right, rarely

I will play out the scenario amongst americans

madman a walks in and starts shooting,, few people actually SEE the intial shots fired,,

legally armed citizens pop up with their guns out desiring to shoot the madman,, but,, WHICH armed person was the INITIAL gun man?

so I shoot the first person I see shooting, who happens to be shooting at the shooter,, or I see several people with guns and wait til any of them fire to fire, but perhaps I catch the one who is shooting at the shooter?,,,

,,see how this isnt as SIMPLE, when EVERYONE is armed,,? Figuring out the ORIGINAL perpetrator when the first shots arent witnessed?

right, rarely

I will play out the scenario amongst americans

madman a walks in and starts shooting,, few people actually SEE the intial shots fired,,

legally armed citizens pop up with their guns out desiring to shoot the madman,, but,, WHICH armed person was the INITIAL gun man?

so I shoot the first person I see shooting, who happens to be shooting at the shooter,, or I see several people with guns and wait til any of them fire to fire, but perhaps I catch the one who is shooting at the shooter?,,,

,,see how this isnt as SIMPLE, when EVERYONE is armed,,? Figuring out the ORIGINAL perpetrator when the first shots arent witnessed?

It's sure not hard to tell YOU have never been in such a situation!

For one, any RESPONSIBLY armed and aware citizen knows a situation before they take action. Until the point you HAVE the knowledge of the situation your actions are ALWAYS those of defense, NOT offense!

and how would we ensure the 'responsibly' part? let alone assume what they 'know',,?

Because of laws and requirements already in place for carry permits, registration, and ownership

Anyone not practicing them would be the ones liberals want to support by victimizing the legal carriers

like the laws and requirements in place for having a car and drivers license? though thats better than nothing, it sure doesnt seem to alleviate all the idiots who continue being idiots after that one day they receive a document or two,,

Unlike driving a car, there's rarely a 2nd chance when you screw up under a firearm violation

besides,Driving a Car isn't enumerated as a Right in the Constitution!
I really wonder why the Liberals continually bring up that lame smelly Red Herring?

itactually not a red herring at all , those are irrelevant tangents

unlike here, where an assertion was made that laws and requirements in general can be trusted to ensure that people behave safely and responsibly

laws and requirements became the topic,, for which guns and vehicles are common examples,,,

Car still smells like a Red Herring!
Since Individual Rights haven't originated with you nor the State,what makes you believe you have a "right" to infringe on the Rights of others?

The biggest problem with this belief (and I happen to agree with it IF, and ONLY IF stricter gun laws were implemented (see below)) is the fact that 99% of people carrying concealed do not have any experience, practice, etc with their weapon. Very few states require anything more than a criminal background check and maybe a few hours in the classroom learning about gun safety. Texas is one example of where you are required to show proficiency, but like it was mentioned above, that is a one time shot (pun not intended) and you are allowed, what I consider, to be an extremely large margin of error. Tennessee has the best laws I have seen regarding firearms, so far and they pretty much mimic (and more) what I am going to write next...

As a military Veteran, who has hands on experience with various weapons of differing caliber, we had to show proof of ability at a minimum of once a year; failure to qualify on the range could result in you being discharged from the military under general conditions. With this being the case, ANYONE wanting a license to carry (concealed or not) should have to follow the following steps, NO MATTER WHAT:

1. FEDERAL AND STATE criminal background checks
2. Physical from your doctor, stating that you are BOTH,
physically capable of handling the weapon without accident AS
WELL AS MENTALLY responsible and capable. If you have certain
mental health diagnoses, that should be a mandatory 10 year
minimum ban on owning a firearm.
3. 80+ hours classroom training on when and how to use your
firearm, as well as safety, storage, marksmanship, etc. You
should be required to qualify on the range both in a standing
position AND in a prone position (laying on the ground), with no
more than a 10% miss rate.
4. Mandatory annual range qualifications equal to your initial,
meaning that at least once a year, you have to go to the range
and requalify with your weapon; YOUR weapon, not a range weapon.
Your results are notated in a Federal database; if you failed,
you have to take a refresher course on the range and qualify
again, within say, one month. Failure to do so, or second fail
on the range, means the range instructor confiscates your
weapon.
5. Finally (and again, these are just MINIMAL standards), by
applying for and receiving your carry permit, you are tacitly
agreeing to use your weapon for Civil Defense, if the need
should arise, up to and including agreeing to being temporarily
deputized in a given situation.

Yes, we have a right under the second amendment to own AND CARRY firearms (within reason). but with this right, comes responsibility, and you need to accept that responsibility, or choose to not exercise your right to own and carry.


edit: I forgot to mention that you should also be required to go through the classroom training every so often as well (I personally think it should be every four or five years, minimum)

Don't try mincing words. you know as well as I do that requiring certification is not infringing upon OR denying a person their rights.

You have the right to breathe (a GOD given right that nobody can deny); however, you do NOT have the right to breathe the air inside the center of a naval base unless you have the proper security and authority to be there.

You have the right to feed yourself enough food to survive; you do NOT have the right to dine on shrimp, lobster and steak.

You have the right to defend yourself; but inmost states you do not have the right to use lethal force unless there is absolutely NO other possible option, and even then there are some states that you are still going to prison for manslaughter if you kill someone in justifiable self defense.



YES, the second amendment assures every FULL CITIZEN the right to bear arms in defense of himself or his country. But what you are failing to grasp is the adjective used prior to the word citizen: "full". The constitution makes it very clear that not all citizens are considered to be full citizens; meaning that they do not have 100% of the rights afforded to a full citizen. Take children for example (and any adult that has been deemed incapable for caring for themself)...

until you turn age 18, or a court of law recognizes you as an adult (emancipation), you ONLY have the right to basic human rights. Those are:

1. The right to be heard (not the same as free speech); meaning if you have a problem, you have the right to address it.

2. The right to basic shelter from the elements.

3. the right to a basic education

4. the right to adequate food and medical care

5. the right to a safe environment to live (this does not mean you can not
be living int he ghetto as a child).

6. the right to basic respect and protection by those who are responsible for
you.

7. You have the same miranda rights as an adult if you come into conflict
with the law, with the addition that you have the right to have your
parent with you for all questioning.


As a non adult, you do NOT have the right to free speech; freedom to assemble; freedom to bear arms (with limited exceptions), or any number of other freedoms and rights that a full citizen has. This is because a child is considered a partial citizen until they reach the age of majority.

The same thing goes with the second amendment. You have the right to bear arms; but it is not denying you that right if you have to show competency, both mental and professional. if you are a convicted felon, more likely than not, you will never be a full citizen again for the rest of your life, and one of the rights you lose is the second amendment. Another right is the right to vote (which Idont happen to agree with but that's the way it is).

lol, let me ask yuo this since you believe the government has no authority over personal "rights"...

1. who wrote the constitution?
2. who wrote the amendments to the constitution?
3. who continues to decide what the constitution means and what is "garunteed"
under personal rights?
4. Who decides what amendments to pass today, and which ones do not get amended?
5. What happens when the government decides to strip the second amendment from
the constitution or simply rewrite it?


For anyone who actually doesn't know (and sadly that's 95% of our children in today's country), the answer to the first four questions is the same: Our government.
To respond to my final question, what will happen when...? There will be Civil War again; you and I both know this. But what you seem to be delusional about is the fact that when all is said and done,the Government is the one who decides what rights you have when the day is said and done. You may fight it when they take one away, but that doesn't mean it was not taken away. nor does it mean that you are not violating the law if you do what they claim is no longer a right.

When we refused to pay taxes to the British prior to the Revolutionary War, we broke British law. When we fired upon British soldiers and authority figures, we became treasons. Just because you do not agree with it, just because you do not like it, does not mean the law is not valid. You had best hope that it never comes to a show of force, because you WILL hang at the end of it as will many thousands of other Americans who fight the govenrment for their rights.

itactually not a red herring at all , those are irrelevant tangents

unlike here, where an assertion was made that laws and requirements in general can be trusted to ensure that people behave safely and responsibly

laws and requirements became the topic,, for which guns and vehicles are common examples,,,

lol, let me ask yuo this since you believe the government has no authority over personal "rights"...

1. who wrote the constitution?
2. who wrote the amendments to the constitution?
3. who continues to decide what the constitution means and what is "garunteed"
under personal rights?
4. Who decides what amendments to pass today, and which ones do not get amended?
5. What happens when the government decides to strip the second amendment from
the constitution or simply rewrite it?


For anyone who actually doesn't know (and sadly that's 95% of our children in today's country), the answer to the first four questions is the same: Our government.
To respond to my final question, what will happen when...? There will be Civil War again; you and I both know this. But what you seem to be delusional about is the fact that when all is said and done,the Government is the one who decides what rights you have when the day is said and done. You may fight it when they take one away, but that doesn't mean it was not taken away. nor does it mean that you are not violating the law if you do what they claim is no longer a right.

When we refused to pay taxes to the British prior to the Revolutionary War, we broke British law. When we fired upon British soldiers and authority figures, we became treasons. Just because you do not agree with it, just because you do not like it, does not mean the law is not valid. You had best hope that it never comes to a show of force, because you WILL hang at the end of it as will many thousands of other Americans who fight the govenrment for their rights.

So more laws and restrictions will help