Monon Trail rant

[lashicoN]

if only those 613 would have had some kind of firearm safety course.....maybe this could have been 0

Just to bury this argument, and end the thread jack once and for all.

600 accidents a year with firearms.
10.2 MILLION accidents per year with automobiles.

Everyone has to have pass the test to get their license to drive. Safety and training courses do not eliminate accidents and the measly number of firearm accidents every year isn't even worth noting on a large level, when looking at the big picture of accidents/deaths every year.

Your argument, sir/madam, is officially dead and buried.

 

[DarkRose]

Just to bury this argument, and end the thread jack once and for all.

600 accidents a year with firearms.
10.2 MILLION accidents per year with automobiles.

Everyone has to have pass the test to get their license to drive. Safety and training courses do not eliminate accidents and the measly number of firearm accidents every year isn't even worth noting on a large level, when looking at the big picture of accidents/deaths every year.

Your argument, sir/madam, is officially dead and buried.

I gotta spread more rep around, someone hit lash for me would ya?

 

[CalebToNowhere]

Will the new law taking effect 7/1 make it legal to carry on the Monon?

Most Definitely.

 

[CalebToNowhere]

I gotta spread more rep around, someone hit lash for me would ya?

Rep'd

 

[jbombelli]

To all those who say they don't have a problem with requiring training in order to exercise our right to keep and bear arms, I say this: I think you should be required to have a degree in either Political Science or Public Administration before you're allowed to vote. Too many people are voting for fools who make promises they'll have no authority to keep, and are screwing up our country irreparably with their ignorance of how our government works.

 

[singlestacksig]

if only those 613 would have had some kind of firearm safety course.....maybe this could have been 0

yes, everyone who chooses to carry a gun should have training and practice often.. but the lack of training should NOT be a restriction on the right to have a gun..
Just as everyone who chooses to vote should be educated on the issues and canidates, but lack of that education can not be used to keep someone from voting..
There are many other avenues that the government could choose to take to educate the people on firearm safety instead of limiting a person from ownership / carry..

 

[ThrottleJockey]

This Monon rant reminded me of the youth mobs that have been popping up all over...I suspect it is based around some twitter crap or something......just try it around here.....The body count from one "event" should be enough to discourage any future mobs from taking place.

 

[KG1]

To all those who say they don't have a problem with requiring training in order to exercise our right to keep and bear arms, I say this: I think you should be required to have a degree in either Political Science or Public Administration before you're allowed to vote. Too many people are voting for fools who make promises they'll have no authority to keep, and are screwing up our country irreparably with their ignorance of how our government works.

Exactly! An uneducated populist voting public is far more dangerous and destructive in the grand scheme of things IMO. Repped

 

[lashicoN]

To all those who say they don't have a problem with requiring training in order to exercise our right to keep and bear arms, I say this: I think you should be required to have a degree in either Political Science or Public Administration before you're allowed to vote. Too many people are voting for fools who make promises they'll have no authority to keep, and are screwing up our country irreparably with their ignorance of how our government works.

Furthermore, if one fundamentally believes that the government ought to be able to molest the BoR, to the point of mandating that free people have to complete a training/qualification course prior to being issued a license to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, shouldn't they also believe that the government ought to be able to molest the BoR to the point of mandating that free people have to complete a free speech training course prior to being issued a license to speak freely on the internet, complete with the Bureau of Communications and a Federally issued user name/password?

 

[Shay]

if only those 613 would have had some kind of firearm safety course.....maybe this could have been 0

I'm obviously a huge advocate of training.

Maybe I missed where you posted it, but will you tell me what firearms training you've taken? PM me if you don't want to post it publicly.

 

[SirRealism]

STOP FEEDING THE TROLL

^^^^^^ What he said. ^^^^^^^

 

[PatriotPride]

Obviously it is not illegal for them to do so......they do it everyday!!!!

And if you are looking for another skinhead to join your militia...I know a few good guys for you... Just PM me

And no there is not half freedoms but there is common sense and it should be used when handing out permits. Quoting 2nd amendment from 200 years ago just doesnt fly in todays society of drug addicts and criminals, and just plain dumbarses.....

Enjoy your negative rep. Skinhead? You are out of line.

So in your opinion, the Constitution doesn't apply to us because it is old? You're on the wrong side of the bridge as far as I'm concerned.

 

[96firephoenix]

And as far as carrying a tool for self defense......you should have that with you at all times!!! On top of your shoulders.

a barrel shroud? I wonder how many people will get that

 

[ThrottleJockey]

a barrel shroud? I wonder how many people will get that

It's the shoulder thingy that goes up, right?

 

[thompal]

No you cant control the environment but you can control the individual that has a right to carry. and no matter how you want to bring in officer rounds hitting houses.....those stories do not out number the idiots that shot themselves or their children while cleaning an unloaded gun.
Everytime one of them stories hit the news....it is a hit to our rights and a feather in the cap to a democrat....

Why is it that trolls always clamor for more government control, restrictions, limitations, and laws, and THEN claim to want to avoid "a hit to our rights?" I'd say that if you willing give up your rights, and urge everyone else to give up theirs to in order to satisfy some hoplophobic fantasy world of yours, then there should be no fear of more government regulation. You advocate voluntarily surrendering your rights. Why should we fear the government's intentions, when there are rabid anti-Constitutionalists among the citizens?

 

[thompal]

An untrained man with a gun scares me more than a criminal ever will..quote]

Then you are not a rational person.

Total crimes in US: 11,877,218
Total accidents involving firearms: 613

Why would you expect rationality and logic from an anti-gunner?

 

[thompal]

if only those 613 would have had some kind of firearm safety course.....maybe this could have been 0

Gosh, maybe if we start requiring people to take driver's education courses, and take tests before they get their drivers license, we can reduce car accidents to zero!

Just think, we could have reduced highway fatalities by 58,000 every year if only YOU had been in charge!!

If only doctors were required to attend some school, and take tests, there would be no more "medical misadventure."

 

[thompal]

^^^^^^ What he said. ^^^^^^^

But, they're fun to watch, and very entertaining. If you don't feed them occasionally, they get hungry for attention and go elsewhere.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Gosh, maybe if we start requiring people to take driver's education courses, and take tests before they get their drivers license, we can reduce car accidents to zero!

Just think, we could have reduced highway fatalities by 58,000 every year if only YOU had been in charge!!

If only doctors were required to attend some school, and take tests, there would be no more "medical misadventure."

Still trying to figure out which side you're supporting...

 

[Timjoebillybob]

in your way of thinking and using the 2nd. the way you are even a bg deserves the right to bear arms. I would hope you disagree with this but if you do, that is a bit hippocritical. you have to admit, not all people are level headed enough to bear arms. and therefore should not be allowed!

If a person has served their time and been released, yes their right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon. Same as the rest of their rights.

I'll agree there are some people who probably shouldn't be carrying firearms, but it is their right to do so.

Obviously it is not illegal for them to do so......they do it everyday!!!!

And there are people out there who mug and steal everyday. So by your logic, theft and assault must be legal.

Do you view each and every one of them as a potential threat as they approach? Are bad guys going to "telegraph" their intent from 20 yard up the Trail, or are they going t o wait until they can put "hands on" before revealing their sinister motive? I personally have never carried on the Monon, off-duty, but then again, I don't travel it in the less than desirable areas.

And what about the other "normal" people that travel the route? Will this affect their enjoyment of the Monon? Will they think that criminals and wannabee vigilantes will now descend upon their Sunday afternoon walking excursion, and thus avoid it all together? My gut tells me yes.

Do you view each and everyone of the people you come in contact with on the job a threat? If so, what's the difference? If not, what's the difference?

There are things people do in public I don't like, but it's legal and in quite a few cases their right to do so. I have no right not to be offended, if I don't like it I can leave, or put up with it.

i guess i am becoming more anti second ammendment.

You actually said something I can agree with.

For example (for the peanut gallery): If the ability to purchase a firearm was basically a free for all, where any person could by a weapon anywhere, without oversight, where does the "well regulated" part come in? The framers obvious, intentionally, placed that phrase in the text, so in what way could that possibly mean?

Well regulated could mean a couple of things, one being under control. Which is a valid viewpoint, if your talking about when the militia is called up. Another is functioning as intended, what is the function of the militia? One of the functions is protect the country from foreign enemies, tanother function was used a few years before that was written to secure our freedom.

I guess I just dont see the problem of making sure someone has training and has enough sense to carry a weapon is infringing on the second amendment. you still have your right to carry but must prove you are capable of doing so, without becoming a threat to the security and safety of others.

How many people have been killed over words? Or religion? I guess you don't see a problem with making sure someone has proper training before they are able to engage in free speech, along with going through a background check, and paying a fee for a license to speak freely in public, oh and having another check ran every time you choose to speak a new word.

Or freedom to assemble, look at all the damage the flash mobs have done recently up in cago and elsewhere. There goes that right.

Or having proper training before you can join a religion, and background check/permit etc. And if you want to start your own religion......

With just how bad meth labs are for the neighbors health, I guess the 4th amendment is out the window also correct? Heck even if your not making meth, which I wouldn't place any bets on. I know I have lots of hazardous chemicals around my house and garage. So I guess the state should be able to come in anytime they want without a warrant. Because not everyone is capable of storing them safely.

Shall I go on?

That's a pretty large leap, implying "regulated" as having the same meaning as "equipped." Check out what Alexander Hamilton believed "well regulated" meant. Further, the word militia is also used in the amendment. Do you believe that, as used in the Constitution, it had different meanings?

I don't believe it had different meanings, but read the Heller decision. There are two clauses in that amendment. A prefactory clause and an operative clause. The prefactory clause (militia) is the reason for the operative (shall not be infringed.

Also pay attention to the phrase the right of the people, notice it says the right of the people, not the right of the militia. Do you believe that, as used in the 2nd Amendment, it has different meanings than elsewhere in the Constitution?