taymoor
Skilled Lover
This is nothing like OSA. I see it as quite civil
Oklahoma Voters could decide fate of "Open Carry" gun law
- Thread starter KillShot
- Start date
This is nothing like OSA. I see it as quite civil
Burk Cornelius
Regular guy
I have talked to a handful of coworkers and they all said the same thing: "I don't want everyone running around with guns" What is odd is that they all used almost the exact same phrasing.
One of the main problems, as mention earlier is that the ONLY coverage that firearms ever get in the media is BAD coverage. It has been that way for so long that it has been ingrained (sp) in the majority's mind that guns=bad news.
We have a long row to hoe before we get where we want to be on this issue.
Burk Cornelius
Regular guy
Mitch Rapp
Well-Known Fanatic
Jesse I understand what you are thinking, but also see the dangers in giving the Gov, wether it's the state, or federal, the ability to grant rights. I have friends who I call "pop can plinkers" who have their CCL, and carry a gun. Can they shoot? sure, and I bet if the guy the need to shoot will hold a pepsi can over his vitals and stand still they will be just fine. Now, if they are moving, or if the target is moving and heaven forbid if there are "no shoots" around, then what?
The solution to the problem is not licensing, or gov required training, it is for each individual to realize he needs training. What would be great is if gun dealers could take the time with each customer to find out what they need, and give them a brief training, or direct them to where they can find it. But the individual still has to make the decision to go. There need to be more firearms classes. I really like the TDSA guys and what they do, but where is the cheaper, $50 intro to firearms class? This is a need, I have thought about starting one myself, but lack the resources. Not everyone can afford $400, and a 2k of ammo to shoot in a weekend. So there needs to be $50-100 classes that just get someone started, and pointed in the proper direction. Even then, only a fraction of people would take it, and that is the problem, no personal responsibility.
But it's not the gov job to "make" me responsible. Their job is to deal with me if I am irresponsible. It is my job to BE responsible.
The solution to the problem is not licensing, or gov required training, it is for each individual to realize he needs training. What would be great is if gun dealers could take the time with each customer to find out what they need, and give them a brief training, or direct them to where they can find it. But the individual still has to make the decision to go. There need to be more firearms classes. I really like the TDSA guys and what they do, but where is the cheaper, $50 intro to firearms class? This is a need, I have thought about starting one myself, but lack the resources. Not everyone can afford $400, and a 2k of ammo to shoot in a weekend. So there needs to be $50-100 classes that just get someone started, and pointed in the proper direction. Even then, only a fraction of people would take it, and that is the problem, no personal responsibility.
But it's not the gov job to "make" me responsible. Their job is to deal with me if I am irresponsible. It is my job to BE responsible.
DutchWrangler
Well-Known Fanatic
Hmmm... running around with guns. Seems as though there are already 60,000+ Oklahomans running around with concealed firearms. And the problem is?
One only need to look at Virginia to see the same efforts by those who already OC. The media continues to portray OC as evil and that only nuts want to OC (or CC for that matter).
The number one argument I hear from CC holders about OC... "I don't want the criminals to know I have a firearm." Either way it's all a crap shoot as when you're dealing with the criminal element. The odds are in favor of the criminal since the majority of Oklahomans don't carry any defensive weapon period. All they need to do is watch a person for a short while to see how they behave, whether they print, etc.
taymoor
Skilled Lover
jtischauser
I'm addicted to kicking ass
Cheap training is available if you want it. Heck coming to a match and asking questions is almost free. Will Andrews, Spencer Keepers, and David Elderton are all teaching class that dont require more than $100 in ammo and tution.
Mitch Rapp
Well-Known Fanatic
Well then, once again it's a problem of people taking the responsibility on themselves. I think with most people, it's a pride issue. Everyone knows how to shoot right? Some of the people I have invited to matches to test their skill look at me like I am insane, they already know everything they need to........
redneck1861
No, I didn't get arrested
I am pretty sure the 2A does not say anything about the right to carry said "Arms". From what I take from it, it is only guaranteeing us the right to keep said "Arms"
taymoor
Skilled Lover
right to keep and bear arms.
Bear, meaning to hold or to carry
Bear, meaning to hold or to carry
redneck1861
No, I didn't get arrested
I think someone ought to take this issue to the supreme court. I say that because wasn't it the supreme court that just had the westboro baptist church in court? They ruled that under the First Ammendment for freedom of speech, that they(WBC) can say whatever they want, even though it is hate speach, and their only goal when they protest is to incite a riot. But they were cleared and are still protectred by the 1A.
Now on to guns, the 2A reads " 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"
So what about the machine gun ban, or the ban on "Assault Rifles". The 2A does not say what kind of "Arms" we can keep and bear. Just like the 1A does not say what kind of speech is free. I believe that if they interepet the 1A word for word as it is in the Constitution, the 2A needs to be the same.
I think that someone could take it to the Supreme Court and say the Machine Gun ban of 1986 is UnConstitutional,
What do yall think?
Now on to guns, the 2A reads " 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"
So what about the machine gun ban, or the ban on "Assault Rifles". The 2A does not say what kind of "Arms" we can keep and bear. Just like the 1A does not say what kind of speech is free. I believe that if they interepet the 1A word for word as it is in the Constitution, the 2A needs to be the same.
I think that someone could take it to the Supreme Court and say the Machine Gun ban of 1986 is UnConstitutional,
What do yall think?
DutchWrangler
Well-Known Fanatic
Of course it violates the 2A. Since when has that stopped the central government?
As far as I'm concerned, the 2A explicitly requires that everyone should be a member of the militia in order to keep the state free. A prerequisite of many of the states before and after confederation was that able bodied men between the ages of 16 - 60 were to furnish and keep their own firearms and be ready to resist any standing army of a despotic government. Exemptions to bearing arms were permitted on religious beliefs. Thus if a free state requires a militia (a concept going back to ancient times) and a citizen doesn't own arms, that citizen is a threat to the freedom of the state.
Sam Adams warned, "The Militia is composed of Free Citizens. There is therfore no Danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them."
Of course you have modern idiots saying that the militia is the National Guard since they have no clue as to the history of the militia, which by it's virtue can not be under the control of any form of government, which the National Guard happens to be.
As far as I'm concerned, the 2A explicitly requires that everyone should be a member of the militia in order to keep the state free. A prerequisite of many of the states before and after confederation was that able bodied men between the ages of 16 - 60 were to furnish and keep their own firearms and be ready to resist any standing army of a despotic government. Exemptions to bearing arms were permitted on religious beliefs. Thus if a free state requires a militia (a concept going back to ancient times) and a citizen doesn't own arms, that citizen is a threat to the freedom of the state.
Sam Adams warned, "The Militia is composed of Free Citizens. There is therfore no Danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them."
Of course you have modern idiots saying that the militia is the National Guard since they have no clue as to the history of the militia, which by it's virtue can not be under the control of any form of government, which the National Guard happens to be.
