Indiana Senator introduces bill for training requirements

[88GT]

If that is all you are taking from this discussion, you are missing the point. I have posed several direct questions to you in my other posts. Will you answer those?

I have taken the liberty of snipping the direct questions from my previous posts.

You have offered no justification for the existence of a law except for the existence of a law. To which I argue that that is no justification at all. Exhibit A: slavery. It was once legal to own and traffic in humans. Would you justify the law's existence by arguing that is was the law of the land and leave it at that? Or would you argue that it was immoral/moral, right/wrong, just/unjust on some other grounds?

So you do think that any law is acceptable just because it's the law? I just want to be clear on this. You'd be fine if tomorrow Congress re-institutes slavery and it clears the judicial review process all the way through SCOTUS?

Is it your argument that because a group of 9 individuals says that a law is not in violation of the Constitution that in fact that law is not in violation of the Constitution?

So, once again I ask: if Congress legalizes slavery tomorrow and SCOTUS upholds it, is it still your position that as the "law of the land" it is constitutional? If you don't like slavery because, then let's use something a little more gentle. If tomorrow Congress passes a law prohibiting the free practice of religion but for one (which one matters not), and SCOTUS upholds it, is it still your position that as the "law of the land," it is constitutional?

 

[SteveM4A1]

Katrina, I'm sorry but your arguments make 0 sense, for the reasons that have already been stated. You continue to state things that just blow my mind. I hope for your sake that you rethink your statements. Not only because you seem to lack understanding of case law, but your logic is also very scary and could lead to any number of problems for a free person.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I would argue the point, but I am so smart that the rest of you would be unable to comprehend what I said...

Please refrain from such pejorative inferences.

 

[Expat]

Please refrain from such pejorative inferences.

I am feeling offended but am not sure...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I am feeling offended but am not sure...

I know how you feel. I just wish I had the insight and intellect to figure it out for myself. Maybe I should consult a SCOTUS justice?

 

[Caleb]

I know who needs to be voted out

 

[88GT]

I know how you feel. I just wish I had the insight and intellect to figure it out for myself. Maybe I should consult a SCOTUS justice?

Well, they've been known to get things wrong.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Well, they've been known to get things wrong.

Huh? Are you telling me, just because they say so, it doesn't necessarily mean it is so?

I think I need to sit down for a moment....

 

[Rhoadmar]

Huh? Are you telling me, just because they say so, it doesn't necessarily mean it is so?

I think I need to sit down for a moment....

But you are just a commoner who can't possibly reach the intellectual and moral heights necessary to properly interpret obviously complex collections of written words. Someone will be along shortly to tell you how to think.

 

[Double T]

Remind me, which one of the first ten amendments protects one's right to drive a car?

I think it was you shall not covet your neighbor's smoking hot porsche. Could be wrong.

 

[KS1956]

Back to the original topic. The proposed Bill would require training as a pre-requisite to an LTCH. The objections seem to be overwhelming in this forum; however, you've already complied with the requirements for an LTCH, haven't you? Where was your rugged individualist objections to that restriction? Do you presently carry without a license? That would seem to be the only logical position of your views.

Where do firearms purchasers presently get their training? From family, friends, gun shop employees (who run the knowledge gamut from professional to neanderthalian)? Based on the topics and responses I've seen on this website and others, it isn't much of a stretch to imagine that this type of informational instruction is anywhere from superb to abysmal. Yet, you are quite happy to have the untrained or poorly trained walking into a deadly situation without knowledge of their rights, duties and responsibilities?

Indiana requires hunter safety education if born after 1986. Is there an objection to this requirement as well?

 

[bingley]

Where do firearms purchasers presently get their training?

Dude, don't you know that men are born knowing how to shoot, have sex, and drive? We don't need to learn nothin' from nobody. Any state-mandated training requirement just makes me feel like maybe the government found out something from my urologist on account of that there Obamacare.

We already have to do driving lessons. That's something we go along with so the girls won't feel bad, cuz they really can't drive. If they make us take shooting lessons, what next? Sex education? You have to apply for a license for that at the BMV, too?

 

[Rhoadmar]

Back to the original topic. The proposed Bill would require training as a pre-requisite to an LTCH. The objections seem to be overwhelming in this forum; however, you've already complied with the requirements for an LTCH, haven't you? Where was your rugged individualist objections to that restriction? Do you presently carry without a license? That would seem to be the only logical position of your views.


In order to protect whom I love, I have complied with the requirements for a ltch. I have also contacted legislatures to remove this infringement and recognize constitutional carry.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Back to the original topic. The proposed Bill would require training as a pre-requisite to an LTCH. The objections seem to be overwhelming in this forum; however, you've already complied with the requirements for an LTCH, haven't you? Where was your rugged individualist objections to that restriction? Do you presently carry without a license? That would seem to be the only logical position of your views.

Where do firearms purchasers presently get their training? From family, friends, gun shop employees (who run the knowledge gamut from professional to neanderthalian)? Based on the topics and responses I've seen on this website and others, it isn't much of a stretch to imagine that this type of informational instruction is anywhere from superb to abysmal. Yet, you are quite happy to have the untrained or poorly trained walking into a deadly situation without knowledge of their rights, duties and responsibilities?

Indiana requires hunter safety education if born after 1986. Is there an objection to this requirement as well?

KS, you'll soon find that most on this forum strongly recoil at the requirement of any LTCH or CCW permit but do so only because it is the law...not because they agree with its presence. If you follow the 2nd Administration thread, you'll see, at the start of almost every session of the legislature, the hope for "constitutional carry". Just because one complies with a law does not mean one agrees with it. If I'm already complying with a law I don't agree with, I surely do not support additional measures that will further impair my 2A rights.

You are responsible for your own actions. If you buy a gun, you are responsible for everything about it and its use. I don't think you'll ever see anybody on this site claim otherwise. Most take that responsibility extremely seriously and (speaking for myself anyway) do the best I can to live up to the responsibility that nobody is harmed by my firearms unless they're doing something to endanger my life or the life of another.

Gotta go.

 

[SteveM4A1]

KS, you'll soon find that most on this forum strongly recoil at the requirement of any LTCH or CCW permit but do so only because it is the law...not because they agree with its presence. If you follow the 2nd Administration thread, you'll see, at the start of almost every session of the legislature, the hope for "constitutional carry". Just because one complies with a law does not mean one agrees with it. If I'm already complying with a law I don't agree with, I surely do not support additional measures that will further impair my 2A rights.

You are responsible for your own actions. If you buy a gun, you are responsible for everything about it and its use. I don't think you'll ever see anybody on this site claim otherwise. Most take that responsibility extremely seriously and (speaking for myself anyway) do the best I can to live up to the responsibility that nobody is harmed by my firearms unless they're doing something to endanger my life or the life of another.

Gotta go.

This. Also Katrina, don't start a debate you can't finish. While we were going off on a tangent to the OP, you should still see the argument all the way through. Starting a debate, then inserting FALSE information and illogical arguments, concluding with not answering questions (and shown fallacies) in your argument, is a recipe for disaster, not only here but also in important decisions in the real world. People tend to leave an argument like this when they have no facts to support their claims.

P.S. You stated we didn't know our rights and that we haven't read case law, which obviously we have. Please check your knowledge at the door.

 

[KS1956]

Steve: You've added little to the discussion other than highly opinionated drivel. Please get back on topic or give mommy back her keyboard.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Steve: You've added little to the discussion other than highly opinionated drivel. Please get back on topic or give mommy back her keyboard.

There is a word used on the internet for people like you; it's called a troll. Troll on.

 

[KS1956]

You've done little more in 7 or 8 recent posts than criticize me. Nothing in those posts relates to the OP's topic. I'm sure you imagine yourself witty, but sniping on the net doesn't support your self image.

I find your comments boring.

 

[ATM]

Back to the original topic. The proposed Bill would require training as a pre-requisite to an LTCH. The objections seem to be overwhelming in this forum; however, you've already complied with the requirements for an LTCH, haven't you?

Yes, yes and yes.

Where was your rugged individualist objections to that restriction?

I still maintain my objections to that restriction.

Do you presently carry without a license?

No.

That would seem to be the only logical position of your views...

Then it seems logic is not your strong suit. What you described would be an illogical, emotional position.

Most logical folks don't violate laws simply because they object to them, and compliance with unjust laws does not equate to supporting their existence.

 

[KS1956]

It is one thing to be grumpy about the state of things. It is quite another to act on your beliefs.

Thoreau had something to say about this to Ralph Waldo Emerson.

I beginning to understand that many of you limit your civil disobedience to snarky remarks on a friendly forum.