Should state require training for LTCH?

[jeremy]

A lot, actually. I wouldn't want to go on a raid with a bunch of untrained gun owners, that's for sure. If you put your average untrained firearm owner in the same high stress situations, the outcome would be drastically worse.

Comparing what police do daily to what aveage joe gun owner does daily doesn't hold water. Unfortunately mishaps happen to both.

You do realize Untrained Gun Owners across the World have defeated some of the best Trained Military Units out there?!

From personnel experience of having shot in High Stress Situations with LEAs...
You can keep the Majority of LEOs far, far, far away from me when the High Stress part hits the Rotating part...

 

[Jack Ryan]

You are correct except for one thing. The employer cannot execute a search by force. You can refuse. The condition of that refusal can be grounds for termination, but you are not required by law to submit to the search.

Exactly.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Or in your house either.

When you drive your house on to my propety it becomes my business to what ever degree I decide to make it. If that's problem park it somewhere else.

 

[Jack Ryan]

A lot, actually. I wouldn't want to go on a raid with a bunch of untrained gun owners, that's for sure. If you put your average untrained firearm owner in the same high stress situations, the outcome would be drastically worse.

Comparing what police do daily to what aveage joe gun owner does daily doesn't hold water. Unfortunately mishaps happen to both.

How often to "untrained gun owners" go out raiding?

I'll stick with the untrained over the trained/brainwashed pumped full of smoke teams doing the raiding/governments bidding, every time. My friends in a time of need are going to be people who can think for their self not trained government automatons.

 

[Gabriel]

How often to "untrained gun owners" go out raiding?

My point exactly.

My friends in a time of need are going to be people who can think for their self not trained government automatons.

So, like, when zombies attack?

 

[Jack Ryan]

My point exactly.



So, like, when zombies attack?

Yep, just show 'em a little of what they are looking for and then dump a 50 gallon drum of gasoline on 'em while they are back slapping and high fiving each other in a big bunch.

 

[Eddie]

I am not here to tell everyone what they want to hear so I can get some ''rep'' points, I am here to state my opinion. Whether some agree with it or not.

Seems to be working.

 

[jbombelli]

No. I do not support any sort of training requirement to carry a firearm, although rudimentary handgun training is very highly recommended. I don't support a LTCH requirement either.

Nor do I support taking a required civics course prior to being allowed to register to vote, although taking a civics course is very highly recommended.

Nor do I support taking a public speaking class prior to giving a persuasive speech on a political topic, although taking a public speaking course is very highly recommended.




Once the government decides that you have to meet certain criteria in order to exercise your rights, they are no longer rights; they are privileges.

 

[thompal]

Nor do I support taking a public speaking class prior to giving a persuasive speech on a political topic,

Or a requirement that you must take tests in government and US history.

Once the government decides that you have to meet certain criteria in order to exercise your rights, they are no longer rights; they are privileges.

EXACTLY!

 

[Bill of Rights]

The ONLY positive thing to come out of mandatory training in Indiana would be that several more states would honor our license. Paying for a Utah license so I can carry in VA an WV where much of my family is, sucks on it's own level. I am pretty muched forced to have training anyway.

That being said, I would still vote against it in this state.........

I just went through the legal pages of 12 states, those being DE, KS, ME, MN, NE, NV, NM, OH, SC, VA, WA, and WV, because they are not among the presently-25 states other than IN which recognize our LTCH for the purpose of carry in those states. Of those 12, three (NV, NM, VA) are "Open Carry Gold" , seven (DE, KS, ME, NE, OH, WA, WV) are "open carry friendly", one (MN) allows OC with a license, like IN, and one (SC) does not permit OC at all, according to opencarry.org

So let's recap this: 25 states that allow carry restrict IN residents no more than they do their own people in the carry of a firearm.

Of the remaining 24, 10 (CA, CT, HI, IA, MD, MA, NJ, NY, OR, RI) do not allow carry by any except their own citizens. They recognize NO ONE else's state-issued permission slip at all.

Of the remaining 14, two (IL, WI) unConstitutionally restrict even their own citizens from carrying, though WI does permit some OC.

Of the remaining 12, most require some paraphrase of "equivalent or more stringent requirements than ours") which in most cases is a buzzword for "we require a training class". One (NV) requires a vision certification, one (WV) requires a reciprocity agreement, and one (WA) refuses to recognize any state that will issue their permission slip to anyone under the age of 21. WV and NV also have training requirements.

What does this all boil down to? We can lawfully carry a firearm in 36 states. Adding a training requirement to our law would potentially gain us CC in 10 of those and two others... or potentially not.

Changing our laws to accomodate those other states is no different from changing our laws to accomodate the Bradys, VPC, and Rosie O'Donnell. The only difference is the degree to which you wish to appease those who would enslave us. Do we also acquiesce to the vision test? What about to the age requirement? Do we stop issuing to anyone under 21 to appease WA?

Instead, I suggest that we are far better off making our laws (if we must) for our people, without regard to how someone else likes them. Parents, remember the answer you give your children when you're told that Tommy or Janie's parents let their children do something that you don't allow yours to do: They are not your parents! and likewise, the legislatures of those other 24 states (23 as of Jan, 2011) are not our legislators, nor have they the best interests of Indiana at heart. (It could be argued that ours do not either, however I'm not willing to call ALL of our elected representatives evildoers as yet. I do think that most of them have the best interests of the state at the forefront of their minds while in session, despite my disagreement with the conclusions so many reach.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[thompal]

however I'm not willing to call ALL of our elected representatives evildoers as yet. I do think that most of them have the best interests of the state at the forefront of their minds while in session,

Just out of curiosity, do you think that "most" elected representatives look out for the interests of "the state" or "The State?"

I agree that not ALL of our elected officials are evil, elitist, egotistical, power-hungry, statists. HOWEVER, to say that MOST are NOT I think is being overly gracious and optimistic.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Just out of curiosity, do you think that "most" elected representatives look out for the interests of "the state" or "The State?"

I agree that not ALL of our elected officials are evil, elitist, egotistical, power-hungry, statists. HOWEVER, to say that MOST are NOT I think is being overly gracious and optimistic.

I understand your question but the best I can do is clarify my meaning in the above: I meant that the elected reps look out for the interests of the state of Indiana as opposed to whichever other state from which a prospective legislator might hail and be elected to represent.

I am neither gracious nor optimistic when it comes to our (Indiana) elected reps. I simply look at them and realize that they are people and I believe most people to be inherently good, meaning that given a choice between kicking a kitten vs. simply ignoring it, I believe most would choose to ignore it. Likewise, I think that most of them make their voting choices based on what they feel is right, not on greed or avarice. I think that if they do ill, most of them do so because they are misled. There is one in each House that I believe votes strictly based on his own wishes and desires without concern for the harm he does. I cannot prove this but based on the speeches I've heard him give, I speak of Senator Tom Wyss (R-Ft. Wayne) and in the House, I refer based on his actions to Speaker Pat Bauer (D-S. Bend). I have no use for either of them and think the legislature would be greatly benefited by their removal (in disgrace, hopefully; in chains if possible.)

Both of these characters need to spend a long time in the unemployment line.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I simply look at them and realize that they are people and I believe most people to be inherently good, meaning that given a choice between kicking a kitten vs. simply ignoring it, I believe most would choose to ignore it.

I think you might be right, unless of course it was an ebak (evil black assault kitten)

 

[HICKMAN]

I'll solve the problem... mandatory 2 years service in the military from 18-20 years old

 

[Bill of Rights]

I'll solve the problem... mandatory 2 years service in the military from 18-20 years old

So you advocate mandatory government service... isnt that akin to slavery?

I understand the idea you're getting at and I agree that service would probably build a much greater sense of responsibility than a lack thereof, but I cannot advocate the use of the force of government to compel people to be responsible. "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." Unless all 18 year olds are convicted of a crime and can be denied liberty by due process...Good theory, poor execution of it. Find a way to make it voluntary and appealing so that people want to join and do so and we have a workable option... maybe that you can't vote or hold public office unless you've served? (Neither of those is a right, both are privileges of citizenship, though that would mean a Constitutional Amendment to redefine citizenship.... which involves it being introduced to Congress and passed by them prior to ratification by the People. Not sure we can make that happen.) The above is a suggestion as to a possible way to avoid trampling rights.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Chefcook]

I understand your question but the best I can do is clarify my meaning in the above: I meant that the elected reps look out for the interests of the state of Indiana as opposed to whichever other state from which a prospective legislator might hail and be elected to represent.

I am neither gracious nor optimistic when it comes to our (Indiana) elected reps. I simply look at them and realize that they are people and I believe most people to be inherently good, meaning that given a choice between kicking a kitten vs. simply ignoring it, I believe most would choose to ignore it. Likewise, I think that most of them make their voting choices based on what they feel is right, not on greed or avarice. I think that if they do ill, most of them do so because they are misled. There is one in each House that I believe votes strictly based on his own wishes and desires without concern for the harm he does. I cannot prove this but based on the speeches I've heard him give, I speak of Senator Tom Wyss (R-Ft. Wayne) and in the House, I refer based on his actions to Speaker Pat Bauer (D-S. Bend). I have no use for either of them and think the legislature would be greatly benefited by their removal (in disgrace, hopefully; in chains if possible.)

Both of these characters need to spend a long time in the unemployment line.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill As I always read your posts and think of you with the highest respect, However, I have to disagree with your thoughts on greed and avarice in our representatives. I think you try to see them at least somewhat as you are yourself. Therefore you lend them far more leeway than they deserve, as I see things nary a one, Sir, has your integrity.

 

[Eddie]

Bill As I always read your posts and think of you with the highest respect, However, I have to disagree with your thoughts on greed and avarice in our representatives. I think you try to see them at least somewhat as you are yourself. Therefore you lend them far more leeway than they deserve, as I see things nary a one, Sir, has your integrity.

I have found that most people see their values in others. We expect others to share our values and to act as we would act in a given situation. If you know someone who constantly thinks that others are stealing from him you probably know a thief and if you have a girlfriend that constantly suspects you of cheating she is probably a cheater herself. Bill thinks the politicians are basically well-meaning; that tells me something about Bill but not about politicians.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bill As I always read your posts and think of you with the highest respect, However, I have to disagree with your thoughts on greed and avarice in our representatives. I think you try to see them at least somewhat as you are yourself. Therefore you lend them far more leeway than they deserve, as I see things nary a one, Sir, has your integrity.

I have found that most people see their values in others. We expect others to share our values and to act as we would act in a given situation. If you know someone who constantly thinks that others are stealing from him you probably know a thief and if you have a girlfriend that constantly suspects you of cheating she is probably a cheater herself. Bill thinks the politicians are basically well-meaning; that tells me something about Bill but not about politicians.

Thank you both for your kind thoughts and words. Those things are important to me and that others see them (or not) is not my aim, but it is heartening to know. As for our elected, they start off just as any of us do. There is nothing magical about either Indianapolis or for that matter, the State House that would suddenly change them, any more than there is a magical line at the edge of a school campus that turns a good, honest, peaceable citizen into a raving homicidal maniac (nor vice versa) if s/he is armed.

I think those legislators we find who are greedy and avaricious, who are drunkards, who have no respect for the opposite sex and treat members of it solely as sex objects are rare and if they are any of those and also legislators, I suggest that they were so before they ever were elected. A thought I once heard and unfortunately, I have no attribution nor even context, so I will likely misquote it, but politics does not change people, it tests them. It does not cause their faults, it merely displays them.

I was going to quote here the story told of Col. David Crockett, once a member of the House of Representatives, however it seems that the story of his meeting with Mr. Horatio Bunce was a fiction. It's a good story, regardless, but it would be dishonest to portray it as truth after being informed otherwise.

Feel free to read the story, of course, and take its meaning, just understand that the character of Mr. Bunce is likely a creation of someone's imagination.

Not Yours To Give - Colonel Davy Crockett

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jsgolfman]

I don't think any man has a right to take my property, for any purpose. It's theft, whether a document legalizes it or not. I've read that story a few times, or it's variations at least. The thing that always struck me about it was, as I mentioned above, as long as the theft is authorized by the constitution, the taking is ok.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I think you might be right, unless of course it was an ebak (evil black assault kitten)

It's HALO Kitty 2010!