Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Guess so. Probably an impasse, then.I guess we all have different opinions about that.
Guess so. Probably an impasse, then.I guess we all have different opinions about that.
Not only is it good for our cause PR wise, it makes our country safer.
coolluke01 said:Although the cost of getting caught with a illegally carried handgun are steeper because of the licensing procedures we have.
coolluke01 said:Should the Fed mandate standardized training?
Should it still be up to the states to decide the procedure and training requirements?
Do you want untrained hillbillies carrying in your state?
What are the requirements in your state?
Do you want untrained hillbillies carrying in your state?
Crime boss! Wow that's great. I didn't know that.
I can see how a system like this could be for the benefit of those that control the law. I would say that good laws can only be good if those that enforce them are not corrupt.
I know that the criminals may not really care. Although the cost of getting caught with a illegally carried handgun are steeper because of the licensing procedures we have.
I think my friend from MS with his piece of paper handed to him could be a very dangerous thing. Fees ok maybe they should just pay for them from the money the state gets from me in taxes, but I think training is a good thing.
I know people that should never carry guns. Their attitude, law breaking activities, general disregard for most law. They wouldn't even think of carrying a gun without a license. They would be too afraid of getting caught and suffering the penalties. Laws do deter. Saying the criminals will carry no matter what is a defeatist thing to say.
I think we may have moved from PR of OC vs CC to procedures of states good or bad. Can I encourage a course shift?
What do you guys think? Should the Fed mandate standardized training? Should it still be up to the states to decide the procedure and training requirements? What about the Fed reciprocity act? Do you want untrained hillbillies carrying in your state? What are the requirements in your state?
I pay these fees so that the Gov can weed out the people that would use a CC to do harm.
Sam1911 said:ONE more time: "That's fine, but we're trying to stick to the PR angle here."
Yeah, yeah. You know how many threads we've had on the tactical, er...strategic?, issues. They tend to all go the same way.Oh, come one Sam, you mean we can't post the facts that disprove the unsubstantiated theories? Dang it.
Sam1911 said:Yeah, yeah. You know how many threads we've had on the tactical, er...strategic?, issues. They tend to all go the same way.
This one has had a different focus that we can dissect and debate the merits of but only because we didn't get wound up over "element of surprise" -vs.- "element of deterrence" etc. I'm sure there are one or two (dozen) threads we could reawaken to jump back into that argument.
Our government provides services to us. One is protection. These things cost money. ... Do the criminals pay for the police force? Those that want the protection have to pay.
Yeah, yeah. You know how many threads we've had on the tactical, er...strategic?, issues. They tend to all go the same way.
This one has had a different focus that we can dissect and debate the merits of but only because we didn't get wound up over "element of surprise" -vs.- "element of deterrence" etc. I'm sure there are one or two (dozen) threads we could reawaken to jump back into that argument.
coolluke01 said:Our government provides services to us. One is protection
Supreme Court said:fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.
It also helps weed out the people that will do stupid things with guns which would really hurt our cause.
taraquian said:I have OC'd and have noticed that as has been mentioned your looks,and the looks of your gun, have more to do with theperception than the fact there is a gun exposed.