I'm offended that they think open carry is offensive. [logical conclusions since they say concealed is more polite]Creek said:I've come to loathe the words "common sense".
If you take the dictionary definition of "common sense" literal we should be offended, and it makes perfectly clear sense why Obama is using it.Creek said:I've come to loathe the words "common sense". I can only think of Obama and those who want to take my rights away. I'd picked a very different name. I think most people will assume just from the name it's not good for gun owners.
common sense
noun
1. sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence.
This is not about open carry. This is about getting common sense constitutional carry passed. And again, it is aimed at the fence sitters, some of who don't much like open carry.D-FIN said:I really don't like their video and how they portray open carry and how this would help solve the problem of someone grabbing your gun or someone calling the police because they saw your gun.
Since you've thrown it out twice, I have to assume you're trolling for a discussion. I'll bite.bagpiper said:I trust nobody on this board needs any marketing to persuade them to support permit-free constitutional carry.
Charles
While I agree that you should take upon yourself the responsibility of being proficient with the battery of arms you choose to carry, I simply do not believe you can legislate personal responsibility. Every single accident that could be had with a firearm(that I can think of) already is illegal. For example the lady that killed a toilet in a school (LOL).quychang said:Since you've thrown it out twice, I have to assume you're trolling for a discussion. I'll bite.bagpiper said:I trust nobody on this board needs any marketing to persuade them to support permit-free constitutional carry.
Charles
No, I don't need any persuasion to support permit-free constitutional carry. Publicly I'll support it, and if it came to a referendum I would certainly vote for it.
Privately, and on a discussion board with like minded people, I will say that I do have some reservations. While it's true that anyone can open carry now, without a permit, they do have, and I know you'll hate me using "their word", some commonsense restrictions.
It makes me a little nervous to envision a world where people as clueless as my own family could buy a gun, conceal it, and walk around without restrictions. Not only does it worry me from a standpoint of public safety, but also for their safety as well. Without at least some familiarity with basic safe handling skills, the chances of injuring themselves or others increase exponential in my opinion. In the old west, if you didn't have a clue and you were foolish enough to draw on someone that did, you were rather quickly removed from the gene pool, and chances are at least a few would learn from your mistake. Now days, unless you have a badge, carrying a gun isn't permit free permission to practice Darwinism. Yes, if you're threatened you can defend yourself, but that said, someone I respect recently said "Every bullet that leaves your gun has a lawyer attached to it." I certainly don't want to be a test case for having shot someone that fumbled their gun out of their holster and pointed it at me because they noticed I was carrying a gun, or I looked like the guy that beat up their sister last night, or any of a million other misguided reasons that someone might have for pulling their gun.
So, I agree, it's our constitutional right to carry, and I wouldn't make any of these comments in a public forum. Privately, I think with rights comes responsibility. And I would not be overly offended if choosing to exercise the right to carry came with the condition of demonstrating some safety skills. I understand that the constitution doesn't have a "but" in the wording. I will, however, point out that it was a very different world. To some extent, surviving required having basic gun skills. Particularly if you lived outside the cities. The founding fathers wrote a document based on the world they knew, and I'm not advocating changes, I'm just making the comment that they were human. They may not have thought everything through, particularly with no fore knowledge of the world to come.
Mel
No argument there, but I don't think showing someone the basic mechanics of safety is out of line. There's a world of difference between the lack of commonsense and the lack of a clue. You definitely can't legislate commonsense, and you most likely can't teach it. However, if a person has any commonsense at all, you can give them a clue.J_dazzle23 said:Great in theory, but I just don't think you can legislate common sense.
I was actually using it more of a debating/rhetorical device than trolling for a response. But I do greatly appreciate your heartfelt explanation.quychang said:Since you've thrown it out twice, I have to assume you're trolling for a discussion. I'll bite.bagpiper said:I trust nobody on this board needs any marketing to persuade them to support permit-free constitutional carry.
No, I don't need any persuasion to support permit-free constitutional carry. Publicly I'll support it, and if it came to a referendum I would certainly vote for it.
Privately, and on a discussion board with like minded people, I will say that I do have some reservations. While it's true that anyone can open carry now, without a permit, they do have, and I know you'll hate me using "their word", some commonsense restrictions.
But our core responds well to rational arguments. We need the emotional language to get the fence sitters. We need to deny the use of that language to our opponents.DaKnife said:But if you alienate your core constituency you harm your chances of success. We on the pro-side are very hesitant to support anything labeled common sense, we will mistrust anything so labeled as having a hidden trap.
I guess there's something wrong in my head, because at first reading it made perfect sense. Going back and re reading it gives me a headache. :lol3:bagpiper said:I guess for me, the bottom line is that I'm less uncomfortable respecting the rights of others than I am with conceding government has just power to regulate or infringe those rights just so I am not uncomfortable. :nilly: :nilly:
And good luck properly parsing that sentence.
Charles
Actually, I dont have a big problem with states requiring a permit to conceal, or even to carry openly for that matter. I think that just as one needs to demonstrate an aptitude before being able to drive a car, fly a plane, operate a crane in the middle of the city, etc, it is not unreasonable to expect someone to go through some rudimentary training or at least demonstrate that you already have sufficient aptitude with a firearm before carrying one around. Both before and during my time as an RSO, ive seen people do too much stupid crap too many times with guns in their hands to be gullible enough to believe that left to their own devices, people will do the right thing and get training if they need it, and id rather not be the unfortunate statistic who ends up being "down range" when one of these idiots who doesnt even know how to hold a gun properly decides they need to fire it and misses their target.bagpiper said:I trust nobody on this board needs any marketing to persuade them to support permit-free constitutional carry.
Charles
Well, sadly, I stand corrected.gravedancer said:Actually, I dont have a big problem with states requiring a permit to conceal, or even to carry openly for that matter. I think that just as one needs to demonstrate an aptitude before being able to drive a car, fly a plane, operate a crane in the middle of the city, etc, it is not unreasonable to expect someone to go through some rudimentary training or at least demonstrate that you already have sufficient aptitude with a firearm before carrying one around. Both before and during my time as an RSO, ive seen people do too much stupid crap too many times with guns in their hands to be gullible enough to believe that left to their own devices, people will do the right thing and get training if they need it, and id rather not be the unfortunate statistic who ends up being "down range" when one of these idiots who doesnt even know how to hold a gun properly decides they need to fire it and misses their target.bagpiper said:I trust nobody on this board needs any marketing to persuade them to support permit-free constitutional carry.
Charles
I think that all states should be "shall issue" and not "may issue", but I dont have a problem with the need to have a state issue a permit. I dont have enough faith in most of humanity to think that the permits (or more correctly the training/education that they typically require) arent needed.
I wouldnt actually throw a fit at a requirement to demonstrate basic firearm competency as a prerequisite for owning a firearm either, though I admit that that might be due to my being taught such skills before I learned to drive.Doctor Jenks said:I agree that getting Training prior to carrying concealed or open carrying is a great idea, and there really is no arguing that the only way to ensure this happens is to make it a legal requirement before getting a permit. My problem with requiring training for concealed carry stems from the fact that it's also a great idea for anybody who buys or otherwise owns a gun to get Training. Once again, the only way we could ensure this actually happens would be to make it a requirement.
If we are going to require training for somebody to carry a firearm, which is basically just allowing them to have a firearm available to them outside their home, then wouldn't it also make sense to require training before owning a firearm in the first place? Slippery slope.
Edit: although to be honest, I also have the feeling of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" in this particular case. Utah's permit system works really well, and I'm not sure I feel any great urgency to change things at this time. However, this feeling isn't strong enough that I would vote against a Constitutional Carry bill if one were to come up.
I don't know if it's still the case, but back when Dodge Vipers were relatively new, if you purchased one, you were required to take a drivers training course. Yes, they would still sell it to you if you had the money, but if you wanted a warranty you took the class. I guess Dodge got tired of replacing racing clutches for clueless drivers.Doctor Jenks said:I agree that getting Training prior to carrying concealed or open carrying is a great idea, and there really is no arguing that the only way to ensure this happens is to make it a legal requirement before getting a permit. My problem with requiring training for concealed carry stems from the fact that it's also a great idea for anybody who buys or otherwise owns a gun to get Training. Once again, the only way we could ensure this actually happens would be to make it a requirement.
If we are going to require training for somebody to carry a firearm, which is basically just allowing them to have a firearm available to them outside their home, then wouldn't it also make sense to require training before owning a firearm in the first place? Slippery slope.
Edit: although to be honest, I also have the feeling of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" in this particular case. Utah's permit system works really well, and I'm not sure I feel any great urgency to change things at this time. However, this feeling isn't strong enough that I would vote against a Constitutional Carry bill if one were to come up.