Yearly Qualification

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: UberArchetype
Originally Posted By: Al
When did I indicate I wanted to take their gun rights? Answer: I didn't.

Wrong Answer - It was implied.

Umm..maybe to you.
 
Originally Posted By: UberArchetype


When a retired chief justice starts talking about repealing 2A, you better decide quick.


The operative word is retired his current opinion doesn't mean squat!
 
Originally Posted By: Recalculating
HR 218 is quite specific in requirements to take advantage of lawful carry of a concealed firearm in the United States. Any of us taking advantage of HR 218 to carry nationwide should fully review the requirements and since its been enacted for more than 15 years, review some case law too.

Of our experience of being LEOs and dealing with plain-clothed LEOs or criminals with firearms, we can appreciate and now understand how we must act as "only citizens" to protect ourselves in a dire situation and yield to uniformed LEOS when involved in a situation when firearms are present. Your life might depend on it.

Being a retired LEO who served also a WTO, it was important to mange your range safely, and just as important, provide the trainee with not only tactical firearm skills but the legal ramifications of the use of deadly physical force. Now as a citizen given a federal statue to allow such carry without indemnification to use of force, its best to think wisely in such carry and ensure any action you take is solely to save yourself or loved one from death or serious physical injury. DAs in any jurisdiction will be more than glad to use you as a re-election advertisement otherwise.

While we are discussing, ask any line level uniform LEO what HR218 is for retired LEOs or any training giving them information dealing with such carry and odds are they look at you if your nuts. I will still bet a retired cop from Georgia conceal carrying at 42nd and Lexington in NYC yielded handcuffs and time in a cell before some DA looked at his retirement ID, his yearly qualification card and review of the federal statue. And vice versa of some out of state LEO visiting another locale.



Spot on.
 
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
The operative word is retired his current opinion doesn't mean squat!

Yeah, that's the thing with opinions, yours included. The "opinion" problem for 2A comes in when enough influential people form similar opinions and then things get done. Anyone who does not see this writing on the wall at the current juncture as far as gun control is concerned has their head buried deeply in the sand.
 
Originally Posted By: UberArchetype
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
The operative word is retired his current opinion doesn't mean squat!

Yeah, that's the thing with opinions, yours included. The "opinion" problem for 2A comes in when enough influential people form similar opinions and then things get done. Anyone who does not see this writing on the wall at the current juncture as far as gun control is concerned has their head buried deeply in the sand.

People have been wringing their hands about this issue for as long as I can remember. All you have to do is look at the mape of the U.S. to see how wrong the hand wringers are. But hey..worry your life away.

http://www.hni.com/concealed-carry-resources-for-employers/concealed-carry-animated-map
 
Original poster here. Actually since I posted I've talked to some other retirees who saw some older guys trying to qualify who probably shouldn't have been there. Hopefully people should self regulate if age or conditions dictate.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
You will see an increase in bad things happening as older folks that carry and otherwise shoot/own guns develop Alzheimers.


Old people and firearms have been around for centuries. I've never read or heard anything statistical that proves, "bad things happening" in regards to old people handling weapons. Nor have I ever heard of an old person getting rid of their weapons, based on their age or physical condition.
 
Hey, if you can't trust them with a car, which many on this board agree with, then how can they be trusted to make the right decisions with a gun ?

All of you piling on Al is farcical...when it's just plain common sense to those who think, and as usual, people putting words in HIS mouth to strawman argument against...read what he SAID, not what you want to get inflamed about.

re amending...when enough people reach critical mass...isn't that how constitutional amendment happens ?

If it's the 2A...then clearly, someone thought it was a decent idea to change what was before it.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Hey, if you can't trust them with a car, which many on this board agree with, then how can they be trusted to make the right decisions with a gun ?

All of you piling on Al is farcical...when it's just plain common sense to those who think, and as usual, people putting words in HIS mouth to strawman argument against...read what he SAID, not what you want to get inflamed about.

re amending...when enough people reach critical mass...isn't that how constitutional amendment happens ?

If it's the 2A...then clearly, someone thought it was a decent idea to change what was before it.


Driving a car and owning or carrying firearms are not the same thing and the comparison is foolish. Driving a motor vehicle is a "privelege " and there is no mention of it in our Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms...well that's the essence of the 2nd Amendment. See how that works?
 
Originally Posted By: Toros
Driving a car and owning or carrying firearms are not the same thing and the comparison is foolish. Driving a motor vehicle is a "privelege " and there is no mention of it in our Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms...well that's the essence of the 2nd Amendment. See how that works?


Something was amended, through popular vote of one sort or another...it was changed.

See how that works ???

I wholly respect what you in the US have, and fully support your rights to keep and bear arms, and 2nd AMENDMENT rights...go back, check my record.

but for many on here to claim that stuff that happens is a mental health issue, that old people shouldn't drive cars, and then to pile in on Al, over what's a "mental health" issue...seriously ???
 
Originally Posted By: Toros
Driving a car and owning or carrying firearms are not the same thing and the comparison is foolish. Driving a motor vehicle is a "privelege " and there is no mention of it in our Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms...well that's the essence of the 2nd Amendment. See how that works?


He can't. He's from Australia. You know, the place where the government taught the people that guns and chop saws go together.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Toros
Driving a car and owning or carrying firearms are not the same thing and the comparison is foolish. Driving a motor vehicle is a "privelege " and there is no mention of it in our Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms...well that's the essence of the 2nd Amendment. See how that works?


He can't. He's from Australia. You know, the place where the government taught the people that guns and chop saws go together.


:yawn:
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Toros
Driving a car and owning or carrying firearms are not the same thing and the comparison is foolish. Driving a motor vehicle is a "privelege " and there is no mention of it in our Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms...well that's the essence of the 2nd Amendment. See how that works?


He can't. He's from Australia. You know, the place where the government taught the people that guns and chop saws go together.

laugh.gif
lol.gif
01.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Toros
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Toros
Driving a car and owning or carrying firearms are not the same thing and the comparison is foolish. Driving a motor vehicle is a "privelege " and there is no mention of it in our Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms...well that's the essence of the 2nd Amendment. See how that works?


He can't. He's from Australia. You know, the place where the government taught the people that guns and chop saws go together.

laugh.gif
lol.gif
01.gif



:yawn: ... you are in great company, with a bloke (?) who is quaking at his knees into compliance by his very own car owner's manual, but calls other countries sheep.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Shannow
... you are in great company, with a bloke (?) who is quaking at his knees into compliance by his very own car owner's manual, but calls other countries sheep.


So... You are becoming so desperate and aggravated stewing in your own juices, you want to compare a nation of free people that live with rights guaranteed them. And who use what the manufacturer of their vehicle recommends by choice, to remain within warranty..........

To mindless subjects who turn in their firearms out of fear, like housebroken puppies peeing on the paper. Seems appropriate for someone who is forced to live in such a backward stink hole, the only way they feel safe to oppose anything or anyone, is anonymously on the Internet. Think about that while you're shooting your single shot air rifle..... Until they take that away from you to, "make you safer".
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Shannow
... you are in great company, with a bloke (?) who is quaking at his knees into compliance by his very own car owner's manual, but calls other countries sheep.


So... You are becoming so desperate and aggravated stewing in your own juices, you want to compare a nation of free people that live with rights guaranteed them. And who use what the manufacturer of their vehicle recommends by choice, to remain within warranty..........

To mindless subjects who turn in their firearms out of fear, like housebroken puppies peeing on the paper. Seems appropriate for someone who is forced to live in such a backward stink hole, the only way they feel safe to oppose anything or anyone, is anonymously on the Internet. Think about that while you're shooting your single shot air rifle..... Until they take that away from you to, "make you safer".


:yawn:...
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow


re amending...when enough people reach critical mass...isn't that how constitutional amendment happens ?

If it's the 2A...then clearly, someone thought it was a decent idea to change what was before it.


I would like to address this misconception...common among people who don't understand our Constitution and how we came to have it...sadly, this includes many who live in America. Our Constitution didn't spring, fully formed like Athena, from the head of James Madison...

When we fought for our independence, through the use of arms, I might add, we existed as 14 colonies...13 banded together under the Articles of Confederation, while Vermont decided to remain an independent republic. The Continental Congress approved them in 1777.

The Articles of Confederation didn't work, however, for a variety of reasons, including an inability to levy taxes and raise funds to pay for the war...

In 1787, a meeting, now known as the Constitutional Convention, began to reconsider how to organize the Colonies, now called states, by amending those articles of confederation. It lasted for over a year. There was considerable debate, and in a very bold move, they closed the proceedings and determined to re-write everything...going way beyond their original scope and intention.

Once an approved framework was adopted, the Constitution, it was presented for ratification by the states, but many representatives were unhappy that specific individual rights were not enumerated. So, James Madison, who argued that the enumeration of natural rights was unnecessary, as they were so obvious, was given the task of adding a set of amendments to codify those rights.

He got over 250 suggestions from his fellow delegates.

He worked for six months, and drafted ten separate amendments, which were included with the agreed-upon Constitution for consideration by the States. It was adopted in 1788, and implementation took place in 1789, with the election of a new President, and Vermont joining the new Union that year, as the 14th (and first new) state.

The first 10 Amendments became known as the "Bill of Rights".

But while they are amendments, they are part of the original document that was sent out for ratification and approval. They've always been there. They pre-date the implementation of the Constitution.

The Constitution provides for future changes, and that's been done 17 times since, on notable issues, including prohibition, women's suffrage, term limits, senatorial elections, poll taxes and others. It is possible to repeal amendments, as clearly happened with prohibition.

But the process requires an overwhelming majority, it isn't easy to accomplish.

Incidentally, James Madison, a brilliant man, who spoke several languages and is often considered the principal architect of the Constitution, once said, "But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In forming a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

A challenge that continues to face us today, and is absolutely at the crux of most of our present political issues.
 
Last edited:
Not sure where you get your history
But the Constitution minus Bill of rights was oficially adopted Sept 13 1788
It was officially established as the law of the land June 21 when ratified by New Hamshire (9th state to ratify)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o...es_Constitution


The 10 amendments that are now known as the Bill of Rights were ratified on December 15, 1791, thus becoming a part of the Constitution.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-the-bill-of-rights
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top