Quote:
Originally Posted by NineseveN
Futhermore, consider that if you support freedom only for yourself and those you deem to ‘deserve’ it, and only insofar as the limits that make you feel better about it, you’re not very pro-liberty. You may be “pro-gun” per se, meaning you’re not against the inanimate objects known as firearms, but you’re certainly not pro-Second Amendment if you think for one second that founders intended the government (of all entities), the majority or even you to get to decide who can and cannot or should and should not keep and bear arms. Clearly you don’t understand the intent of the Second Amendment, it’s not there to protect guns, it’s there to protect the people and their individual right to keep and bear arms as a means to fight tyranny when it attempts to circumvent the essential basis of this republic; freedom. It’s not about guns, it’s about freedom. The sooner you reconcile with that, the better off you’ll be.
With that in mind, let's see what others think.
|
I hesitated to reply to this thread because rightly or wrongly, I feel I've been stigmatized as being aligned with the notion of mandating training in order to obtain a LTC.
In fact at no time in any thread have I ever stated being in favor of mandatory training. What I have done is expressed concerns that there are a great number of people carrying who have poor gun handling and marksmanship skills and that it is only a matter of "when", not "if" an innocent bystander gets shot or even killed by an incompetent with a firearm.
I voted "I don't know" which has been my position all along.
I decided to reply after re-reading your post.
In particular,
" ......... you’re certainly not pro-Second Amendment if you think for one second that founders intended the government (of all entities), the majority or even you to get to decide who can and cannot or should and should not keep and bear arms. Clearly you don’t understand the intent of the Second Amendment, it’s not there to protect guns, it’s there to protect the people and their individual right to keep and bear arms as a means to fight tyranny when it attempts to circumvent the essential basis of this republic; freedom. It’s not about guns, it’s about freedom. The sooner you reconcile with that, the better off you’ll be".
Specifically, the notion of myself or my loved ones becoming "collateral damage" in the context of protecting the 2A is one thing.
However if it's due to someone with an LTC who is not exercising "extraordinary care" then that's another matter altogether.
I want those of you with children to ponder for a moment how *patrioitic* you'll feel if your child falls victim to an ND by someone with an LTC who doesn't know the muzzle from the breech.
To address the Founding Fathers and their reasoning, I've stated before that some two centuries later they would never have presumed that safe and proper gun handling, passed on from father to son, would become problematic in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.