happen if they had said “assault rifles” and the government came out with lasers?  We wouldn’t have a chance. We are SUPPOSED to be able to “throw off” a government that doesn’t respond to the people (read the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which is still a valid document).  I like your ideas and if we could trust our government your ideas would be welcome but the day we’re living in where we are actually FAR more oppressed than we were when we started the Revolutionary war and it is getting worse by the day.  We no longer live by Constitutional law, we live in tyranny and if we don’t stand up like men we will NEVER be free again.  Just one man’s opinion on that part.  The rest is fact, not conjecture.  Make no mistake, I mean you no offense, I’m just calling them the way I see em.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    SEAL76 Here’s the problem with your comments.  I WOULD tend to agree with you and in a perfect world you make GREAT points.  There are a couple pretty big problems with your ideas though.  First off the 2nd amendment says “shall not be infringed”,  Obtaining a permit for ANYTHING IS an infringement because it leaves the person applying to the mercy of those who judge them.  In other words if the person, or those above them, taking the application says you shouldn’t have an “arm” then you won’t get it.  The second amendment says NOTHING about convicted felon or of diminished mental capacity.  Fine, maybe it SHOULD but the simple fact remains that it DOESN’T. That means that if you want to limit ANYONE then you have the authority to limit ANYONE.  How about if the law read “people with keds”? Therefore if you want to limit ANYONE it will take a Constitutional amendment to either repeal or alter the second amendment.  EITHER is VERY VERY dangerous.  Think about the spirit of the second amendment.  The entire reason was basically 4 fold.  To defend the country if an invader got past the Navy (ALL able bodied men were expected to be part of the militia and we were NOT supposed to have a standing army after the revolution…read article I and article II, the congress has the power to call UP the militia and the president is the commander in chief WHEN, and ONLY WHEN, called up), to feed one’s self and family, to protect ones belongings (see the 4th amendment), and to PREVENT TYRANNY FROM GETTING A FOOTHOLD.  Remember we had just retained freedom from a tyrannical government and the founder’s COMPLETE intent in the US Constitution was to LIMIT GOVERNMENT, NOT the people.  Not one single word in the US Constitution limits the people in ANY way (except for the 18th amendment and that was repealed by the 21st amendment).  By admitting there should be training or permits you are effectively admitting the government has the authority to demand SOMETHING prior to ALLOWING us to have arms. THAT is an infringement.  Also remember the founders knew the weapons had already improved and they were well aware they would improve more in the future and their intent was to make CERTAIN the people had at LEAST the “arms” to defend themselves from a tyrannical government like the one they had just risked life and limb to get away from. They knew we would be challenged maybe even over and over again and THAT is the reason they used the word “arms” instead of muskets or bowie knives which were the technological marvels of the day.  What would happen if they had said “assault rifles” and the government came out with lasers?  We wouldn’t have a chance. We are SUPPOSED to be able to “throw off” a government that doesn’t respond to the people (read the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which is still a valid document).  I like your ideas and if we could trust our government your ideas would be welcome but the day we’re living in where we are actually FAR more oppressed than we were when we started the Revolutionary war and it is getting worse by the day.  We no longer live by Constitutional law, we live in tyranny and if we don’t stand up like men we will NEVER be free again.  Just one man’s opinion on that part.  The rest is fact, not conjecture.  Make no mistake, I mean you no offense, I’m just calling them the way I see em.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    SEAL76 Here’s the problem with your comments.  I WOULD tend to agree with you and in a perfect world you make GREAT points.  There are a couple pretty big problems with your ideas though.  First off the 2nd amendment says “shall not be infringed”,  Obtaining a permit for ANYTHING IS an infringement because it leaves the person applying to the mercy of those who judge them.  In other words if the person, or those above them, taking the application says you shouldn’t have an “arm” then you won’t get it.  The second amendment says NOTHING about convicted felon or of diminished mental capacity.  Fine, maybe it SHOULD but the simple fact remains that it DOESN’T. That means that if you want to limit ANYONE then you have the authority to limit ANYONE.  How about if the law read “people with keds”? Therefore if you want to limit ANYONE it will take a Constitutional amendment to either repeal or alter the second amendment.  EITHER is VERY VERY dangerous.  Think about the spirit of the second amendment.  The entire reason was basically 4 fold.  To defend the country if an invader got past the Navy (ALL able bodied men were expected to be part of the militia and we were NOT supposed to have a standing army after the revolution…read article I and article II, the congress has the power to call UP the militia and the president is the commander in chief WHEN, and ONLY WHEN, called up), to feed one’s self and family, to protect ones belongings (see the 4th amendment), and to PREVENT TYRANNY FROM GETTING A FOOTHOLD.  Remember we had just retained freedom from a tyrannical government and the founder’s COMPLETE intent in the US Constitution was to LIMIT GOVERNMENT, NOT the people.  Not one single word in the US Constitution limits the people in ANY way (except for the 18th amendment and that was repealed by the 21st amendment).  By admitting there should be training or permits you are effectively admitting the government has the authority to demand SOMETHING prior to ALLOWING us to have arms. THAT is an infringement.  Also remember the founders knew the weapons had already improved and they were well aware they would improve more in the future and their intent was to make CERTAIN the people had at LEAST the “arms” to defend themselves from a tyrannical government like the one they had just risked life and limb to get away from. They knew we would be challenged maybe even over and over again and THAT is the reason they used the word “arms” instead of muskets or bowie knives which were the technological marvels of the day.  What would happen if they had said “assault rifles” and the government came out with lasers?  We wouldn’t have a chance. We are SUPPOSED to be able to “throw off” a government that doesn’t respond to the people (read the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which is still a valid document).  I like your ideas and if we could trust our government your ideas would be welcome but the day we’re living in where we are actually FAR more oppressed than we were when we started the Revolutionary war and it is getting worse by the day.  We no longer live by Constitutional law, we live in tyranny and if we don’t stand up like men we will NEVER be free again.  Just one man’s opinion on that part.  The rest is fact, not conjecture.  Make no mistake, I mean you no offense, I’m just calling them the way I see em.

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    flybob MarkPA Thank you for your responses.  I think we are closer together in our views than you perceive.
     First, may I recommend you read the literature on the history of the 2A?  You may find the Heller and McDonald opinions a Cliff-Notes version.  The words “shall not be infringed” are about as strong a statement as we might have prayed for.  Nevertheless, there is nothing whatsoever in the history of the 2A that suggests that violent or insane people were protected by the 2A.  Quite to the contrary, exception was regularly made that the violent and insane were excepted from the right to bear arms.  And, the founding fathers who acknowledged these exceptions were on OUR side.  
       What we ought to insist upon is an adjudication before a (neutral) judge before anyone’s 2A rights are taken away.  An armed robber will lose his 2A rights.  Someone adjudicated insane will lose his 2A rights notwithstanding he may be non-violent.  I’m not comfortable with the latter; but, I have no hope of improving upon it.
        You are absolutely correct that any form of permitting/licensing system is at least a contingent threat against a right.  No doubt about it.  “Constitutional Carry” is an ideal; but, I don’t feel it is a panacea.  Look at the Senators from the Constitutional Carry States.  You will find outstanding examples of NRA/GOA F-rated legislators.  I place greater importance on turning these F-rated Senators out-of-office than I place on one more Constitutional Carry State.
        You will doubtlessly regard this as heresy; nevertheless, I must speak my mind.  I think we should advocate:
    – Constitutional Open-Carry;
    – Permitted Concealed-Carry
    Constitutional Open-Carry honors the 2A.  Where we succeed, e.g., Michigan, it is a victory.  Where we lose, e.g. PA (where a license is required for either Open or Concealed) it is no loss.  Compared to the Won’t-Issue States, Shall-Issue States are a great leap forward.  Illinois was a great victory.  Each Won’t-Issue State converted to a Shall-Issue State is a victory.
        You may rail against licensing concealed carry as unconstitutional.  The difficulty here is that there is nothing I have read preceding or shortly following the 2A that speaks to concealed-carry.  Nothing.  In the 19’th century there IS judicial precedent prohibiting concealed carry (not touching open carry).  That is a judicial obstacle.  Even if we held all 9 seats on the Supreme Court I doubt that we could ever get the Supremes to rule that concealed carry is protected from any “infringement”.
       More importantly, the Shall-Issue system we have fully developed today is POLITICALLY salable.  We license drivers, pilots, electricians, plumbers.  Voters are ACCUSTOMED to some kind of licensing scheme.  Voters WILL vote – sooner – for Shall-Issue.  Voters won’t eagerly vote for Constitutional Carry.
        You want to see – say – Maine to adopt Constitutional Carry.  I want to see Maryland to adopt Shall-Issue.  Which is more valuable to our cause?  If you believe Constitutional Carry is EVERYTHING while Shall-Issue is NOTHING, well, God bless you; but I disagree.
        Here in PA we have no training or testing requirement.  I share with you opposition to a training requirement.  I would compromise on a test; provided that the NRA wrote the test!
        My position on training via high school marksmanship is tactical.  As soon as Sen. Feinstein calls my bluff I’ll be happy to concede to a training requirement.  Four years after full adoption of my program all public high school graduates will have had – at least the opportunity – training-in-arms.  NRA membership would soar!  We would never have another word about gun-control heard in Congress.  Alas, I don’t expect the gun-controllers in Congress to spend Federal funds on training high school students to perform their militia duties.  Why not?  Well, I suppose it must be that they really aren’t all that serious about the importance of training.  Who wodda thunk?
        I trust I have made myself clear as to the breadth of arms protected by the 2A.  If the Feds are going to arm the State police with SWAT teams then the People obviously need arms suitable to the purpose of defending themselves against the SWAT teams.  That is the ENTRY-level for conflict.  Ultimately, We the People must be reserved the arms sufficient to give our standing army a run for their money.  Nothing short of this level of arms is sufficient to the obvious purpose of the 2A.
        In my opinion, we are best-off keeping the Federal government OUT of ANY regulation of arms; at least, to the extent that this is possible.  To realize that objective, we must support our State governments in whatever each State can be brought to believe is a political compromise.  
        You may – in your individual judgement – seek to make (e.g.) Maine a Constitutional Carry State.  I – in my judgement – seek to make (e.g.) Maryland a Shall Issue State.  You consider me a sell-out – or so I suppose.  Did Floridians “sell-out”?  Did our friends in Utah “sell-out”?  I suggest to you that the Shall-Issue States collectively did more to advance our cause than the Constitutional-Carry States collectively contributed.  We have 30-some Shall Issue States, fewer than 10 Constitutional-Carry States.  And, still, 10 Won’t-Issue States.  
        Suppose we got 10 more Constitutional-Carry States – converts from Shall-Issue.
        Suppose we got   9 more Shall-Issue States – converts from Won’t Issue.
        Which would be the greater victory?
    Mark

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    flybob MarkPA Thank you for your responses.  I think we are closer together in our views than you perceive.
     First, may I recommend you read the literature on the history of the 2A?  You may find the Heller and McDonald opinions a Cliff-Notes version.  The words “shall not be infringed” are about as strong a statement as we might have prayed for.  Nevertheless, there is nothing whatsoever in the history of the 2A that suggests that violent or insane people were protected by the 2A.  Quite to the contrary, exception was regularly made that the violent and insane were excepted from the right to bear arms.  And, the founding fathers who acknowledged these exceptions were on OUR side.  
       What we ought to insist upon is an adjudication before a (neutral) judge before anyone’s 2A rights are taken away.  An armed robber will lose his 2A rights.  Someone adjudicated insane will lose his 2A rights notwithstanding he may be non-violent.  I’m not comfortable with the latter; but, I have no hope of improving upon it.
        You are absolutely correct that any form of permitting/licensing system is at least a contingent threat against a right.  No doubt about it.  “Constitutional Carry” is an ideal; but, I don’t feel it is a panacea.  Look at the Senators from the Constitutional Carry States.  You will find outstanding examples of NRA/GOA F-rated legislators.  I place greater importance on turning these F-rated Senators out-of-office than I place on one more Constitutional Carry State.
        You will doubtlessly regard this as heresy; nevertheless, I must speak my mind.  I think we should advocate:
    – Constitutional Open-Carry;
    – Permitted Concealed-Carry
    Constitutional Open-Carry honors the 2A.  Where we succeed, e.g., Michigan, it is a victory.  Where we lose, e.g. PA (where a license is required for either Open or Concealed) it is no loss.  Compared to the Won’t-Issue States, Shall-Issue States are a great leap forward.  Illinois was a great victory.  Each Won’t-Issue State converted to a Shall-Issue State is a victory.
        You may rail against licensing concealed carry as unconstitutional.  The difficulty here is that there is nothing I have read preceding or shortly following the 2A that speaks to concealed-carry.  Nothing.  In the 19’th century there IS judicial precedent prohibiting concealed carry (not touching open carry).  That is a judicial obstacle.  Even if we held all 9 seats on the Supreme Court I doubt that we could ever get the Supremes to rule that concealed carry is protected from any “infringement”.
       More importantly, the Shall-Issue system we have fully developed today is POLITICALLY salable.  We license drivers, pilots, electricians, plumbers.  Voters are ACCUSTOMED to some kind of licensing scheme.  Voters WILL vote – sooner – for Shall-Issue.  Voters won’t eagerly vote for Constitutional Carry.
        You want to see – say – Maine to adopt Constitutional Carry.  I want to see Maryland to adopt Shall-Issue.  Which is more valuable to our cause?  If you believe Constitutional Carry is EVERYTHING while Shall-Issue is NOTHING, well, God bless you; but I disagree.
        Here in PA we have no training or testing requirement.  I share with you opposition to a training requirement.  I would compromise on a test; provided that the NRA wrote the test!
        My position on training via high school marksmanship is tactical.  As soon as Sen. Feinstein calls my bluff I’ll be happy to concede to a training requirement.  Four years after full adoption of my program all public high school graduates will have had – at least the opportunity – training-in-arms.  NRA membership would soar!  We would never have another word about gun-control heard in Congress.  Alas, I don’t expect the gun-controllers in Congress to spend Federal funds on training high school students to perform their militia duties.  Why not?  Well, I suppose it must be that they really aren’t all that serious about the importance of training.  Who wodda thunk?
        I trust I have made myself clear as to the breadth of arms protected by the 2A.  If the Feds are going to arm the State police with SWAT teams then the People obviously need arms suitable to the purpose of defending themselves against the SWAT teams.  That is the ENTRY-level for conflict.  Ultimately, We the People must be reserved the arms sufficient to give our standing army a run for their money.  Nothing short of this level of arms is sufficient to the obvious purpose of the 2A.
        In my opinion, we are best-off keeping the Federal government OUT of ANY regulation of arms; at least, to the extent that this is possible.  To realize that objective, we must support our State governments in whatever each State can be brought to believe is a political compromise.  
        You may – in your individual judgement – seek to make (e.g.) Maine a Constitutional Carry State.  I – in my judgement – seek to make (e.g.) Maryland a Shall Issue State.  You consider me a sell-out – or so I suppose.  Did Floridians “sell-out”?  Did our friends in Utah “sell-out”?  I suggest to you that the Shall-Issue States collectively did more to advance our cause than the Constitutional-Carry States collectively contributed.  We have 30-some Shall Issue States, fewer than 10 Constitutional-Carry States.  And, still, 10 Won’t-Issue States.  
        Suppose we got 10 more Constitutional-Carry States – converts from Shall-Issue.
        Suppose we got   9 more Shall-Issue States – converts from Won’t Issue.
        Which would be the greater victory?
    Mark

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPAANY move of Congress to fund anything like you suggest is NOT acceptible. First, FedGov have NO authority for such things. I’d strongly support a move by the military to “dispose” of arms no longer needed because the illegal standing army we have is being dismantled. Those weapons can go to states, or, through the CMP, to schools at little or no cost, along with MilSurp ammo, to be used for training purposes for the students. Of course, when the militia really MEANT something, all males from about 16 or so were part of it… training, marksmanship, drill, survival, all that stuff is what the militia tranied for. ALL laws at FedGov level relating to “education” in any way are illegal. FedGov have NO authority there, either. 

    If we’re going to go get all COnstitutioinal,. lets GET Constitutional. Until we actually put that document to work for about fifry years, any claims its no good or doesn’t work are naught but hot air. 
    Now, nothing says serious traning in tactics, military history, weapons and the handling of them (IINCLUDING lots of live fire) can’t be part of any state or local area’s curriculum. But leave FedGov OUT of it. Wouldjya put the foxes in charge of training and equippng the chickens in the chickenhouse? Of course not. They’ve a vested interest in keeping them critters well subdued. And trained THEIR way.

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPAANY move of Congress to fund anything like you suggest is NOT acceptible. First, FedGov have NO authority for such things. I’d strongly support a move by the military to “dispose” of arms no longer needed because the illegal standing army we have is being dismantled. Those weapons can go to states, or, through the CMP, to schools at little or no cost, along with MilSurp ammo, to be used for training purposes for the students. Of course, when the militia really MEANT something, all males from about 16 or so were part of it… training, marksmanship, drill, survival, all that stuff is what the militia tranied for. ALL laws at FedGov level relating to “education” in any way are illegal. FedGov have NO authority there, either. 

    If we’re going to go get all COnstitutioinal,. lets GET Constitutional. Until we actually put that document to work for about fifry years, any claims its no good or doesn’t work are naught but hot air. 
    Now, nothing says serious traning in tactics, military history, weapons and the handling of them (IINCLUDING lots of live fire) can’t be part of any state or local area’s curriculum. But leave FedGov OUT of it. Wouldjya put the foxes in charge of training and equippng the chickens in the chickenhouse? Of course not. They’ve a vested interest in keeping them critters well subdued. And trained THEIR way.

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPAflybob Suppose we got 10 more Constitutional-Carry States – converts from Shall-Issue.
        Suppose we got   9 more Shall-Issue States – converts from Won’t Issue.
        Which would be the greater victory? BOTH. Why not? Shall Issue should be a given. It should be easy to get it so… but I admit it is not so. If the SCOTUS found, as it did in the late 19th Century, that a poll tax of a few bucks, payable before an individual could exercise their right to vote, to be an “infringement” (their word not mine) on the Constitutionally guaranteed right to vote, how  much MORE the rogmarloe we now endure to acquire our mandated Mother May I papers? Licensing for other activities covers things that are NOT considered rights. What COMPELLING FedGov interest underlies those Mother May I permits? NONE. The Constitutioin carefully and explicitly says to ALL government HANDS OFF, that right is sacred, and cannot be taken away. 
    Now, as to violent criminals, the mentally insane….  when one perpetrates violent crime, olenty of other “rights” and “liberties” are removed from that one.. the right to freely associate, to vote, to hold public office…. to freely move about as he pleases, and, often, the right to continue to possess all his money. The right to arms is also removed, and upon the same moral basis. It is considered that government have the obligation to remove these rights, as forfeit by the criminal, as part of the exercise of the DUTY of civil government to “bear the sword” against those who do harm to others. 

    As to requiuring the NRA to certify or set standards for training… bad idea. They do provide a great service, but their training is far from the best. To elevate that organisation to a point of being supported by laws mandating the use of their services is to do them a disservice.. because now they will be beholden to that government mandating their services. Further, you remove the equation from the free market. It bothers me greatl that the NRA have injected themselves into the position of mandated membership in the organisation as a continuing condition of membership in most all private ranges. They already are far short of the performance I expect of them. HOW is it they rated the Harry Reid from Nevada so highly, and failed to support good csndidates in other races that were important? Their rating of late is deplorable. Don’t favour mediocre performance by subsidising it, requiring their services as a condition of our exercising our  right to arms  Let NRA EARN their preeminance again by serving not only their members but the nation as a whole far more powerfully than they do not.

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPAflybob Suppose we got 10 more Constitutional-Carry States – converts from Shall-Issue.
        Suppose we got   9 more Shall-Issue States – converts from Won’t Issue.
        Which would be the greater victory? BOTH. Why not? Shall Issue should be a given. It should be easy to get it so… but I admit it is not so. If the SCOTUS found, as it did in the late 19th Century, that a poll tax of a few bucks, payable before an individual could exercise their right to vote, to be an “infringement” (their word not mine) on the Constitutionally guaranteed right to vote, how  much MORE the rogmarloe we now endure to acquire our mandated Mother May I papers? Licensing for other activities covers things that are NOT considered rights. What COMPELLING FedGov interest underlies those Mother May I permits? NONE. The Constitutioin carefully and explicitly says to ALL government HANDS OFF, that right is sacred, and cannot be taken away. 
    Now, as to violent criminals, the mentally insane….  when one perpetrates violent crime, olenty of other “rights” and “liberties” are removed from that one.. the right to freely associate, to vote, to hold public office…. to freely move about as he pleases, and, often, the right to continue to possess all his money. The right to arms is also removed, and upon the same moral basis. It is considered that government have the obligation to remove these rights, as forfeit by the criminal, as part of the exercise of the DUTY of civil government to “bear the sword” against those who do harm to others. 

    As to requiuring the NRA to certify or set standards for training… bad idea. They do provide a great service, but their training is far from the best. To elevate that organisation to a point of being supported by laws mandating the use of their services is to do them a disservice.. because now they will be beholden to that government mandating their services. Further, you remove the equation from the free market. It bothers me greatl that the NRA have injected themselves into the position of mandated membership in the organisation as a continuing condition of membership in most all private ranges. They already are far short of the performance I expect of them. HOW is it they rated the Harry Reid from Nevada so highly, and failed to support good csndidates in other races that were important? Their rating of late is deplorable. Don’t favour mediocre performance by subsidising it, requiring their services as a condition of our exercising our  right to arms  Let NRA EARN their preeminance again by serving not only their members but the nation as a whole far more powerfully than they do not.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPAflybob Hey man, we’re on the same team for sure.  My biggest point is pretty simple….give a mouse a cookie!  You say there is nothing in the 2a that PROTECTS insane people or convicts but there is also nothing the PROHIBITS them from owning arms. Like I said, the US Constitution does NOT limit the people in any way shape or form.  It limits the GOVERNMENT! And trust me, I don’t like the idea of some maniac running around shooting at ANYTHING, especially people but no matter what you do there will always be people that just have to harm others and they’ll do it if they have to choke them with pantyhose.  The real deal is that the US Constitution protects us ALL, even the nuts.  I DO believe in swift and severe punishment for those who use arms without cause or in a nefarious way but the right to keep and bear has been completely established by the second amendment.   Your comments on the supreme court are actually irrelevant to me because they have been making unconstitutional judgments since day one…or shortly after.  They are WAY more powerful than they were ever intended to be.  The SCOTUS was supposed to be the LEAST powerful branch and that’s exactly why the founders made them appointed for life or so long as they act in “good behavior”.  NONE of our justices are acting according to their oaths, ESPECIALLY Ginsberg (the traitorous skank). The US Constitution was written so ANYONE could understand it that had attained a level of education equal to the 6th grade just as ALL government papers were required to be in that day.  That is why all newspapers were written as same.  We were NEVER supposed to need a lawyer to exercise our God given, Constitutionally guaranteed rights.  I understand what you are saying but if you keep putting a bandaid 3 inches below the wound it will ALWAYS bleed and never heal.  I say we go after the strict meaning of the US Constitution and throw out anyone that doesn’t comply in government.  Article VI is VERY clear in WHAT is the law of the land and further states that ALL judges in ALL states SHALL BE BOUND by it AND any law or any constitution in any state to the contrary is NOTWITHSTANDING.  Therefore ALL laws regarding arms in ALL states are absolutely NOTWITHSTANDING.  Including californika, new york, maryland, Illinois et al.  NONE of their laws have legal standing because even the 10th amendment says clearly that anything NOT in the Constitution is left to the states or the PEOPLE.  The second amendment DOES address arms and therefore no law in any state has standing.  Go after the wound, NOT the blood once it is oozing.  That’s what pisses me off about the NRA.  They keep bragging about how they got guns accepted in this apartment building or that college but it’s all just a bandaid 3 inches below the wound.  The blood continues to flow, just on another direction.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPAflybob Hey man, we’re on the same team for sure.  My biggest point is pretty simple….give a mouse a cookie!  You say there is nothing in the 2a that PROTECTS insane people or convicts but there is also nothing the PROHIBITS them from owning arms. Like I said, the US Constitution does NOT limit the people in any way shape or form.  It limits the GOVERNMENT! And trust me, I don’t like the idea of some maniac running around shooting at ANYTHING, especially people but no matter what you do there will always be people that just have to harm others and they’ll do it if they have to choke them with pantyhose.  The real deal is that the US Constitution protects us ALL, even the nuts.  I DO believe in swift and severe punishment for those who use arms without cause or in a nefarious way but the right to keep and bear has been completely established by the second amendment.   Your comments on the supreme court are actually irrelevant to me because they have been making unconstitutional judgments since day one…or shortly after.  They are WAY more powerful than they were ever intended to be.  The SCOTUS was supposed to be the LEAST powerful branch and that’s exactly why the founders made them appointed for life or so long as they act in “good behavior”.  NONE of our justices are acting according to their oaths, ESPECIALLY Ginsberg (the traitorous skank). The US Constitution was written so ANYONE could understand it that had attained a level of education equal to the 6th grade just as ALL government papers were required to be in that day.  That is why all newspapers were written as same.  We were NEVER supposed to need a lawyer to exercise our God given, Constitutionally guaranteed rights.  I understand what you are saying but if you keep putting a bandaid 3 inches below the wound it will ALWAYS bleed and never heal.  I say we go after the strict meaning of the US Constitution and throw out anyone that doesn’t comply in government.  Article VI is VERY clear in WHAT is the law of the land and further states that ALL judges in ALL states SHALL BE BOUND by it AND any law or any constitution in any state to the contrary is NOTWITHSTANDING.  Therefore ALL laws regarding arms in ALL states are absolutely NOTWITHSTANDING.  Including californika, new york, maryland, Illinois et al.  NONE of their laws have legal standing because even the 10th amendment says clearly that anything NOT in the Constitution is left to the states or the PEOPLE.  The second amendment DOES address arms and therefore no law in any state has standing.  Go after the wound, NOT the blood once it is oozing.  That’s what pisses me off about the NRA.  They keep bragging about how they got guns accepted in this apartment building or that college but it’s all just a bandaid 3 inches below the wound.  The blood continues to flow, just on another direction.

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    flybob MarkPA I think it will be worth your while to read the literature on the history of the 2A.  No, I’m NOT talking about the crap written by anti-2A gun-controllers.  I’m talking about those that support the 2A.  
      There is not a lot about interpreting the Constitutional that is simple.  It’s not even simple if you only accept the “originalist” method of interpretation.  
        As an example, you might believe that laws against libel and slander are unconstitutional.  But, of course, if you are sued for libel or slander you will find the judge to be hard to convince.  
        I am no happier with SCOTUS that you are.  Wishing that SCOTUS would “come-to-the-Constitution” isn’t going to make  it happen.  It is simply not the way human nature or the institution works.  You want a different SCOTUS?  Then, what you have to accept is that you have to get men of like mind in the oval office and in the Senate.  Without the Oval Office AND the Senate, SCOTUS won’t be what you and I would be satisfied with.  
       Our future lies in slowly, steadily and successfully convincing our neighbors and our sons and daughters to understand our Constitutional Republic.  It’s not impossible; but it is hard work.  
       Ask yourself this question:   Suppose we are absolutely correct.  Yet, 51% of the voters elect Presidents, Senators, Representatives, Governors, and State assemblymen who disagree with us.  Who won the debate?  What shall we do about it?  
       Our Constitution is – ultimately – in our hands.  If we can’t bring ourselves to vote for candidates who will protect and defend that form of government then it is lost.  If we frighten more of our neighbors than we persuade, then it is lost.  
       I’m not championing the NRA.  Nevertheless, I am a member and I advocate others to contribute the price of 2 boxes of ammo to that organization.  I’m also a member of: GOA; JPFO; CCRKBA; SAS, and 3 State organizations.  I contribute more to each of the others than to the NRA.  
       Our opponents are very well organized.  Can we expect to win if we refuse to organize?  We have been losing for 100 years because we refuse to organize better than our opponents.  
        We should all support our lead organization.  At the moment, that’s NRA.  We should each support the non-lead organization that best represents our personal views.  And our State organization(s).  
        I believe that we are better off exercising self-responsibility than leaving the field clear for government.  First and foremost, that is individual responsibility.  I should do nothing to undermine the 2A community.  Secondly, responsibility among our children, neighbors and friends.  Council them to do nothing to undermine the 2A community.  Third, the NRA deserve honor and support for the nationally recognized education it has provided.  This is not to exclude ANY other source of education.  
       IF we have to submit to a State training requirement to get Shall-Issue, I’d rather have the State law recognize either the NRA’s programs or its own State-organization’s programs.  Such a reasonable approach would have both a level of standards and a level of competition.  (The SCUBA diving sport has a pretty good mix of standards and competing certifying authorities.)
       My ideal is NO statutory TRAINING requirement and widespread VOLUNTARY training.  If I had to settle for some statutory requirement I’d go for a written test on the State’s gun laws composed by the State’s gun association.  
    Mark

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    flybob MarkPA I think it will be worth your while to read the literature on the history of the 2A.  No, I’m NOT talking about the crap written by anti-2A gun-controllers.  I’m talking about those that support the 2A.  
      There is not a lot about interpreting the Constitutional that is simple.  It’s not even simple if you only accept the “originalist” method of interpretation.  
        As an example, you might believe that laws against libel and slander are unconstitutional.  But, of course, if you are sued for libel or slander you will find the judge to be hard to convince.  
        I am no happier with SCOTUS that you are.  Wishing that SCOTUS would “come-to-the-Constitution” isn’t going to make  it happen.  It is simply not the way human nature or the institution works.  You want a different SCOTUS?  Then, what you have to accept is that you have to get men of like mind in the oval office and in the Senate.  Without the Oval Office AND the Senate, SCOTUS won’t be what you and I would be satisfied with.  
       Our future lies in slowly, steadily and successfully convincing our neighbors and our sons and daughters to understand our Constitutional Republic.  It’s not impossible; but it is hard work.  
       Ask yourself this question:   Suppose we are absolutely correct.  Yet, 51% of the voters elect Presidents, Senators, Representatives, Governors, and State assemblymen who disagree with us.  Who won the debate?  What shall we do about it?  
       Our Constitution is – ultimately – in our hands.  If we can’t bring ourselves to vote for candidates who will protect and defend that form of government then it is lost.  If we frighten more of our neighbors than we persuade, then it is lost.  
       I’m not championing the NRA.  Nevertheless, I am a member and I advocate others to contribute the price of 2 boxes of ammo to that organization.  I’m also a member of: GOA; JPFO; CCRKBA; SAS, and 3 State organizations.  I contribute more to each of the others than to the NRA.  
       Our opponents are very well organized.  Can we expect to win if we refuse to organize?  We have been losing for 100 years because we refuse to organize better than our opponents.  
        We should all support our lead organization.  At the moment, that’s NRA.  We should each support the non-lead organization that best represents our personal views.  And our State organization(s).  
        I believe that we are better off exercising self-responsibility than leaving the field clear for government.  First and foremost, that is individual responsibility.  I should do nothing to undermine the 2A community.  Secondly, responsibility among our children, neighbors and friends.  Council them to do nothing to undermine the 2A community.  Third, the NRA deserve honor and support for the nationally recognized education it has provided.  This is not to exclude ANY other source of education.  
       IF we have to submit to a State training requirement to get Shall-Issue, I’d rather have the State law recognize either the NRA’s programs or its own State-organization’s programs.  Such a reasonable approach would have both a level of standards and a level of competition.  (The SCUBA diving sport has a pretty good mix of standards and competing certifying authorities.)
       My ideal is NO statutory TRAINING requirement and widespread VOLUNTARY training.  If I had to settle for some statutory requirement I’d go for a written test on the State’s gun laws composed by the State’s gun association.  
    Mark

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPAflybob Hello Again Mark.  I see and understand what you are saying, however I would have a hard time disagreeing more.  The problem with your thinking is that you feel you/we are defeated by the lawyers that want to make a line of crap with a comma or a period and MAKE us adhere to THEIR rules.  The US Constitution is VERY clear and contains NO ambiguity, You do not have to be a rocket scientist to read it and COMPLETELY understand it. It was designed to be simple to read, understand and TOTALLY comprehend for the “average” man. Our founding fathers were smart men.  Most well beyond the time.  Ben Franklin was the foremost inventor of the day and Thomas Jefferson was possibly one of the smartest men ever to put pen to paper, certainly of that day.  They were aware there would be challenges to the Constitution and what they penned was the best they could come up with and it wasn’t easy.  I HAVE read plenty of history on both sides of the argument and I am an NRA instructor.  I can’t see how anyone can come away from the information available and not see that the founders intended the 4 issues I cited in my last note to you to be the most important in the US Constitution.  Read the federalist papers and quotes from all the founders and you’ll easily see they meant for the people to ALWAYS be armed to be able to defeat the government should it become tyrannical and it now has in fact become MORE tyrannical than when we started the revolutionary war. FAR more tyrannical.  Did you know the Boston tea party was started over a taxation amount of 3%?  Read the original Constitution, The Articles of Confederation.  The right for ALL to keep and bear arms is even MORE clear in that document.  There is NO doubt in ANYONE’S mind the founders were committed to keeping the country free from tyranny and they knew there was no way to accomplish that goal without the public having free right to arm themselves.  Lawyers and judges have bastardized that with their interpretation and lies concerning THEIR technicalities. 

    I see what you mean and I am completely convinced you are a defeatist.  You claim it is better to win the battle and fight the next one when it comes up.  I say we FORCE our government to adhere to the US Constitution as they took oath to do and we won’t HAVE to fight the battles because there will be none.  ALL governors and legislators in ALL states have written and signed into law things that are unconstitutional and they should ALL be punished severely and swiftly for violating their oaths.  That’s the one thing they left out of the Constitution, the STRONG penalties for acting in bad faith and violating the oath of office.  Our president is one of the worst but every single one of the men and women in office right now are in complete violation of the oath of office.  if we continue to capitulate to the laws of MAN instead of forcing the men whom we elected to adhere to the oath of office then we will never be free and they will have won.  How does a mouse kill an elephant?  one bite at a time my friend.  If the government had implemented the laws we now have ten days after the US Constitution was signed we would have hung them all in public.  I hate to say it but if we can’t force them to peaceably adhere to the oath and the US Constitution then it is time to either divide the country (preferable) or start another revolution.  The later will be the bloodiest war in the history of man and many many American will perish but there is no third choice.  During the first American civil war the weapons/arms were not nearly as accurate or as reliable as todays and that alone will result in the lives of a hell of a lot more Americans to perish.  Then there was also men who knew how to feed themselves on the land plus there was a hell of a lot less men to feed AND a hell of a lot more game and that would cause a lot of death in another civil war.  Yet I do not see getting around it.  I believe we are very close to civil war and there isn’t a thing we can do to stop it.  We have about 10 different things that could start it including a tyrannical leader and leaders, financial/fiscal irresponsibility, failure to control our borders, TOTAL lack of morality, immigration, muslims invading from within, race and a couple others. We are dangerously close.  Also note that all the things I mentioned were the root cause of the fall of rome.  We’re in big trouble and I seriously do not think giving in to the government as you suggest is the best path.  NOW is the time we need to stick to our guns so to speak.  I for one will NOT capitulate to the lawyers and leaders that do not have the best interest of the country in mind.  Those that want my guns better be very serious about taking them.  If you believe that is not the agenda then we’re having the wrong discussion.  Like I said my friend, I mean you no offense, I just fundamentally disagree about giving the mouse that cookie.  In the end we will lose the glass of milk every time.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPAflybob Hello Again Mark.  I see and understand what you are saying, however I would have a hard time disagreeing more.  The problem with your thinking is that you feel you/we are defeated by the lawyers that want to make a line of crap with a comma or a period and MAKE us adhere to THEIR rules.  The US Constitution is VERY clear and contains NO ambiguity, You do not have to be a rocket scientist to read it and COMPLETELY understand it. It was designed to be simple to read, understand and TOTALLY comprehend for the “average” man. Our founding fathers were smart men.  Most well beyond the time.  Ben Franklin was the foremost inventor of the day and Thomas Jefferson was possibly one of the smartest men ever to put pen to paper, certainly of that day.  They were aware there would be challenges to the Constitution and what they penned was the best they could come up with and it wasn’t easy.  I HAVE read plenty of history on both sides of the argument and I am an NRA instructor.  I can’t see how anyone can come away from the information available and not see that the founders intended the 4 issues I cited in my last note to you to be the most important in the US Constitution.  Read the federalist papers and quotes from all the founders and you’ll easily see they meant for the people to ALWAYS be armed to be able to defeat the government should it become tyrannical and it now has in fact become MORE tyrannical than when we started the revolutionary war. FAR more tyrannical.  Did you know the Boston tea party was started over a taxation amount of 3%?  Read the original Constitution, The Articles of Confederation.  The right for ALL to keep and bear arms is even MORE clear in that document.  There is NO doubt in ANYONE’S mind the founders were committed to keeping the country free from tyranny and they knew there was no way to accomplish that goal without the public having free right to arm themselves.  Lawyers and judges have bastardized that with their interpretation and lies concerning THEIR technicalities. 

    I see what you mean and I am completely convinced you are a defeatist.  You claim it is better to win the battle and fight the next one when it comes up.  I say we FORCE our government to adhere to the US Constitution as they took oath to do and we won’t HAVE to fight the battles because there will be none.  ALL governors and legislators in ALL states have written and signed into law things that are unconstitutional and they should ALL be punished severely and swiftly for violating their oaths.  That’s the one thing they left out of the Constitution, the STRONG penalties for acting in bad faith and violating the oath of office.  Our president is one of the worst but every single one of the men and women in office right now are in complete violation of the oath of office.  if we continue to capitulate to the laws of MAN instead of forcing the men whom we elected to adhere to the oath of office then we will never be free and they will have won.  How does a mouse kill an elephant?  one bite at a time my friend.  If the government had implemented the laws we now have ten days after the US Constitution was signed we would have hung them all in public.  I hate to say it but if we can’t force them to peaceably adhere to the oath and the US Constitution then it is time to either divide the country (preferable) or start another revolution.  The later will be the bloodiest war in the history of man and many many American will perish but there is no third choice.  During the first American civil war the weapons/arms were not nearly as accurate or as reliable as todays and that alone will result in the lives of a hell of a lot more Americans to perish.  Then there was also men who knew how to feed themselves on the land plus there was a hell of a lot less men to feed AND a hell of a lot more game and that would cause a lot of death in another civil war.  Yet I do not see getting around it.  I believe we are very close to civil war and there isn’t a thing we can do to stop it.  We have about 10 different things that could start it including a tyrannical leader and leaders, financial/fiscal irresponsibility, failure to control our borders, TOTAL lack of morality, immigration, muslims invading from within, race and a couple others. We are dangerously close.  Also note that all the things I mentioned were the root cause of the fall of rome.  We’re in big trouble and I seriously do not think giving in to the government as you suggest is the best path.  NOW is the time we need to stick to our guns so to speak.  I for one will NOT capitulate to the lawyers and leaders that do not have the best interest of the country in mind.  Those that want my guns better be very serious about taking them.  If you believe that is not the agenda then we’re having the wrong discussion.  Like I said my friend, I mean you no offense, I just fundamentally disagree about giving the mouse that cookie.  In the end we will lose the glass of milk every time.

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    flybob I agree that the majority of the 535 members of the house and senate are not concerned about the citizens of this country. We need to clean house and vote out every incumbent at every election cycle unless they are stellar performers with interests of the American people as their main focus. Letting them stay in office is risky because the longer they stay the more likely it is they will become corrupt. NJ is a blue state with a RINO governor. We are working to put an end to the anti violence laws that Christie calls anti gun laws.So far all we have is more laws.

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    flybob I agree that the majority of the 535 members of the house and senate are not concerned about the citizens of this country. We need to clean house and vote out every incumbent at every election cycle unless they are stellar performers with interests of the American people as their main focus. Letting them stay in office is risky because the longer they stay the more likely it is they will become corrupt. NJ is a blue state with a RINO governor. We are working to put an end to the anti violence laws that Christie calls anti gun laws.So far all we have is more laws.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    SEAL76flybob You left out one word….so far all you have is more UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws.  Article VI says that the US Constitution and all laws MADE IN PURSUANCE of and all treaties made UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE US ARE the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND and all judges in all states SHALL BE BOUND BY THEM and ALL constitutions and all laws to the contrary ARE NOT WITHSTANDING!  All we really need to do is get back to the US Constitution as almost all of us has taken oath to support and defend against ALL enemies foreign AND domestic.  I don’t have any idea what that’s going to take but we HAVE to do it.  There is no other island on earth where we can go to be free nor any new shore we can go to.  We MUST do it here.  WE are the last chance for freedom in the world and if we let these lawyers convince us that THEY have the right interpretation of the Constitution and the law then we can just throw in the towel and let them take all we have worked and died for.  I personally think it is a slap in the face of all who gave some or all to preserve the American way and the US Constitution.  You say the majority of the 535 do not act or believe in the best policies for the American people, I say NONE of them do.  Not one single one.  Even Ted Cruz is not worth a grain of crap until he exposes the fraud in chief for crimes against the American people, the country and the US Constitution.  I just heard on faux news that congress is possibly about to sue the president.  HOGWASH!  SUE????  How about indict for fraud and crimes against the people!!!  THE only solution I can see is to divide the country and let the libs have the coast lines, they already have them and let us workers go on with the US Constitution.  And of course have an open season on lawyers.  Any other solutions results in a hell of a lot of bloodshed on both sides.  And it will not be nearly as nice as the civil war.  We now have far more reliable arms that can shoot many more times the amount of ordinance AND there’s a HELL of a lot more targets (people) PLUS in the civil war the men knew how to feed themselves off the land and there was a HELL of a lot more game so there will be FAR more starvation events than in the first civil war.  Yet I do not see avoiding it at this point.  We’re in HUGE trouble.  Having an argument over gun rights seems petty unless we actually let them take them.  I’m 58 and a pretty bad mofo for my age but I’m surrounded by GREAT Marines in my neighborhood and they’ll probably do whatever they have to do to take whatever I have stocked up for the coming events.  I’m hoping we get together and cope as a group but they don’t think it’s going to get as bad as I am convinced it will so I have stuff and they don’t but they have the skills to take what they need.  Makes me pretty nervous.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    SEAL76flybob You left out one word….so far all you have is more UNCONSTITUTIONAL laws.  Article VI says that the US Constitution and all laws MADE IN PURSUANCE of and all treaties made UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE US ARE the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND and all judges in all states SHALL BE BOUND BY THEM and ALL constitutions and all laws to the contrary ARE NOT WITHSTANDING!  All we really need to do is get back to the US Constitution as almost all of us has taken oath to support and defend against ALL enemies foreign AND domestic.  I don’t have any idea what that’s going to take but we HAVE to do it.  There is no other island on earth where we can go to be free nor any new shore we can go to.  We MUST do it here.  WE are the last chance for freedom in the world and if we let these lawyers convince us that THEY have the right interpretation of the Constitution and the law then we can just throw in the towel and let them take all we have worked and died for.  I personally think it is a slap in the face of all who gave some or all to preserve the American way and the US Constitution.  You say the majority of the 535 do not act or believe in the best policies for the American people, I say NONE of them do.  Not one single one.  Even Ted Cruz is not worth a grain of crap until he exposes the fraud in chief for crimes against the American people, the country and the US Constitution.  I just heard on faux news that congress is possibly about to sue the president.  HOGWASH!  SUE????  How about indict for fraud and crimes against the people!!!  THE only solution I can see is to divide the country and let the libs have the coast lines, they already have them and let us workers go on with the US Constitution.  And of course have an open season on lawyers.  Any other solutions results in a hell of a lot of bloodshed on both sides.  And it will not be nearly as nice as the civil war.  We now have far more reliable arms that can shoot many more times the amount of ordinance AND there’s a HELL of a lot more targets (people) PLUS in the civil war the men knew how to feed themselves off the land and there was a HELL of a lot more game so there will be FAR more starvation events than in the first civil war.  Yet I do not see avoiding it at this point.  We’re in HUGE trouble.  Having an argument over gun rights seems petty unless we actually let them take them.  I’m 58 and a pretty bad mofo for my age but I’m surrounded by GREAT Marines in my neighborhood and they’ll probably do whatever they have to do to take whatever I have stocked up for the coming events.  I’m hoping we get together and cope as a group but they don’t think it’s going to get as bad as I am convinced it will so I have stuff and they don’t but they have the skills to take what they need.  Makes me pretty nervous.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    SEAL76flybob Incidentally, I have seriously enjoyed our conversation.  I have run around with several men from the team and we always got along super well.  Crazy bunch of mutts and I fit in with them pretty well for the most part.  Though I was not a team member they treated me like I was.  A couple of them have passed and I’m still good friends with the others.  But I quit drinking a couple years ago and that has settled me down a lot….hehe.  I do still run around with a lot of Law Enforcement though and get a little crazy but nothing like I used to be.  My wife’s happier  DOH!

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    SEAL76flybob Incidentally, I have seriously enjoyed our conversation.  I have run around with several men from the team and we always got along super well.  Crazy bunch of mutts and I fit in with them pretty well for the most part.  Though I was not a team member they treated me like I was.  A couple of them have passed and I’m still good friends with the others.  But I quit drinking a couple years ago and that has settled me down a lot….hehe.  I do still run around with a lot of Law Enforcement though and get a little crazy but nothing like I used to be.  My wife’s happier  DOH!

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    flybob SEAL76 I have also enjoyed this conversation. I gave up drinking 23 years ago. I am glad that I did and so is everyone else. Team Guys are great. I was active duty SEAL TEAM ONE from 1970 to 1973. I was a reservist and did some of my 2 weeks training at SEAL TEAM TWO. My son was SEAL TEAM FIVE and DET KODIAK from 1991 to 2000. Medical discharge.

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    flybob SEAL76 I have also enjoyed this conversation. I gave up drinking 23 years ago. I am glad that I did and so is everyone else. Team Guys are great. I was active duty SEAL TEAM ONE from 1970 to 1973. I was a reservist and did some of my 2 weeks training at SEAL TEAM TWO. My son was SEAL TEAM FIVE and DET KODIAK from 1991 to 2000. Medical discharge.

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    SEAL76flyboband Christie wants to replace the kinyun?His anti-gun and liberty record stinks, but HE doesn’t get it. Proof he’s part of the machine that needs to get decommissioned.

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    SEAL76flyboband Christie wants to replace the kinyun?His anti-gun and liberty record stinks, but HE doesn’t get it. Proof he’s part of the machine that needs to get decommissioned.

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    Tionico SEAL76 flybob What is kinyun?

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    Tionico SEAL76 flybob What is kinyun?

    • Awesomeness1

    • 10 years ago

    Try to get more [NRA] firearms training into schools.  If everyone took a [couple] firearms safety coure[s] in K-12 schooling, then you’d have the massive influx of proper training that we really do need, without any of the politics or ability of gun-opposers to manipulate the certification.  Even call it a “hunter safety” course if you want.

    • Awesomeness1

    • 10 years ago

    Try to get more [NRA] firearms training into schools.  If everyone took a [couple] firearms safety coure[s] in K-12 schooling, then you’d have the massive influx of proper training that we really do need, without any of the politics or ability of gun-opposers to manipulate the certification.  Even call it a “hunter safety” course if you want.

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    Hunter safety courses are a great idea but good luck getting that into our liberal public school system. The AFT and the NEA would go nuts. The NEA is the most powerful union in the country and the most left liberal group around. They hate guns and the people who use them. Hunters are the worst because they kill defenseless animals. Target shooters are gun nuts who are anti government militia members. You might get it through in districts where hunting and shooting are long held traditions but it won’t happen in the cities and suburbia.

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    Hunter safety courses are a great idea but good luck getting that into our liberal public school system. The AFT and the NEA would go nuts. The NEA is the most powerful union in the country and the most left liberal group around. They hate guns and the people who use them. Hunters are the worst because they kill defenseless animals. Target shooters are gun nuts who are anti government militia members. You might get it through in districts where hunting and shooting are long held traditions but it won’t happen in the cities and suburbia.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    SEAL76Tionicoflybob I think he means that’s whar da frod in cheef is frum  hehe

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    SEAL76Tionicoflybob I think he means that’s whar da frod in cheef is frum  hehe

    • Awesomeness1

    • 10 years ago

    You have to start somewhere.  If it got started in the rural areas, and took hold, it may just someday become a state mandate in more gun-friendly states (with gun-friendly legislatures).  And if it provided the positive impact that we think it might, it may just catch on further… just probably not in California, haha.

    • Awesomeness1

    • 10 years ago

    You have to start somewhere.  If it got started in the rural areas, and took hold, it may just someday become a state mandate in more gun-friendly states (with gun-friendly legislatures).  And if it provided the positive impact that we think it might, it may just catch on further… just probably not in California, haha.

    • kevinzeng98

    • 10 years ago

    Seal76, bingo! Working in the Chicagoland our schools are so liberal. In the district I work for they have all but eliminate homework and…if you fail a test you can retake it at any point for a higher grade. We barely work on lock down. There is no way in hell your going to get guns into our school and most surrounding schools. I think we can push for k9’s. However, because of the corruption in Illinois there is no money left for the schools. They’re not enough police k9’s with over 4000 students. That’s why hiring vets to be the k9 handlers I think is a great idea with helpfrom uncle Sam. Just my .02 cents witworth.

    • kevinzeng98

    • 10 years ago

    Seal76, bingo! Working in the Chicagoland our schools are so liberal. In the district I work for they have all but eliminate homework and…if you fail a test you can retake it at any point for a higher grade. We barely work on lock down. There is no way in hell your going to get guns into our school and most surrounding schools. I think we can push for k9’s. However, because of the corruption in Illinois there is no money left for the schools. They’re not enough police k9’s with over 4000 students. That’s why hiring vets to be the k9 handlers I think is a great idea with helpfrom uncle Sam. Just my .02 cents witworth.

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    flybob MarkPA Thank you for your acknowledgement.  My sentiments are quite along the lines you recite.  Even so, apparently, I am not as well read as you are.  I haven’t found the quotations of the founding fathers that explain that the 2A protects the rights of convicted criminals or the insane to keep and bear arms.  Nor have I found the quotations that explain the right to carry concealed.  If you have found these quotations then I will concede that you have the better argument.  
      Until I can uncover these quotations, I’m afraid that I have to concede that the founders probably did intend to deprive convicted criminals and the insane from keeping or bearing arms.  Likewise, I’m afraid they that I would have to concede that they didn’t include slaves or Indians in the term “the People”.  Having made these concessions (not that I would expect you to make them as well) I’d have to concede that the Heller and McDonald decisions are well founded in contemplating some limits on the broad guarantee that “shall not be infringed” is not absolute.
       At the same time, I don’t agree with these decisions that all “sensitive” places including “schools” are necessarily reasonable.  Perhaps exclusion from court rooms is reasonable.        Where we differ – I think – is that you would argue that absolutely no limit whatsoever can be placed on 2A rights.  Convicted criminals and the insane have the same 2A rights as you and I have.  I would argue that that absolutist position can’t be sustained either politically or in the historical record.  So, as we approach our mutual opponent, you strive to convince him that we should extend 2A rights to convicted criminals and the insane.  I’m trying to convince our opponent to honor the 2A rights of law-abiding sane adults.  
        I will have great difficulty winning any debate points with our opponent.  You, I’m afraid, have no chance of winning debate points.  Where does that leave us?
        I’d like to get a few more votes for Presidents, Senators, Representatives etc. who might tip things our way.  I don’t yet see what your tactics lead to.  Are you going to bring our opponents all the way from opposing the 2A to agreeing with you that criminals and crazies have 2A rights?  That’s a long shot.
       Or, maybe you figure that there is no hope of winning over any voters.  We are destined to do battle literally.  
        My view is that Constitutionalists such as we have lost ground over the past century bit-by-bit.  Conversely, 2A advocates such as we have gained ground State-by-State.  Sometimes with Constitutional-Carry; sometimes with an easy CCP law; sometimes with a harsh CCP law.  Yet, State-by-State, we gained so much ground that we now have 40 Shall-Issue/Constitutional-Carry States.  Only 10 to go.  
        What has worked?  The Progressives didn’t impose Communism in one swift blow; they did it incrementally.  The gun-community didn’t recover ground in one swift blow; we got it incrementally.
        What will work in the future?  Will we gain more ground by pushing the last 10 Won’t-Issue States into Shall-Issue?  Or, by pushing some of the Shall-Issue States into Constitutional Carry?  
        I’m not much interested in giving the gun-controllers any concessions.  I really don’t think that works often enough to make it worth the risk.  
        I’m mostly in favor of stoping the Federal government from passing any new law whatsoever.  No trades whatsoever.  If we can ever regain control over the Presidency, the Senate and the House, we can try to roll-back some Federal laws.  Until that point. let nothing thru the Federal government whatsoever.
        Try to incrementally improve State laws.  Move a Won’t-Issue State to May-Issue.  Move a May-Issue State to Shall-Issue on even the harshest of terms.  Move a Shall-Issue on harsh terms to Shall-Issue on easier terms.  For me, it’s a low priority to move a Shall-Issue State to Constitutional-Carry.  If we can get such a movement somewhere, it’s fine.  It’s simply not where I would put my emphasis.  I’d put much more emphasis on holding or recovering ground.  E.g., Colorado’s recent losses were unfortunate; but the punishment meted out to the State Senators who were recalled (plus one who resigned) sent a message.
    Regards,
    Mark

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    flybob MarkPA Thank you for your acknowledgement.  My sentiments are quite along the lines you recite.  Even so, apparently, I am not as well read as you are.  I haven’t found the quotations of the founding fathers that explain that the 2A protects the rights of convicted criminals or the insane to keep and bear arms.  Nor have I found the quotations that explain the right to carry concealed.  If you have found these quotations then I will concede that you have the better argument.  
      Until I can uncover these quotations, I’m afraid that I have to concede that the founders probably did intend to deprive convicted criminals and the insane from keeping or bearing arms.  Likewise, I’m afraid they that I would have to concede that they didn’t include slaves or Indians in the term “the People”.  Having made these concessions (not that I would expect you to make them as well) I’d have to concede that the Heller and McDonald decisions are well founded in contemplating some limits on the broad guarantee that “shall not be infringed” is not absolute.
       At the same time, I don’t agree with these decisions that all “sensitive” places including “schools” are necessarily reasonable.  Perhaps exclusion from court rooms is reasonable.        Where we differ – I think – is that you would argue that absolutely no limit whatsoever can be placed on 2A rights.  Convicted criminals and the insane have the same 2A rights as you and I have.  I would argue that that absolutist position can’t be sustained either politically or in the historical record.  So, as we approach our mutual opponent, you strive to convince him that we should extend 2A rights to convicted criminals and the insane.  I’m trying to convince our opponent to honor the 2A rights of law-abiding sane adults.  
        I will have great difficulty winning any debate points with our opponent.  You, I’m afraid, have no chance of winning debate points.  Where does that leave us?
        I’d like to get a few more votes for Presidents, Senators, Representatives etc. who might tip things our way.  I don’t yet see what your tactics lead to.  Are you going to bring our opponents all the way from opposing the 2A to agreeing with you that criminals and crazies have 2A rights?  That’s a long shot.
       Or, maybe you figure that there is no hope of winning over any voters.  We are destined to do battle literally.  
        My view is that Constitutionalists such as we have lost ground over the past century bit-by-bit.  Conversely, 2A advocates such as we have gained ground State-by-State.  Sometimes with Constitutional-Carry; sometimes with an easy CCP law; sometimes with a harsh CCP law.  Yet, State-by-State, we gained so much ground that we now have 40 Shall-Issue/Constitutional-Carry States.  Only 10 to go.  
        What has worked?  The Progressives didn’t impose Communism in one swift blow; they did it incrementally.  The gun-community didn’t recover ground in one swift blow; we got it incrementally.
        What will work in the future?  Will we gain more ground by pushing the last 10 Won’t-Issue States into Shall-Issue?  Or, by pushing some of the Shall-Issue States into Constitutional Carry?  
        I’m not much interested in giving the gun-controllers any concessions.  I really don’t think that works often enough to make it worth the risk.  
        I’m mostly in favor of stoping the Federal government from passing any new law whatsoever.  No trades whatsoever.  If we can ever regain control over the Presidency, the Senate and the House, we can try to roll-back some Federal laws.  Until that point. let nothing thru the Federal government whatsoever.
        Try to incrementally improve State laws.  Move a Won’t-Issue State to May-Issue.  Move a May-Issue State to Shall-Issue on even the harshest of terms.  Move a Shall-Issue on harsh terms to Shall-Issue on easier terms.  For me, it’s a low priority to move a Shall-Issue State to Constitutional-Carry.  If we can get such a movement somewhere, it’s fine.  It’s simply not where I would put my emphasis.  I’d put much more emphasis on holding or recovering ground.  E.g., Colorado’s recent losses were unfortunate; but the punishment meted out to the State Senators who were recalled (plus one who resigned) sent a message.
    Regards,
    Mark

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    SEAL76Tionicoflybobits a pretty rare beast, but one of them can often be found at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC, except when he’s off vacatinoing elsewhere on other people’s money.

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    SEAL76Tionicoflybobits a pretty rare beast, but one of them can often be found at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington DC, except when he’s off vacatinoing elsewhere on other people’s money.

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    Awesomeness1Thats one of the things we’re trying to accomplish with the Appleseed Project… rifle marksmanship AND Revolutionary War History, all rolled up into one awesome two day event. As an instructor I’ve worked with kids as young as six years old… why paattention, are safe, have a ball diong it, and learn quickly. The rapidly learn how their rifle works, can clear misfeeds and misfires quickly when they happen.. AFTER waiting long enough to make sure its a misfire and not a hangfire or squib (yes, we teach what they are and how to deal with them. These young kids get it. ). If that level of marksmanship could be taucht as standard curriculum in the schools, what a difference that would make. Firearms would then be fun, safe, accurate, and we’d again have a nation of riflemen.

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    Awesomeness1Thats one of the things we’re trying to accomplish with the Appleseed Project… rifle marksmanship AND Revolutionary War History, all rolled up into one awesome two day event. As an instructor I’ve worked with kids as young as six years old… why paattention, are safe, have a ball diong it, and learn quickly. The rapidly learn how their rifle works, can clear misfeeds and misfires quickly when they happen.. AFTER waiting long enough to make sure its a misfire and not a hangfire or squib (yes, we teach what they are and how to deal with them. These young kids get it. ). If that level of marksmanship could be taucht as standard curriculum in the schools, what a difference that would make. Firearms would then be fun, safe, accurate, and we’d again have a nation of riflemen.

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    Tionico MarkPA I harbor no illusion that Sen. Feinstein will ever vote to fund training to arms in Public Schools.  Hell will freeze over before that happens.
      This response – “glad to have a training requirement as a prerequisite to issuing a CCP just as soon as every High School in the State has a marksmanship program” – is simply a means to an end in the debate.  
        So, you gun controllers, you think that no one should carry a gun until he is well trained?  Fine.  Then, let’s train all our gun bearers.  We have 2 or 3 years of high school aged children of-age to be trained-to-arms.  Let’s make sure they all have the opportunity to be trained to arms.  
        Congress has the authority – under the Constitution – to mandate training boys to arms.  If they could draft men (from the Civil War to the Viet Nam War) they have the same authority to call them to muster – every last able-bodied boy.  Whether it be in the 9-month school year or the 3-month summer vacation; let it be Congress’s will.
        Being an egalitarian society, let the girls volunteer to be trained-to-arms as well.
        It’s my bet that Sen. Feinstein will not take me up on my generous offer.  But, just in case she does, nearly all boys and half the girls of high-school age will be trained-to-arms.  There will be little left of hoplophobia among our youth.  Membership in NRA/GOA/CCRKBA/JPFO/SAS/etc will soar.  And, we will hear the last of Sen. Feinstein.  
        We can make the same case to our State legislators.  Suppose we are trying to get a Shall-Issue State to reduce its onerous training requirement.  Suppose we are trying to negotiate a training requirement with a Won’t-Issue State considering a Shall-Issue law.  The harder these legislators push for training the harder we push for a State sponsored program to train the State’s UnOrganized Militia.  Where will the gun-controllers move?  The last thing they want is widespread youth trained-to-arms.  So, what move do they make?  Probably, we will have a stale-mate.
        Our next move?  Certainly, we ought to educate middle-school children about gun safety.  Guns are for adults, not for children.  Meet the nice policemen of our community; the members of the VFW.  They will demonstrate basic safe handling of guns and explain why guns have a role in society.  To arrest criminals; to defend our nation against foreign enemies.  Certainly, if guns are such a problem in society, people who know about guns (the nice policemen and VFW members) should teach children about guns.  
        It’s my bet that the gun controllers will settle for – at most – one NRA class.  I’ll agree, one NRA class is not as good a position than zero NRA classes.  However, if we could get a Won’t-Issue State to a Shall-Issue State with 1 or 2 NRA classes that’s  a great stride forward.  I see no advantage to keeping a Won’t-Issue State as a Won’t-Issue State because we can’t get them to move directly from Won’t-Issue to Constitutional-Carry in one step.  
    Regards,
    Mark

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    Tionico MarkPA I harbor no illusion that Sen. Feinstein will ever vote to fund training to arms in Public Schools.  Hell will freeze over before that happens.
      This response – “glad to have a training requirement as a prerequisite to issuing a CCP just as soon as every High School in the State has a marksmanship program” – is simply a means to an end in the debate.  
        So, you gun controllers, you think that no one should carry a gun until he is well trained?  Fine.  Then, let’s train all our gun bearers.  We have 2 or 3 years of high school aged children of-age to be trained-to-arms.  Let’s make sure they all have the opportunity to be trained to arms.  
        Congress has the authority – under the Constitution – to mandate training boys to arms.  If they could draft men (from the Civil War to the Viet Nam War) they have the same authority to call them to muster – every last able-bodied boy.  Whether it be in the 9-month school year or the 3-month summer vacation; let it be Congress’s will.
        Being an egalitarian society, let the girls volunteer to be trained-to-arms as well.
        It’s my bet that Sen. Feinstein will not take me up on my generous offer.  But, just in case she does, nearly all boys and half the girls of high-school age will be trained-to-arms.  There will be little left of hoplophobia among our youth.  Membership in NRA/GOA/CCRKBA/JPFO/SAS/etc will soar.  And, we will hear the last of Sen. Feinstein.  
        We can make the same case to our State legislators.  Suppose we are trying to get a Shall-Issue State to reduce its onerous training requirement.  Suppose we are trying to negotiate a training requirement with a Won’t-Issue State considering a Shall-Issue law.  The harder these legislators push for training the harder we push for a State sponsored program to train the State’s UnOrganized Militia.  Where will the gun-controllers move?  The last thing they want is widespread youth trained-to-arms.  So, what move do they make?  Probably, we will have a stale-mate.
        Our next move?  Certainly, we ought to educate middle-school children about gun safety.  Guns are for adults, not for children.  Meet the nice policemen of our community; the members of the VFW.  They will demonstrate basic safe handling of guns and explain why guns have a role in society.  To arrest criminals; to defend our nation against foreign enemies.  Certainly, if guns are such a problem in society, people who know about guns (the nice policemen and VFW members) should teach children about guns.  
        It’s my bet that the gun controllers will settle for – at most – one NRA class.  I’ll agree, one NRA class is not as good a position than zero NRA classes.  However, if we could get a Won’t-Issue State to a Shall-Issue State with 1 or 2 NRA classes that’s  a great stride forward.  I see no advantage to keeping a Won’t-Issue State as a Won’t-Issue State because we can’t get them to move directly from Won’t-Issue to Constitutional-Carry in one step.  
    Regards,
    Mark

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPAflybobMark, I believe you search in vain for actual records of the Founders referencing the limitation of arms from convicted felons, insane, and on the issue fo concealed carry. On the first two categories… since other rights can, and were, removed from convicted criminals, at least for a time, it seems evident that the right to arms would also be in that same category. Now one caveat: today, many “crimes” are labelled “felony” that certainly are not. Failure to pay court orderd child support, possession of st times miniscule quaintites of certain controlled substances (the laws “controlling” them being completely unconstitutional), driving a vehicle innexcess of twenty miles anhour above the posted arbitrary speed limit, and, in my own county, anyone shooting a feral nuisance cat is guilty of a felony as well. Any of these can get one incarcerated for a long time. Or, how about this: in states that refuse to acknowledge the individual right to arms, if someone is found in possession of a firearm wihtout first having procured the state’s Mother May I paperwork to BUY or POSSESS a gun, that poor sap is charged with a felony, and gun felony to boot. SO… many are “convicted felons” when that label does not suit. 
    Aside from that, society DO have an obligation to protect itself from predators, and disarming the two-legged variey of predator is within the purview of that intent. At least until such time as the individual no longer seems to be a threat to others in the community. 

    As to concealed, I don’t believe the founders even considered that as a category. They said “bear”, meaning to carry along with one’s self as one goes about doing what one doesh. Further “arms” certainly wes not, as a term,limited to firearms. Swords, dirks, daggers, all manner of edged weapons, and anything heavy enough to be lethal as well. The dread bayonet of the Britich REgular was detachable, and often kept in a scabbard at the belt. Was this “concealed”? No, it was simply ready to hand when needed. The entire thrust of that ammendment was to assure access to any sort of weapon was not to be restricted in any way. Requiring a Mother May I bit of paper from the government “giving permission” to possess, carry, lawfully use, “arms” was unthinkable, whether said weapon was large or small, carried in the hand, on the belt, or well hidden under one’s clothing, Same with any requirement for informing the government (local, state, national) that one is possessed of arms, describing which ones one owns, or, as in California’s case, “registering” certain ones specifically to be used with one’s state-issued Mother May P papers was ludicrous. ANY person (note well, they did not even restrict this right to “citizens” or “residents” or “men” or of any certain age. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear….. 

    I do agree with a continuing campaign to incrementally improve our lot vis-a-vis restrictive laws, and our end goal must always have in view the total repeal of all of them. However, to start out stumping for that would be unwise, given we’ve allowed the present pass to come about. Roll those restrictions back one by one, wherever and however we can. I belive the State of Ohio is one of the best examples of this. First, possession in one’s home, then the ability, permitted I must sadly say, but still…. to carry concealed on a Shall Issue basis, at first carry in a car must be unloaded, then that got changed to allow permittees to carry loaded. Inform LE whenever contacted that one is in possession, and allow LE to decide how to proceed, that got removed, no duty to inform now. Statewide preemption was enacted, making all gun laws uniform throughout the state. Cleveland fought for years, was finally shut down and forced to repeal their own city anti-gun codes I think it was about a year ago. Last session carry in places that serve alcohol was added to the list for lawful carry, though one may not drink whlist carrying in the local. Somewhere along the line,  the duty to retreat was repealed. Storage requirements were done away with… over the past decade or so Ohio have come a long ways, and is one of the freest states… oh, the requirement that only certain states that bothered to negotiate reciprocity could carry in Ohio on their home permit was just signed into law, meaing anyone lawfully able to carry in their home state can now do so inOhio. LE are being trained to ask the proper questions to axcertain whether one has the legal right to carry concealed in their home state. This has been effected largely through the ocncerted and consistent work of their state firearms organisation, Buckeye Firearmns. Its been impressive to watch, and could be a great model for other states to emulate.

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPAflybobMark, I believe you search in vain for actual records of the Founders referencing the limitation of arms from convicted felons, insane, and on the issue fo concealed carry. On the first two categories… since other rights can, and were, removed from convicted criminals, at least for a time, it seems evident that the right to arms would also be in that same category. Now one caveat: today, many “crimes” are labelled “felony” that certainly are not. Failure to pay court orderd child support, possession of st times miniscule quaintites of certain controlled substances (the laws “controlling” them being completely unconstitutional), driving a vehicle innexcess of twenty miles anhour above the posted arbitrary speed limit, and, in my own county, anyone shooting a feral nuisance cat is guilty of a felony as well. Any of these can get one incarcerated for a long time. Or, how about this: in states that refuse to acknowledge the individual right to arms, if someone is found in possession of a firearm wihtout first having procured the state’s Mother May I paperwork to BUY or POSSESS a gun, that poor sap is charged with a felony, and gun felony to boot. SO… many are “convicted felons” when that label does not suit. 
    Aside from that, society DO have an obligation to protect itself from predators, and disarming the two-legged variey of predator is within the purview of that intent. At least until such time as the individual no longer seems to be a threat to others in the community. 

    As to concealed, I don’t believe the founders even considered that as a category. They said “bear”, meaning to carry along with one’s self as one goes about doing what one doesh. Further “arms” certainly wes not, as a term,limited to firearms. Swords, dirks, daggers, all manner of edged weapons, and anything heavy enough to be lethal as well. The dread bayonet of the Britich REgular was detachable, and often kept in a scabbard at the belt. Was this “concealed”? No, it was simply ready to hand when needed. The entire thrust of that ammendment was to assure access to any sort of weapon was not to be restricted in any way. Requiring a Mother May I bit of paper from the government “giving permission” to possess, carry, lawfully use, “arms” was unthinkable, whether said weapon was large or small, carried in the hand, on the belt, or well hidden under one’s clothing, Same with any requirement for informing the government (local, state, national) that one is possessed of arms, describing which ones one owns, or, as in California’s case, “registering” certain ones specifically to be used with one’s state-issued Mother May P papers was ludicrous. ANY person (note well, they did not even restrict this right to “citizens” or “residents” or “men” or of any certain age. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear….. 

    I do agree with a continuing campaign to incrementally improve our lot vis-a-vis restrictive laws, and our end goal must always have in view the total repeal of all of them. However, to start out stumping for that would be unwise, given we’ve allowed the present pass to come about. Roll those restrictions back one by one, wherever and however we can. I belive the State of Ohio is one of the best examples of this. First, possession in one’s home, then the ability, permitted I must sadly say, but still…. to carry concealed on a Shall Issue basis, at first carry in a car must be unloaded, then that got changed to allow permittees to carry loaded. Inform LE whenever contacted that one is in possession, and allow LE to decide how to proceed, that got removed, no duty to inform now. Statewide preemption was enacted, making all gun laws uniform throughout the state. Cleveland fought for years, was finally shut down and forced to repeal their own city anti-gun codes I think it was about a year ago. Last session carry in places that serve alcohol was added to the list for lawful carry, though one may not drink whlist carrying in the local. Somewhere along the line,  the duty to retreat was repealed. Storage requirements were done away with… over the past decade or so Ohio have come a long ways, and is one of the freest states… oh, the requirement that only certain states that bothered to negotiate reciprocity could carry in Ohio on their home permit was just signed into law, meaing anyone lawfully able to carry in their home state can now do so inOhio. LE are being trained to ask the proper questions to axcertain whether one has the legal right to carry concealed in their home state. This has been effected largely through the ocncerted and consistent work of their state firearms organisation, Buckeye Firearmns. Its been impressive to watch, and could be a great model for other states to emulate.

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPATionicoExcellent points about training….. but I think starting at high school is over-late. I volunteer as an instructor with the Appleseed Project, a nationwide organisation teaching rifle marksmanship and Revolutionary War history. We get dozens of kids ten, eleven, twelve, on our firing lines…. they behave, learn and observe safety, and quicky become better marksmen than their Dads”’ I’ve watched several ten and eleven year olds shoot a qualifying score on the Army Qualification Test, 210+ out of 250 possible. Watching them up front with face busting grins as they are handed their Rifleman patches, then theirn Young Patriot patches, makes the hard work easy. I know one young lad at ten to quaifly. Now he is 12, and can regulary hit what he wants to hit at 200 yards with his own Ruger 10/.22, and often scores out to four hudnred yards. Early on, when he was nine, he was on the line next to his Dad, a very experienced shooter, though not accurate enough yet. A hot brass casing flew out of Dad’s eject port and landed in the crook of the young chap’s elbow (all were in prone position), he wearing a short sleeved tee shirt. He screamed, jumped up, I was working the line about three shooters to his left, turned and started moving toward the noise, obviosly SOMETHING going on that could be a safety issue. The kid jumped up to standing, used his trigger hand to brush the shell casing from his other arm…. all the while maintaining PERFECT downrange muzzle control. Up to that point his Dad has insisted he use a single shot bolt action, not quite certain he’d be safe enough with a semiauto. After that happened, I offered to the Dad that I could get my Ruger 10/.22 carbine lonaer from my van and let him use that. No question that kid understood safety. If a NINE YEAR OLD can be that safe in trouble, he’s not too young to properly learn how to shoot. 

    My Dad, when he was 12, regulary carried his .22 bolt gun with him on his horse when he went to school. Lots of the boys did. Sometimes at lunch or after school they’d have unsupervised shoot-offs and contests right out back. When he was 14, the district bought a bus… and since he liveed furthest from the school, HE drove it, dropping theother kdis off at their houses on the way out, picking them up in the morning again. He carried his trusty /22 bolt gun right up front with him. Why not? The bolt open what could happen? He’d been shooting since about six or seven along with most of his brothers and sisters. Yes, his isters were all great shots, too. One brother was a sniper in WW 11, Pacific Theater. Kids should start learnign ALL about guns as early as is safely possible. Appleseed does an incredible job of doing that. I do have to admit, though, that since Appleseed is a sing-up-and-come sort of program, and costs a littie (we’re all volunteer, so the ONLY costs are administrative, for targets, sometimes range fees and target backers, that sort o fthing.. none of the instructors get a dime, but we love it) the young kids who DO come are already vetted in some good ways.. parents or uncles or lder brothers care enough to bring them along, and the kdis are eager learners. I can tell dozens of encouraging stories from my few years instructing. It gives me comfort to know thousands of people a year are getting   excellent basic training in safety, gun handling, and marksmanship. AND learning our history and WHY the need to restore America to its former status as a nation of riflemen is so critical.Learning what was happening in the latter half of the eighteenth century leaves little question as to WHY  each right named in our Bill of Rights is there, and written the way it is. Particularly that Second Article of Ammendment. Having endured that :long train of abuses” as they did, they would have been stupid and foolish to not do all possible to assure that train would never get put together again, in part by guaranteeding the tools necessary to stop it. And yes, training was and remains key. Training i marksmanship and the history that marksmanship made possible,

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPATionicoExcellent points about training….. but I think starting at high school is over-late. I volunteer as an instructor with the Appleseed Project, a nationwide organisation teaching rifle marksmanship and Revolutionary War history. We get dozens of kids ten, eleven, twelve, on our firing lines…. they behave, learn and observe safety, and quicky become better marksmen than their Dads”’ I’ve watched several ten and eleven year olds shoot a qualifying score on the Army Qualification Test, 210+ out of 250 possible. Watching them up front with face busting grins as they are handed their Rifleman patches, then theirn Young Patriot patches, makes the hard work easy. I know one young lad at ten to quaifly. Now he is 12, and can regulary hit what he wants to hit at 200 yards with his own Ruger 10/.22, and often scores out to four hudnred yards. Early on, when he was nine, he was on the line next to his Dad, a very experienced shooter, though not accurate enough yet. A hot brass casing flew out of Dad’s eject port and landed in the crook of the young chap’s elbow (all were in prone position), he wearing a short sleeved tee shirt. He screamed, jumped up, I was working the line about three shooters to his left, turned and started moving toward the noise, obviosly SOMETHING going on that could be a safety issue. The kid jumped up to standing, used his trigger hand to brush the shell casing from his other arm…. all the while maintaining PERFECT downrange muzzle control. Up to that point his Dad has insisted he use a single shot bolt action, not quite certain he’d be safe enough with a semiauto. After that happened, I offered to the Dad that I could get my Ruger 10/.22 carbine lonaer from my van and let him use that. No question that kid understood safety. If a NINE YEAR OLD can be that safe in trouble, he’s not too young to properly learn how to shoot. 

    My Dad, when he was 12, regulary carried his .22 bolt gun with him on his horse when he went to school. Lots of the boys did. Sometimes at lunch or after school they’d have unsupervised shoot-offs and contests right out back. When he was 14, the district bought a bus… and since he liveed furthest from the school, HE drove it, dropping theother kdis off at their houses on the way out, picking them up in the morning again. He carried his trusty /22 bolt gun right up front with him. Why not? The bolt open what could happen? He’d been shooting since about six or seven along with most of his brothers and sisters. Yes, his isters were all great shots, too. One brother was a sniper in WW 11, Pacific Theater. Kids should start learnign ALL about guns as early as is safely possible. Appleseed does an incredible job of doing that. I do have to admit, though, that since Appleseed is a sing-up-and-come sort of program, and costs a littie (we’re all volunteer, so the ONLY costs are administrative, for targets, sometimes range fees and target backers, that sort o fthing.. none of the instructors get a dime, but we love it) the young kids who DO come are already vetted in some good ways.. parents or uncles or lder brothers care enough to bring them along, and the kdis are eager learners. I can tell dozens of encouraging stories from my few years instructing. It gives me comfort to know thousands of people a year are getting   excellent basic training in safety, gun handling, and marksmanship. AND learning our history and WHY the need to restore America to its former status as a nation of riflemen is so critical.Learning what was happening in the latter half of the eighteenth century leaves little question as to WHY  each right named in our Bill of Rights is there, and written the way it is. Particularly that Second Article of Ammendment. Having endured that :long train of abuses” as they did, they would have been stupid and foolish to not do all possible to assure that train would never get put together again, in part by guaranteeding the tools necessary to stop it. And yes, training was and remains key. Training i marksmanship and the history that marksmanship made possible,

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPAflybob Mark, Are you a lawyer or what?  WHY must you try to read something into the second amendment that is just simply not there???  You ask WHERE it says felons or insane people are protected???  Unless you’re uber dense that question answers itself because it does not PROHIBIT ANYONE from keeping and bearing arms.  Or do you insist that the right to religion or free speech is ALSO intended to have limitations???  Your argument is purely senseless, or do you think we should limit the second amendment to bb guns or 22LR or maybe 3 rounds of 30-06?  Your argument is MEANINGLESS!!.  Read article VI, you know the one that says ALL of the US Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND with NO restrictions or possible limitations or ambiguity.  You MUST be a lawyer to try to convince me or anyone that the US Constitution means other than it says!!!  It’s simple language, English, and it contains NO limitations or ambiguity and if you try to say otherwise then YOU are part of the problem and NOT the solution.  Stop trying to lawyer your way out of this, there ARE no exceptions or limitations to the second amendment or any other amendment known as the bill of rights.  You go ahead and claim what you want but YOU will be one of the targets when the SHTF if you ask me.  NOTHING In the US Constitution was meant to limit the people in ANY way, it was written to limit the government!  Get over it and if you’re a lawyer then you’re wasting your words.  The pen is NOT mightier than the sword.  If you DON’T like the US Constitution then go by article V and try to change it.  THAT’S (you’re) WHY they made it so difficult to change.  Get a grip sir, you’re just plain wrong.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPAflybob Mark, Are you a lawyer or what?  WHY must you try to read something into the second amendment that is just simply not there???  You ask WHERE it says felons or insane people are protected???  Unless you’re uber dense that question answers itself because it does not PROHIBIT ANYONE from keeping and bearing arms.  Or do you insist that the right to religion or free speech is ALSO intended to have limitations???  Your argument is purely senseless, or do you think we should limit the second amendment to bb guns or 22LR or maybe 3 rounds of 30-06?  Your argument is MEANINGLESS!!.  Read article VI, you know the one that says ALL of the US Constitution is the LAW OF THE LAND with NO restrictions or possible limitations or ambiguity.  You MUST be a lawyer to try to convince me or anyone that the US Constitution means other than it says!!!  It’s simple language, English, and it contains NO limitations or ambiguity and if you try to say otherwise then YOU are part of the problem and NOT the solution.  Stop trying to lawyer your way out of this, there ARE no exceptions or limitations to the second amendment or any other amendment known as the bill of rights.  You go ahead and claim what you want but YOU will be one of the targets when the SHTF if you ask me.  NOTHING In the US Constitution was meant to limit the people in ANY way, it was written to limit the government!  Get over it and if you’re a lawyer then you’re wasting your words.  The pen is NOT mightier than the sword.  If you DON’T like the US Constitution then go by article V and try to change it.  THAT’S (you’re) WHY they made it so difficult to change.  Get a grip sir, you’re just plain wrong.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    TionicoMarkPAflybob So do you insinuate that not ALL Americans have Constitutional rights?  That’s just plain crazy and wrong.  It protects ALL of us INCLUDING the insane and felons.  I DO believe in VERY severe penalties to be carried out swiftly for USING arms ilegally but EVERY PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY HAS THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!  Or do criminals only get to enjoy fifth amendment rights?  Or are THEY also restricted and we can pull teeth to make people talk if they are convicted felons???  Cut it out.  Rights are just that, RIGHTS and we ALL have them.  If you do not LIKE the second amendment and the fact that it is for all of us then use article V and change it.  It was MADE difficult to change for a reason!  LAWYERS try to lie about it and apparently you cannot read and understand the English language clearly but I see it says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!  I don’t see a word about “except for” convicted felons or women or age or anything you insinuate the founders “meant” but didn’t say.  I’m sure they lay awake at night thinking “yep that should have limitations in it but what the hey, let’s leave them out and let the lawyers fight about it”.  BULLCRAP GUY!  It is ABSOLUTE and that’s that!  Like I said, if you don’t like it then get 2/3rds of congress to make a proposal and then 3/4s of the state legislators to agree and it will be as you wish.  Until then live by it and adhere to it as we have ALL taken oath to do.  What the hell is wrong with you trying to add what is not there???  Christ man READ!!!  NOWHERE does it mention ANY limitations and that’s exactly what they meant!

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    TionicoMarkPAflybob So do you insinuate that not ALL Americans have Constitutional rights?  That’s just plain crazy and wrong.  It protects ALL of us INCLUDING the insane and felons.  I DO believe in VERY severe penalties to be carried out swiftly for USING arms ilegally but EVERY PERSON IN THIS COUNTRY HAS THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!!!  Or do criminals only get to enjoy fifth amendment rights?  Or are THEY also restricted and we can pull teeth to make people talk if they are convicted felons???  Cut it out.  Rights are just that, RIGHTS and we ALL have them.  If you do not LIKE the second amendment and the fact that it is for all of us then use article V and change it.  It was MADE difficult to change for a reason!  LAWYERS try to lie about it and apparently you cannot read and understand the English language clearly but I see it says THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!  I don’t see a word about “except for” convicted felons or women or age or anything you insinuate the founders “meant” but didn’t say.  I’m sure they lay awake at night thinking “yep that should have limitations in it but what the hey, let’s leave them out and let the lawyers fight about it”.  BULLCRAP GUY!  It is ABSOLUTE and that’s that!  Like I said, if you don’t like it then get 2/3rds of congress to make a proposal and then 3/4s of the state legislators to agree and it will be as you wish.  Until then live by it and adhere to it as we have ALL taken oath to do.  What the hell is wrong with you trying to add what is not there???  Christ man READ!!!  NOWHERE does it mention ANY limitations and that’s exactly what they meant!

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    Tionico MarkPA Thanks for your reply.  I certainly defer to your experience in training younger shooters.  Ultimately, you have the more important point.  If we neglect to pass the tradition of the shooting sports to our children then the 2A will die in 2 or 3 generations.  (The experience in the UK demonstrates this.)  There is nothing more important that we can do than precisely what you describe.
     I have no realistic expectations that Congress will ever make provision for the training of the UnOrganized Militia. Nor any expectation that public school administrators will admit marksmanship to their province of control.  My point in this regard is simply a means of managing any debate over training as a prerequisite to exercising 2A rights.
       To any legislator who believes we must meet a training requirement to exercise a right; well, OK.  Just as soon as you impose a training requirement on the Constitution and Federalist Papers to vote.  Just as soon as you impose a training requirement to serve on a jury.  Just as soon as you impose a training requirement to secure your right to remain silent when under arrest.  Just as soon as you impose a training requirement to secure your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.  
       And they say we gun enthusiasts won’t agree to reasonable gun laws.  We will!  Just as soon as gun controllers agree to reasonable infringements on the rights they hold precious.
    Mark

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    Tionico MarkPA Thanks for your reply.  I certainly defer to your experience in training younger shooters.  Ultimately, you have the more important point.  If we neglect to pass the tradition of the shooting sports to our children then the 2A will die in 2 or 3 generations.  (The experience in the UK demonstrates this.)  There is nothing more important that we can do than precisely what you describe.
     I have no realistic expectations that Congress will ever make provision for the training of the UnOrganized Militia. Nor any expectation that public school administrators will admit marksmanship to their province of control.  My point in this regard is simply a means of managing any debate over training as a prerequisite to exercising 2A rights.
       To any legislator who believes we must meet a training requirement to exercise a right; well, OK.  Just as soon as you impose a training requirement on the Constitution and Federalist Papers to vote.  Just as soon as you impose a training requirement to serve on a jury.  Just as soon as you impose a training requirement to secure your right to remain silent when under arrest.  Just as soon as you impose a training requirement to secure your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.  
       And they say we gun enthusiasts won’t agree to reasonable gun laws.  We will!  Just as soon as gun controllers agree to reasonable infringements on the rights they hold precious.
    Mark

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPATionico Maybe you’re getting there.  Couple things….the US Constitution ALREADY says that militias “shall not be infringed” so congress cannot prevent it if we just stand our ground.  The other, I don’t care WHAT congress concedes, I won’t give up MY gun RIGHTS for “sensible gun control”.  It just doesn’t make a hill of beans what THEY hold precious.  Here’s something I’m noticing about your comments, I think you believe America will survive this problem we now have in government.  I say we will not.  We are ALREADY in a constitutional crisis just by the regulations and unconstitutional laws we have.  I think we now live in an oligarchy that is rooted in tyranny made up of 3 branches that are covering for each other and I see NO end I sight.  PLUS I am COMPLETELY convinced we have an illegitimate president that is selling us out to muslims and foreign interests.  I just saw yesterday that the president is giving water rights away to the Chinese!  WHAT????  I predict the Chinese will soon have complete control over our entire energy industry and ALL of our coal.  If we don’t wake the hell up and stand for our country soon there will nothing worth standing for.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPATionico Maybe you’re getting there.  Couple things….the US Constitution ALREADY says that militias “shall not be infringed” so congress cannot prevent it if we just stand our ground.  The other, I don’t care WHAT congress concedes, I won’t give up MY gun RIGHTS for “sensible gun control”.  It just doesn’t make a hill of beans what THEY hold precious.  Here’s something I’m noticing about your comments, I think you believe America will survive this problem we now have in government.  I say we will not.  We are ALREADY in a constitutional crisis just by the regulations and unconstitutional laws we have.  I think we now live in an oligarchy that is rooted in tyranny made up of 3 branches that are covering for each other and I see NO end I sight.  PLUS I am COMPLETELY convinced we have an illegitimate president that is selling us out to muslims and foreign interests.  I just saw yesterday that the president is giving water rights away to the Chinese!  WHAT????  I predict the Chinese will soon have complete control over our entire energy industry and ALL of our coal.  If we don’t wake the hell up and stand for our country soon there will nothing worth standing for.

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPATionicoMark, I did get yuour root point, both halves of it. Actually, in further pondering, I think the concept of USING training requirements as you suggest is pure genius. Same thing has happened in many states about driver training. I learned from my Dad, who was talking and demonstrating good driving habits since I was about twelve. HE was driving the schoolbus at fourteen, and tractors, wagon and team, long before that. Now, a Dad can’t teach his own kid how to drive, that has become the purview of the state, with madatory training for all new drivers under 18. (Washington). They demanded training for drivers, now its mandated for all. Same concept. 

    I agree, its a hopeless battle at this stage to try and get FedGov to do and fund it. Its out of their bailiwick anyway, except pssibly as part of militia protocol. But I think that comes too late in life. Junior ROTC starts at about 16, and by then kids whould arleady be marksmen. I suppose that could be promoted at state level, maybe a few stats would go for it. But the real way to win that one is at the local level, one district at a time. It does seem, though, that such demands are bieng  made at state levels, requiring so many hours of (typicaly worthless) training prior to getting your CCL, or in some wretched places, before getting your Mother May Own a Gun permit. Go ahead, we’ll let you pass that as long as you start that training in midle school, make it an opt-out part of normal education. Indoor ranges with air rifles works well… the “graduation” to outdoors and powder is easy. A few hoplophobic legislators will be going apopleptic at the thought of CHILDREN actually being allowed to TOUCH those nasty things… which could only be a good thing. We’d be bereft of a few nasty congresscretins. Always a plus!!!

    I know Appleseed are completely dedicated to training up as many as possible, starting as young as possible. We;ve held private shooting events at some private schools, and for Boy Scouts, FFA groups, etc.

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPATionicoMark, I did get yuour root point, both halves of it. Actually, in further pondering, I think the concept of USING training requirements as you suggest is pure genius. Same thing has happened in many states about driver training. I learned from my Dad, who was talking and demonstrating good driving habits since I was about twelve. HE was driving the schoolbus at fourteen, and tractors, wagon and team, long before that. Now, a Dad can’t teach his own kid how to drive, that has become the purview of the state, with madatory training for all new drivers under 18. (Washington). They demanded training for drivers, now its mandated for all. Same concept. 

    I agree, its a hopeless battle at this stage to try and get FedGov to do and fund it. Its out of their bailiwick anyway, except pssibly as part of militia protocol. But I think that comes too late in life. Junior ROTC starts at about 16, and by then kids whould arleady be marksmen. I suppose that could be promoted at state level, maybe a few stats would go for it. But the real way to win that one is at the local level, one district at a time. It does seem, though, that such demands are bieng  made at state levels, requiring so many hours of (typicaly worthless) training prior to getting your CCL, or in some wretched places, before getting your Mother May Own a Gun permit. Go ahead, we’ll let you pass that as long as you start that training in midle school, make it an opt-out part of normal education. Indoor ranges with air rifles works well… the “graduation” to outdoors and powder is easy. A few hoplophobic legislators will be going apopleptic at the thought of CHILDREN actually being allowed to TOUCH those nasty things… which could only be a good thing. We’d be bereft of a few nasty congresscretins. Always a plus!!!

    I know Appleseed are completely dedicated to training up as many as possible, starting as young as possible. We;ve held private shooting events at some private schools, and for Boy Scouts, FFA groups, etc.

    • Oakenheart

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPAflybob”Until I can uncover these quotations, I’m afraid that I have to concede
    that the founders probably did intend to deprive convicted criminals and
    the insane from keeping or bearing arms.”
    Actually, these restrictions were created by the GCA1968. Not exactly longstanding, are they. It used to be that insane people were kept in asylums, and felons who were too dangerous to be let out of jail were kept in jail. Quite logically if someone is too dangerous to have a firearm, they are too dangerous to have access to any weapon whatsoever. Prior to the 1968 gun control act, a felon who was released could buy and own any gun he wanted. Once someone serves their time and is released, they should have all the civil rights of free men. If you cannot trust them not to harm their fellow man, they should not be let out of jail.

    • Oakenheart

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPAflybob”Until I can uncover these quotations, I’m afraid that I have to concede
    that the founders probably did intend to deprive convicted criminals and
    the insane from keeping or bearing arms.”
    Actually, these restrictions were created by the GCA1968. Not exactly longstanding, are they. It used to be that insane people were kept in asylums, and felons who were too dangerous to be let out of jail were kept in jail. Quite logically if someone is too dangerous to have a firearm, they are too dangerous to have access to any weapon whatsoever. Prior to the 1968 gun control act, a felon who was released could buy and own any gun he wanted. Once someone serves their time and is released, they should have all the civil rights of free men. If you cannot trust them not to harm their fellow man, they should not be let out of jail.

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    Tionico MarkPA Thanks for your reply.  Lots of different threads to concentrate on.  
     One item is the debate over training.  That is mostly a debate; it’s not really substance.  A training requirement is primarily imposing a barrier-to-entry.  If that barrier is to jump over a small bar then the bar will be raised to a high bar.  We must find ways to make that gun-control strategy as painful as possible.  Still, it’s just one strategy.  And, we can make it work FOR us just as it is used to work AGAINST us.
        So, the gun controllers argue, that cops have training; we unwashed masses do not.  OK, well, if we the unwashed have as much training as cops in our State, then that resolves that argument; doesn’t it.  So, just exactly how many hours of gun training to cops get here in the State of Confusion?  X’ty hours?  OK, well, then, there are dozens of residents of this state who have more than X’th hours of training.  Give them their permits. Oh, by the way, there are judges, prosecutors, rich political contributors, actors who have permits in this State.  Do they all have X’th hours of gun training?  No!  Well, then revoke their permits immediately!  You don’t want to revoke their permits?  Oh, so, it’s not about whether a gun-bearer has X’th hours of training, then.  Isn’t that so?  Well, now, let’s negotiate seriously.  We want no training prerequisite.  You want to keep your elite permit holders with no training prerequisite.  So, how about just 1 NRA course and we get Shall-Issue.  
        The other item is over filling our ranks and files with gun bearers.  The rights in the Constitution mean no more than whatever We the People are prepared to insist upon.  The Brits lost all their rights in 3 generations by allowing their ranks of sportsmen and target shooters to atrophy.  If Americans let that happen here then we have only ourselves to blame.  
       We need to get kids to the range.  We need to get women to think seriously about whether they have a right to the MEANS to an EFFECTIVE self-defense.  We need to remind minorities that the KKK era was all-about access to the means of an effective self-defense.  
        Is Appleseed focused on creating marksmen?  Or, is it about introducing youth to the shooting sports?  What organizations emphasize introducing the broadest range of people to the shooting sports?
        A few public schools might go-along with a program.  However, these would (I imagine) be the choir.  These won’t really help.
        We need to find a way to make an end-run around our opponents.  Something like this:  Individual VFWs announce that on Saturday afternoon(s) they will sponsor gun-safty and marksmanship classes in the VFW hall.  Use laser guns or airlifts.  
        After several weeks in the VFW hall, a weekend at the range with 22s is scheduled.  Parents probably would feel pretty comfortable with the old duffers from the VFW.  Maybe some cops will volunteer too.  
    Mark

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    Tionico MarkPA Thanks for your reply.  Lots of different threads to concentrate on.  
     One item is the debate over training.  That is mostly a debate; it’s not really substance.  A training requirement is primarily imposing a barrier-to-entry.  If that barrier is to jump over a small bar then the bar will be raised to a high bar.  We must find ways to make that gun-control strategy as painful as possible.  Still, it’s just one strategy.  And, we can make it work FOR us just as it is used to work AGAINST us.
        So, the gun controllers argue, that cops have training; we unwashed masses do not.  OK, well, if we the unwashed have as much training as cops in our State, then that resolves that argument; doesn’t it.  So, just exactly how many hours of gun training to cops get here in the State of Confusion?  X’ty hours?  OK, well, then, there are dozens of residents of this state who have more than X’th hours of training.  Give them their permits. Oh, by the way, there are judges, prosecutors, rich political contributors, actors who have permits in this State.  Do they all have X’th hours of gun training?  No!  Well, then revoke their permits immediately!  You don’t want to revoke their permits?  Oh, so, it’s not about whether a gun-bearer has X’th hours of training, then.  Isn’t that so?  Well, now, let’s negotiate seriously.  We want no training prerequisite.  You want to keep your elite permit holders with no training prerequisite.  So, how about just 1 NRA course and we get Shall-Issue.  
        The other item is over filling our ranks and files with gun bearers.  The rights in the Constitution mean no more than whatever We the People are prepared to insist upon.  The Brits lost all their rights in 3 generations by allowing their ranks of sportsmen and target shooters to atrophy.  If Americans let that happen here then we have only ourselves to blame.  
       We need to get kids to the range.  We need to get women to think seriously about whether they have a right to the MEANS to an EFFECTIVE self-defense.  We need to remind minorities that the KKK era was all-about access to the means of an effective self-defense.  
        Is Appleseed focused on creating marksmen?  Or, is it about introducing youth to the shooting sports?  What organizations emphasize introducing the broadest range of people to the shooting sports?
        A few public schools might go-along with a program.  However, these would (I imagine) be the choir.  These won’t really help.
        We need to find a way to make an end-run around our opponents.  Something like this:  Individual VFWs announce that on Saturday afternoon(s) they will sponsor gun-safty and marksmanship classes in the VFW hall.  Use laser guns or airlifts.  
        After several weeks in the VFW hall, a weekend at the range with 22s is scheduled.  Parents probably would feel pretty comfortable with the old duffers from the VFW.  Maybe some cops will volunteer too.  
    Mark

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    OakenheartMarkPAflybob So then you are saying the founders didn’t have enough sense to single out certain groups to deny them God given Constitutionally guaranteed rights?  Hogwash.  If they WANTED to single out ANY group they could have easily.  They did not.  The REAL point is simple though. if they DID NOT single out anyone in the US Constitution then there ARE no groups that are not afforded rights.  So if you’re a convicted felon you do NOT have the right to free speech? Religion?  The right to redress your government?  You can be searched at the will of the government?  No rights or should we decide WHICH are valid rights?   WHO decides who does or does not have those rights??? YOU?  Who decided who is mentally unstable?  You? Ben Franklin was called a kook for flying a kite in a thunderstorm. MANY thought Einstein was a nutcase.  Right now there are those in government that claim that if you’re a vegetarian you are not of sound mind.  What is the criteria for insanity?  Sorry big guy bit the US Constitution protects us ALL equally PERIOD!  BUT when one IS incarcerated they have no rights as it IS listed in the 13th amendment.  If you try to make more out of it then it is then YOU are the one that doesn’t deserve to live under it.  It is what it is and that’s that.  It’s EASY to read and understand so stop trying to use legalese to make up a bunch of crap.  If the founders wanted to exempt felons or those whom OTHERS though were mentally unstable they would have.  There is NO hidden meaning.  Get over it.  If you don’t like it then move elsewhere or go by Article V and change it.  Otherwise let the rest of us live under the document that was meant to protect is from tyranny.  YOUR way IS tyranny, MINE is freedom.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    OakenheartMarkPAflybob So then you are saying the founders didn’t have enough sense to single out certain groups to deny them God given Constitutionally guaranteed rights?  Hogwash.  If they WANTED to single out ANY group they could have easily.  They did not.  The REAL point is simple though. if they DID NOT single out anyone in the US Constitution then there ARE no groups that are not afforded rights.  So if you’re a convicted felon you do NOT have the right to free speech? Religion?  The right to redress your government?  You can be searched at the will of the government?  No rights or should we decide WHICH are valid rights?   WHO decides who does or does not have those rights??? YOU?  Who decided who is mentally unstable?  You? Ben Franklin was called a kook for flying a kite in a thunderstorm. MANY thought Einstein was a nutcase.  Right now there are those in government that claim that if you’re a vegetarian you are not of sound mind.  What is the criteria for insanity?  Sorry big guy bit the US Constitution protects us ALL equally PERIOD!  BUT when one IS incarcerated they have no rights as it IS listed in the 13th amendment.  If you try to make more out of it then it is then YOU are the one that doesn’t deserve to live under it.  It is what it is and that’s that.  It’s EASY to read and understand so stop trying to use legalese to make up a bunch of crap.  If the founders wanted to exempt felons or those whom OTHERS though were mentally unstable they would have.  There is NO hidden meaning.  Get over it.  If you don’t like it then move elsewhere or go by Article V and change it.  Otherwise let the rest of us live under the document that was meant to protect is from tyranny.  YOUR way IS tyranny, MINE is freedom.

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    Oakenheart MarkPA flybob You are quite correct to point to the ’68 act in codifying – in Federal law – the bar to convicted felons and the insane.  I’m not particularly happy with various provisions of that law but I won’t discuss them and confuse the discussion.  
     Where we agree, I think, is that baring a person for life is pretty harsh in plenty of cases.  E.g., a young woman takes a car for a joy-ride and is convicted for grand-theft auto.  She does her time and has no other incident, certainly not one of violence.  She is bard for life under the ’68 act for life from an effective means of self-defense and for the defense of her children.  Moreover, it’s prohibitively expensive for her to try to obtain a pardon from the governor.  That’s tragic.  
       Another aspect of that act is the domestic violence provision. It’s pretty easy for a wife to charge her husband with domestic violence; and, thereby, get him 2A disabled for life.  Was there anything to the charges?  Doesn’t really matter; the judge will give her an order of protection for little more than asking.  Put the shoe on the other foot; a husband can render his wife defenseless for life by getting an order of protection against her.  There isn’t much opportunity for the respondent to defend himself (herself) from an unfounded allegation.  
       What bothers me the most is that thousands of veterans have lost their 2A rights merely because a VA doctor gave them a diagnosis of PTSD.  
        The easiest way for gun-controllers to strip us of our 2A rights is via creeping bars from gun ownership for the slightest evidence of any mental problem whatsoever.  Kids who take drugs for ADHD could be barred.  Registering to vote as a Republican could be dispositve evidence of mental illness.  Post-partim depression could get a post-natal mother bard for life.  
        But, to the main point of issue.  the ’68 act was not the first time a government introduced a bar on arms for convicted criminals or the insane.  That bar existed in the pre-Colonial era.  It’s simply that the ’68 act was the most important and recent codification of those bars in Federal law.
    Mark

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    Oakenheart MarkPA flybob You are quite correct to point to the ’68 act in codifying – in Federal law – the bar to convicted felons and the insane.  I’m not particularly happy with various provisions of that law but I won’t discuss them and confuse the discussion.  
     Where we agree, I think, is that baring a person for life is pretty harsh in plenty of cases.  E.g., a young woman takes a car for a joy-ride and is convicted for grand-theft auto.  She does her time and has no other incident, certainly not one of violence.  She is bard for life under the ’68 act for life from an effective means of self-defense and for the defense of her children.  Moreover, it’s prohibitively expensive for her to try to obtain a pardon from the governor.  That’s tragic.  
       Another aspect of that act is the domestic violence provision. It’s pretty easy for a wife to charge her husband with domestic violence; and, thereby, get him 2A disabled for life.  Was there anything to the charges?  Doesn’t really matter; the judge will give her an order of protection for little more than asking.  Put the shoe on the other foot; a husband can render his wife defenseless for life by getting an order of protection against her.  There isn’t much opportunity for the respondent to defend himself (herself) from an unfounded allegation.  
       What bothers me the most is that thousands of veterans have lost their 2A rights merely because a VA doctor gave them a diagnosis of PTSD.  
        The easiest way for gun-controllers to strip us of our 2A rights is via creeping bars from gun ownership for the slightest evidence of any mental problem whatsoever.  Kids who take drugs for ADHD could be barred.  Registering to vote as a Republican could be dispositve evidence of mental illness.  Post-partim depression could get a post-natal mother bard for life.  
        But, to the main point of issue.  the ’68 act was not the first time a government introduced a bar on arms for convicted criminals or the insane.  That bar existed in the pre-Colonial era.  It’s simply that the ’68 act was the most important and recent codification of those bars in Federal law.
    Mark

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPAOakenheartflybob Clearly you’re a lawyer.  You’ve been taught to convince us all that YOU are right and the US Constitution cannot be “interpreted” by the common man.  GCA1968 is CLEARLY a violation of our second amendment rights.  No more to say to you.  I hate lawyers.

    • flybob

    • 10 years ago

    MarkPAOakenheartflybob Clearly you’re a lawyer.  You’ve been taught to convince us all that YOU are right and the US Constitution cannot be “interpreted” by the common man.  GCA1968 is CLEARLY a violation of our second amendment rights.  No more to say to you.  I hate lawyers.

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    flybob Oakenheart MarkPA No, I’m not saying that the founders did not have enough sense to enumerate their exclusions from 2A rights.
      If you would like me to make some such statement: “The founders did not have enough sense to . . . ”  then I will do so.  I hold that the founders did not have enough sense to prescribe how a State could succeed from the union.  That, I believe, was a very unfortunate omission.
        If you skim through the Constitution I believe you will agree that they covered a lot of ground in just a single sheet of parchment.  Likewise, it took about one more sheet of parchment to cover the first 10 amendments.  If only Congress could be so succinct on any bill today.
        I do NOT hold that I know everything.  If I want to hear from someone who claims (implicitly) to know everything I ask my wife.
        In fact, I DO hold that I do NOT KNOW precisely what law Congress or any State legislator might adopt concerning guns that WOULD be Constitutional.  Quite the opposite of what you seem to believe about me.
        It seems that we differ on, for example, 2 possible points.  I’m willing to accept that it IS constitutional for Congress/Legislature to adopt a law baring a convicted felon from keeping or bearing arms.  Likewise for a person adjudicated insane.  I will add another: Congress/Legislature can bar an alien from keeping or bearing arms.  That too would be Constitutional.  
        It is an independent matter whether the terms of any such law would be  wise or fair or in accordance with every individual’s natural rights.  
        Imagine a tourist who visits the US.  He is not a citizen of the US.  He fears for his life (perhaps he was assaulted by a thug in NYC.)  I imagine you will agree with me that our guest has a natural right to the means of an effective self-defense.  I imagine you will agree we have no objection to his buying a gun (assuming that there is no evidence that he is anything other than a peaceable person.)  He does have a natural right.  And, yet, the 2A does not seem to extend to this deserving guest protection of his natural right.  For some reason, the founders extended 2A protection to “the People”; but not to all persons.  
        Nor did the founders intend to secure the right to arms for slaves nor Indians.  Neither were considered citizens nor considered within the scope of the People.  
        I imagine (please forgive me if I am mistaken) that – from your viewpoint – you might argue that I am mistaken.  All the Senators and Representatives who adopted the 2A and all the State legislators who voted to ratify the 2A intended to secure to Indians and slaves the natural right to arms; for, had they intended to exclude Indians and slaves from “the People” they would have made this exception explicitly. Perhaps you would go on to argue that these same legislators might have promptly adopted State legislation securing the right to arms to Indians and slaves.  Alas, this did not occur.  In the early years of the US, State legislatures adopted laws baring slaves (and I imagine Indians) from arms.  
        So, I wonder, how might you be so confident that the Congress and ratifying legislators’ omission of explicit mention of foreigners, Indians and Slaves can be squared with early bans on the latter two categories in early State laws?
        By the same reasoning, we all might wonder if the Congress and legislators really indended to secure to convicted felons and persons adjudicated insane the right to arms.  How, exactly, are you so certain that these Congressmen and legislators were convinced that they wanted released convicts and released mental patients to mingle among them bearing arms?
        As certain as you are that these early legislators so intended, I am equally certain that this thought did not cross many of their minds.  I can imagine that some would have thought it reasonable to legislate baring some such released individuals, at least for a time.  Time enough to satisfy society that they would continue to be peaceable.
        I alone do not presume to answer all such questions.  Perhaps you do.  Perhaps you are infallible.  SCOTUS presumes to answer all such questions; at least those that it agrees to hear and decide.  SCOTUS believes that it is infallible because it believes it is last.  SCOTUS is mistaken.
        The Constitution, and its interpretation, belongs to the People.  We express our will by voting for Federal congressmen and State legislators.  The President appoints Federal judges and the Senate ratifies these appointments.  (Likewise, some such process occurs at the State level.)  
        In order for your will to prevail, voters must vote for Congressmen and legislators who will follow your interpretation of the Constitution.  Our fellow voters have not done so.  I would be grateful if our fellow voters just met you half-way.  I would be joyful if voters met you 3/4 of the way.  
        I’m afraid your real quarrel is not confined to me.  Our mutual quarrel is widespread among our fellow citizens.
    Regards
    Mark

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    flybob Oakenheart MarkPA No, I’m not saying that the founders did not have enough sense to enumerate their exclusions from 2A rights.
      If you would like me to make some such statement: “The founders did not have enough sense to . . . ”  then I will do so.  I hold that the founders did not have enough sense to prescribe how a State could succeed from the union.  That, I believe, was a very unfortunate omission.
        If you skim through the Constitution I believe you will agree that they covered a lot of ground in just a single sheet of parchment.  Likewise, it took about one more sheet of parchment to cover the first 10 amendments.  If only Congress could be so succinct on any bill today.
        I do NOT hold that I know everything.  If I want to hear from someone who claims (implicitly) to know everything I ask my wife.
        In fact, I DO hold that I do NOT KNOW precisely what law Congress or any State legislator might adopt concerning guns that WOULD be Constitutional.  Quite the opposite of what you seem to believe about me.
        It seems that we differ on, for example, 2 possible points.  I’m willing to accept that it IS constitutional for Congress/Legislature to adopt a law baring a convicted felon from keeping or bearing arms.  Likewise for a person adjudicated insane.  I will add another: Congress/Legislature can bar an alien from keeping or bearing arms.  That too would be Constitutional.  
        It is an independent matter whether the terms of any such law would be  wise or fair or in accordance with every individual’s natural rights.  
        Imagine a tourist who visits the US.  He is not a citizen of the US.  He fears for his life (perhaps he was assaulted by a thug in NYC.)  I imagine you will agree with me that our guest has a natural right to the means of an effective self-defense.  I imagine you will agree we have no objection to his buying a gun (assuming that there is no evidence that he is anything other than a peaceable person.)  He does have a natural right.  And, yet, the 2A does not seem to extend to this deserving guest protection of his natural right.  For some reason, the founders extended 2A protection to “the People”; but not to all persons.  
        Nor did the founders intend to secure the right to arms for slaves nor Indians.  Neither were considered citizens nor considered within the scope of the People.  
        I imagine (please forgive me if I am mistaken) that – from your viewpoint – you might argue that I am mistaken.  All the Senators and Representatives who adopted the 2A and all the State legislators who voted to ratify the 2A intended to secure to Indians and slaves the natural right to arms; for, had they intended to exclude Indians and slaves from “the People” they would have made this exception explicitly. Perhaps you would go on to argue that these same legislators might have promptly adopted State legislation securing the right to arms to Indians and slaves.  Alas, this did not occur.  In the early years of the US, State legislatures adopted laws baring slaves (and I imagine Indians) from arms.  
        So, I wonder, how might you be so confident that the Congress and ratifying legislators’ omission of explicit mention of foreigners, Indians and Slaves can be squared with early bans on the latter two categories in early State laws?
        By the same reasoning, we all might wonder if the Congress and legislators really indended to secure to convicted felons and persons adjudicated insane the right to arms.  How, exactly, are you so certain that these Congressmen and legislators were convinced that they wanted released convicts and released mental patients to mingle among them bearing arms?
        As certain as you are that these early legislators so intended, I am equally certain that this thought did not cross many of their minds.  I can imagine that some would have thought it reasonable to legislate baring some such released individuals, at least for a time.  Time enough to satisfy society that they would continue to be peaceable.
        I alone do not presume to answer all such questions.  Perhaps you do.  Perhaps you are infallible.  SCOTUS presumes to answer all such questions; at least those that it agrees to hear and decide.  SCOTUS believes that it is infallible because it believes it is last.  SCOTUS is mistaken.
        The Constitution, and its interpretation, belongs to the People.  We express our will by voting for Federal congressmen and State legislators.  The President appoints Federal judges and the Senate ratifies these appointments.  (Likewise, some such process occurs at the State level.)  
        In order for your will to prevail, voters must vote for Congressmen and legislators who will follow your interpretation of the Constitution.  Our fellow voters have not done so.  I would be grateful if our fellow voters just met you half-way.  I would be joyful if voters met you 3/4 of the way.  
        I’m afraid your real quarrel is not confined to me.  Our mutual quarrel is widespread among our fellow citizens.
    Regards
    Mark

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    flybob MarkPA Oakenheart Gentle flybob.  I assure you that I am not a lawyer.  I never attended a single day of law school.  I too hate a number of the lawyers I have met; and don’t like many of the others.  Yet, I have dealt extensively with a few in whom I have confidence and respect.  
      You are also mistaken in believing that I doubt the capacity of the common man to interpret the Constitution.  Everyone is free to interpret the Constitution.  I fervently encourage every citizen to devote a considerable amount of time to studying the Constitution and other documents discussing the Constitution. Our nation would be much better off if a majority of us made a serious study of the matter.  
        Some of us will do well in our interpretations, others, less well.  (Despite some effort, I have been unable to wrap my head around the “incorporation doctrine”.  It seems a Herculean effort by SCOTUS to defy the will of the People as expressed in the 14A.)  I make no claim to be a Constitutional “scholar”.  I’m simply better read on the topic than most other Americans.  
        Out of debating the Constitution, most of us will profit from understanding other debaters’ viewpoints.  Naturally, some of us will not learn anything from debate.
        GCA1968 is certainly overreaching in some respects.  I don’t think it is overreaching in every respect.  
        Personally, I regard the NFA of 1934 far more objectionable; and, the Hughes Amendment (closing the registry on machine guns for civilian ownership) is flatly unconstitutional.  Each of us has our pet peeves.  You are entitled to yours with the GCA1968.
    Regards
    Mark

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    flybob MarkPA Oakenheart Gentle flybob.  I assure you that I am not a lawyer.  I never attended a single day of law school.  I too hate a number of the lawyers I have met; and don’t like many of the others.  Yet, I have dealt extensively with a few in whom I have confidence and respect.  
      You are also mistaken in believing that I doubt the capacity of the common man to interpret the Constitution.  Everyone is free to interpret the Constitution.  I fervently encourage every citizen to devote a considerable amount of time to studying the Constitution and other documents discussing the Constitution. Our nation would be much better off if a majority of us made a serious study of the matter.  
        Some of us will do well in our interpretations, others, less well.  (Despite some effort, I have been unable to wrap my head around the “incorporation doctrine”.  It seems a Herculean effort by SCOTUS to defy the will of the People as expressed in the 14A.)  I make no claim to be a Constitutional “scholar”.  I’m simply better read on the topic than most other Americans.  
        Out of debating the Constitution, most of us will profit from understanding other debaters’ viewpoints.  Naturally, some of us will not learn anything from debate.
        GCA1968 is certainly overreaching in some respects.  I don’t think it is overreaching in every respect.  
        Personally, I regard the NFA of 1934 far more objectionable; and, the Hughes Amendment (closing the registry on machine guns for civilian ownership) is flatly unconstitutional.  Each of us has our pet peeves.  You are entitled to yours with the GCA1968.
    Regards
    Mark

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    flybob MarkPA Tionico  I beg to differ with you a bit concerning militias.  The original text of the Constitution empowered Congress: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; [and] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . .”  While that text doesn’t authorize Congress to “infringe” on the militia, it grants so much authority over the militia as to constitute a serious threat to the militia.  This point was argued by the Anti-Federalists, to little or no avail.  The 2A bars “infringement” on the right-of-the-People.  The Heller decision makes clear that this right is, or at least includes, an individual right.  
      Whether this leaves us in disagreement on any specific point I’m not sure.
         We agree that we the People must stand our ground.  Our founding generation ultimately stood its ground on Bunker Hill and ultimately prevailed.  Eighty some years later Southerners stood their ground at Ft. Sumpter but did not ultimately prevail.
         What I worry most about is that our fellow citizens do not stand their ground on the 2’nd Tuesday of alternate Novembers.  
          If we fail to muster for an hour once every 2’nd year, then how could we possibly muster to meet tyranny with force?   Recognition of this fact leaves me in tears.  
           The body of possible law that might constitute “sensible” gun control is exceedingly small.  A body of law that might constitute tolerable gun control, just a bit larger.  
            So, you think I believe that America will survive the problems we have with government.  Allow me to disabuse you of this impression.  While I pray that it will survive, I see little-to-no-evidence that Americans will rise to the occasion in sufficient numbers to make that happen; at least, not at the polls and before a mind-boggling collapse.  
            I see a glimmer of hope from the pain and suffering inflicted by ObamaCare; but no more than a glimmer.  By some miracle, some sort of Tea Party majority might take control of Congress in 3 – 6 biannual election cycles.  For this to occur, Americans would have to wake up to Reagan’s point:  “Government is not the solution, it’s the problem.”
           It’s difficult to conjecture with any confidence what will set-off the powder keg.  I’ll offer you my guess.  The Fed is printing money at an astonishing rate.  I don’t understand why we have yet to see an outbreak of inflation.  It has to happen some day.  And, interest rates have to soar some day.  (I remember these rates from the Carter administration).  When (not IF) that happens, interest on the Federal debt will eat the Federal budget, leaving no room for the “entitlements” to be funded.  Should that happen, I wonder who I’ll meet at the battlements.  Granny with her shotgun, looking for her Social Security check?  A single mother with her “Saturday Night Special” looking for her Food Stamps?  I don’t know.  
        I’m a few days away from my Social Security entitlement age; and, I’m acutely aware that the SSAdministration favors the 357 for its security personnel.  
        Keep your powder dry!
    Mark

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    flybob MarkPA Tionico  I beg to differ with you a bit concerning militias.  The original text of the Constitution empowered Congress: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; [and] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress . . .”  While that text doesn’t authorize Congress to “infringe” on the militia, it grants so much authority over the militia as to constitute a serious threat to the militia.  This point was argued by the Anti-Federalists, to little or no avail.  The 2A bars “infringement” on the right-of-the-People.  The Heller decision makes clear that this right is, or at least includes, an individual right.  
      Whether this leaves us in disagreement on any specific point I’m not sure.
         We agree that we the People must stand our ground.  Our founding generation ultimately stood its ground on Bunker Hill and ultimately prevailed.  Eighty some years later Southerners stood their ground at Ft. Sumpter but did not ultimately prevail.
         What I worry most about is that our fellow citizens do not stand their ground on the 2’nd Tuesday of alternate Novembers.  
          If we fail to muster for an hour once every 2’nd year, then how could we possibly muster to meet tyranny with force?   Recognition of this fact leaves me in tears.  
           The body of possible law that might constitute “sensible” gun control is exceedingly small.  A body of law that might constitute tolerable gun control, just a bit larger.  
            So, you think I believe that America will survive the problems we have with government.  Allow me to disabuse you of this impression.  While I pray that it will survive, I see little-to-no-evidence that Americans will rise to the occasion in sufficient numbers to make that happen; at least, not at the polls and before a mind-boggling collapse.  
            I see a glimmer of hope from the pain and suffering inflicted by ObamaCare; but no more than a glimmer.  By some miracle, some sort of Tea Party majority might take control of Congress in 3 – 6 biannual election cycles.  For this to occur, Americans would have to wake up to Reagan’s point:  “Government is not the solution, it’s the problem.”
           It’s difficult to conjecture with any confidence what will set-off the powder keg.  I’ll offer you my guess.  The Fed is printing money at an astonishing rate.  I don’t understand why we have yet to see an outbreak of inflation.  It has to happen some day.  And, interest rates have to soar some day.  (I remember these rates from the Carter administration).  When (not IF) that happens, interest on the Federal debt will eat the Federal budget, leaving no room for the “entitlements” to be funded.  Should that happen, I wonder who I’ll meet at the battlements.  Granny with her shotgun, looking for her Social Security check?  A single mother with her “Saturday Night Special” looking for her Food Stamps?  I don’t know.  
        I’m a few days away from my Social Security entitlement age; and, I’m acutely aware that the SSAdministration favors the 357 for its security personnel.  
        Keep your powder dry!
    Mark

    • mickmcfarts

    • 10 years ago

    Salty old sea dog Droppin science on u savages!

    • mickmcfarts

    • 10 years ago

    Salty old sea dog Droppin science on u savages!

  3. Well stated. I have a number of questions/observations but I’ll stick to one for the time being: regarding compulsory firearms trading, would that be something mandated by federal law, state law, or otherwise. I personally think that one of the biggest problems with firearms regulation is excessive federal entanglement in an area that should largely be left to state legislatures (provided that they comport with the Second Amendment).
    I like the idea of encouaging/coercing gun owners to obtain training by restricting access to ranges, provided that the requirement is implemented by industry and not compelled by the federal government.

  4. Well stated. I have a number of questions/observations but I’ll stick to one for the time being: regarding compulsory firearms trading, would that be something mandated by federal law, state law, or otherwise. I personally think that one of the biggest problems with firearms regulation is excessive federal entanglement in an area that should largely be left to state legislatures (provided that they comport with the Second Amendment).
    I like the idea of encouaging/coercing gun owners to obtain training by restricting access to ranges, provided that the requirement is implemented by industry and not compelled by the federal government.

    • RobertIngram

    • 10 years ago

    I am a strong backer of the 2nd amendment, but you and I differ on several points.
    1.”I believe everyone who owns a gun should attend a basic firearms & range safety qualifications course and that these courses should be standardized”  I read this as Government in control of the training.
    2.”Dogs/handlers at schools and colleges are better than armed guards, in my opinion. Dogs are an incredible resource to use in these situations.”  REALLY??!!
    3. “I believe we should be able to http://thearmsguide.com/36/concealed-carry-should-you-carry/ and open-carry where practical (e.g., not on an elementary school campus or an airplane)” Practical to me might be different than it is to you.
    4. “Guns are guns and people should be able to own and obtain a permit to own everything, short of an anti-tank weapon or WMD, if they’re properly trained/certified.”  A permit from who?  The government. Trained by who,  again the government.
    No need to continue. You are not the man for the job in my opinion.

    • RobertIngram

    • 10 years ago

    I am a strong backer of the 2nd amendment, but you and I differ on several points.
    1.”I believe everyone who owns a gun should attend a basic firearms & range safety qualifications course and that these courses should be standardized”  I read this as Government in control of the training.
    2.”Dogs/handlers at schools and colleges are better than armed guards, in my opinion. Dogs are an incredible resource to use in these situations.”  REALLY??!!
    3. “I believe we should be able to http://thearmsguide.com/36/concealed-carry-should-you-carry/ and open-carry where practical (e.g., not on an elementary school campus or an airplane)” Practical to me might be different than it is to you.
    4. “Guns are guns and people should be able to own and obtain a permit to own everything, short of an anti-tank weapon or WMD, if they’re properly trained/certified.”  A permit from who?  The government. Trained by who,  again the government.
    No need to continue. You are not the man for the job in my opinion.

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    Brandon, I just got my ballot for the NRA election. I did not see your name on it. Can I put you down as a write in? If so I need your City, State and ZIP.

    • SEAL76

    • 10 years ago

    Brandon, I just got my ballot for the NRA election. I did not see your name on it. Can I put you down as a write in? If so I need your City, State and ZIP.

    • aggiehorsedoc

    • 10 years ago

    I agree with all of your points with the exception of concealed carry in schools. Those of us with loved ones working in a school and tied closely to that community might see things with a different perspective.  That said, I do think that cqb quals are necessary. Intense no bs, no free pass, or “good enough” qualifications.

    • aggiehorsedoc

    • 10 years ago

    I agree with all of your points with the exception of concealed carry in schools. Those of us with loved ones working in a school and tied closely to that community might see things with a different perspective.  That said, I do think that cqb quals are necessary. Intense no bs, no free pass, or “good enough” qualifications.

    • dicktahoe

    • 10 years ago

    RobertIngram #1and #4 YES, You read this wrong. There are several commercial standardized training courses available throughout the US, for example at “Front-Sight” near Las Vegas, NV.  Also, most courses that qualify a person to “Carry  Concealed” would meet Brandon’s requirements. These courses are given by qualified and certified individuals–not the government–and sanctioned by the NRA.  The Government, your local Sheriff, then issues the concealed carry permit based on your passing the final exam when you complete the course.

    #3 Practical is pretty easy to define–Right now it is the two places Brandon Mentioned, plus Government Buildings and Facilities, High-School campus unless approved by the Principal, any business or facility that posts a sign prohibiting concealed carry–Inside Starbucks, no problem!

    • dicktahoe

    • 10 years ago

    RobertIngram #1and #4 YES, You read this wrong. There are several commercial standardized training courses available throughout the US, for example at “Front-Sight” near Las Vegas, NV.  Also, most courses that qualify a person to “Carry  Concealed” would meet Brandon’s requirements. These courses are given by qualified and certified individuals–not the government–and sanctioned by the NRA.  The Government, your local Sheriff, then issues the concealed carry permit based on your passing the final exam when you complete the course.

    #3 Practical is pretty easy to define–Right now it is the two places Brandon Mentioned, plus Government Buildings and Facilities, High-School campus unless approved by the Principal, any business or facility that posts a sign prohibiting concealed carry–Inside Starbucks, no problem!

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    dicktahoe RobertIngram  Training is a tough issue we all ought to think about creatively.  MY base-line position is that the “common sense” training requirement is a lot like a literacy test prerequisite for voting.  Just as soon as our nation achieves a consensus on how to implement a literacy test then I’ll be open to discussing a training requirement in-principle.
     That said, training is a good thing but it is a “poll-tax” on people who have a right to defend themselves but don’t have lots of time and money to meet your personal standard or mine.  A young Philadelphia mother, Shaneen Allen, is facing 3 to 10 years as a guest of Gov. Christie because she ran an errand in Atlantic City 1 week after she got her PA Carry License and her gun.  She had been mugged twice and decided to (voluntarily) take her course, get a License and take personal responsibility for her defense.  Nobody mentioned to her that her License was NOT VALID in NJ.  
       It’s our (PotG) job to study this problem of training and come up with an effective solution.  The Anti’s won’t do so.  Legislators won’t do so.  It’s in our interest – in fostering good PR with the public – to solve this training problem.
       As an initial idea, suppose a State adopted a Shall-Issue law that required any qualified applicant to be issued a Carry-card; with no training requirement.  And, the State adopts a law prohibits public carry unless the carrier demonstrates knowledge of safe and responsible gun use and self-defense law.  Having passed a test prescribed by the State NRA affiliate (or some such organization) demonstrates knowledge.  
       Under such a proposal, the Carry-card is Shall-Issue on a Constitutionally-qualified basis.  The applicant/holder would be well-advised to pass the prescribed test before applying or after getting his card but before his muzzle/trigger etiquette is challenged by a fellow gun-owner or constable.  When he shows the Sheriff/Chief his test result his Carry-card gets an endorsement which would be a “free-harbor” as a demonstration of the requisite knowledge.  Within 5 – 10 years, almost all gun-carriers in such a State would take-a-course/self-study and pass the test.  It would be a matter of personal pride to show that we met the standards of our community (our State gun organization.)  
       I am NOT arguing for a course-tuition as a “poll-tax”; albeit most of us would seek class-room training.  Rather, I AM arguing that one should be able to pass-the-test after reading a study-guide prepared by the State gun organization.  
        The SCUBA-diving industry is an example worth studying.  In the US there is nearly-NO government regulation of SCUBA.  (Australia has government regulation.)  Industry-sponsored organizations have substantially standardized training requirements; and so, governments let these sportsmen self-regulate themselves.
        Most of us OFWG have the gun-handling rules pretty-well down.  Yet, I’m afraid, most of these same guys have very warped ideas about the rules-of-engagement in self-defense scenarios.  These rules are somewhat State-law specific; and, there is no satisfactory alternative to a State-specific training/study-guide.  
        I advance this proposal for 2 reasons:
    1. – good PR for gun owners in the public-eye of non-gun-users;
    2. – to prevent tragedies by self-defenders who find themselves in the fight of their lives before a jury of their peers.

    • MarkPA

    • 10 years ago

    dicktahoe RobertIngram  Training is a tough issue we all ought to think about creatively.  MY base-line position is that the “common sense” training requirement is a lot like a literacy test prerequisite for voting.  Just as soon as our nation achieves a consensus on how to implement a literacy test then I’ll be open to discussing a training requirement in-principle.
     That said, training is a good thing but it is a “poll-tax” on people who have a right to defend themselves but don’t have lots of time and money to meet your personal standard or mine.  A young Philadelphia mother, Shaneen Allen, is facing 3 to 10 years as a guest of Gov. Christie because she ran an errand in Atlantic City 1 week after she got her PA Carry License and her gun.  She had been mugged twice and decided to (voluntarily) take her course, get a License and take personal responsibility for her defense.  Nobody mentioned to her that her License was NOT VALID in NJ.  
       It’s our (PotG) job to study this problem of training and come up with an effective solution.  The Anti’s won’t do so.  Legislators won’t do so.  It’s in our interest – in fostering good PR with the public – to solve this training problem.
       As an initial idea, suppose a State adopted a Shall-Issue law that required any qualified applicant to be issued a Carry-card; with no training requirement.  And, the State adopts a law prohibits public carry unless the carrier demonstrates knowledge of safe and responsible gun use and self-defense law.  Having passed a test prescribed by the State NRA affiliate (or some such organization) demonstrates knowledge.  
       Under such a proposal, the Carry-card is Shall-Issue on a Constitutionally-qualified basis.  The applicant/holder would be well-advised to pass the prescribed test before applying or after getting his card but before his muzzle/trigger etiquette is challenged by a fellow gun-owner or constable.  When he shows the Sheriff/Chief his test result his Carry-card gets an endorsement which would be a “free-harbor” as a demonstration of the requisite knowledge.  Within 5 – 10 years, almost all gun-carriers in such a State would take-a-course/self-study and pass the test.  It would be a matter of personal pride to show that we met the standards of our community (our State gun organization.)  
       I am NOT arguing for a course-tuition as a “poll-tax”; albeit most of us would seek class-room training.  Rather, I AM arguing that one should be able to pass-the-test after reading a study-guide prepared by the State gun organization.  
        The SCUBA-diving industry is an example worth studying.  In the US there is nearly-NO government regulation of SCUBA.  (Australia has government regulation.)  Industry-sponsored organizations have substantially standardized training requirements; and so, governments let these sportsmen self-regulate themselves.
        Most of us OFWG have the gun-handling rules pretty-well down.  Yet, I’m afraid, most of these same guys have very warped ideas about the rules-of-engagement in self-defense scenarios.  These rules are somewhat State-law specific; and, there is no satisfactory alternative to a State-specific training/study-guide.  
        I advance this proposal for 2 reasons:
    1. – good PR for gun owners in the public-eye of non-gun-users;
    2. – to prevent tragedies by self-defenders who find themselves in the fight of their lives before a jury of their peers.

    • dbwii

    • 10 years ago

    These are good points.  I understand the perspective.  In a military setting, there is well disciplined and modern training available to every candidate.  In the real world, real training is what’s missing.  Look at Switzerland.  They train every school kid to handle a firearm and issue each a weapon when they graduate.  They have NEVER been invaded and have no standing Armed Force other than their militia.  We may need to follow suit.  For those of you who think “the government” should stay out of it, I remind you that the government is the body which furnished the “right” in the first place.

    Second, the bad shooter issue (particularly in schools) is a never ending problem.  How do you cancel this threat?  Screening, training and testing are helpful, but in my opinion incomplete solutions to a growing problem.  Elimination is more permanent and serves as a wholesale deterrent.  If armed individuals are in schools daily, trained to handle basic firearm threats, and willing to exercise their training, they would only have to ‘shoot back’ a few times and this problem would diminish dramatically in my view.  Teachers and administrators are prime operators.  Training is their line of work.

    Last is the NRA administration.  They are a political body of special interest advocates.  I have been a life member for 25 years.  The NRA has disappointed me, and, impressed me during that time.  The only positive change I expect in that organization is in its method of applying leverage on legislators.  Please focus if you are elected.  Who shoots?  Who shoots back?  Who shoots well?  Who wins?  Who benefits from shooting?  Who is educated?  Who represents the “militia?”  The NRA has to find and coordinate these people.  They are citizens, not subjects.  They vote!

    • dbwii

    • 10 years ago

    These are good points.  I understand the perspective.  In a military setting, there is well disciplined and modern training available to every candidate.  In the real world, real training is what’s missing.  Look at Switzerland.  They train every school kid to handle a firearm and issue each a weapon when they graduate.  They have NEVER been invaded and have no standing Armed Force other than their militia.  We may need to follow suit.  For those of you who think “the government” should stay out of it, I remind you that the government is the body which furnished the “right” in the first place.

    Second, the bad shooter issue (particularly in schools) is a never ending problem.  How do you cancel this threat?  Screening, training and testing are helpful, but in my opinion incomplete solutions to a growing problem.  Elimination is more permanent and serves as a wholesale deterrent.  If armed individuals are in schools daily, trained to handle basic firearm threats, and willing to exercise their training, they would only have to ‘shoot back’ a few times and this problem would diminish dramatically in my view.  Teachers and administrators are prime operators.  Training is their line of work.

    Last is the NRA administration.  They are a political body of special interest advocates.  I have been a life member for 25 years.  The NRA has disappointed me, and, impressed me during that time.  The only positive change I expect in that organization is in its method of applying leverage on legislators.  Please focus if you are elected.  Who shoots?  Who shoots back?  Who shoots well?  Who wins?  Who benefits from shooting?  Who is educated?  Who represents the “militia?”  The NRA has to find and coordinate these people.  They are citizens, not subjects.  They vote!

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    dbwii you said this:

    For
    those of you who think “the
    government” should stay out of it, I
    remind you that the government is the body
    which furnished the “right” in
    the first place.
    absolutely false. Our Founders knew well, and made it crystal clear, that ALL the rights “enumerated” (that is, named or listed) in the Bill of Rights are “natural rights”, given by God our creator, predate the Constitution, are not dependent upon that document or anything else, and cannot be removed by any force.
    WHY is this important? The entity that has the authority to “give” something also has the authority to “take away” that same thing.

    • Tionico

    • 10 years ago

    dbwii you said this:

    For
    those of you who think “the
    government” should stay out of it, I
    remind you that the government is the body
    which furnished the “right” in
    the first place.
    absolutely false. Our Founders knew well, and made it crystal clear, that ALL the rights “enumerated” (that is, named or listed) in the Bill of Rights are “natural rights”, given by God our creator, predate the Constitution, are not dependent upon that document or anything else, and cannot be removed by any force.
    WHY is this important? The entity that has the authority to “give” something also has the authority to “take away” that same thing.