Scratch another gun business off the friendly list

Felid`Maximus said:

I believe that no such class should be required, but I am open to firearms training in school.

Click to expand...

Bingo, Felid Maximus nailed it. I stated earlier that I would be willing to concede to training, but that the concept breaks down because it is effectively a permit system. Felid stated exactly what I couldn't quite put my finger on. Yes, this is the best answer I have heard.

I think I should elaborate, though, on why I am agreeable to training in such a manner. It is actually to *protect the agenda* of constitutional carry. See, If you support constitutional carry, then you are cautious to separate upstanding citizens from thugs and hooligans. If we don't carefully delineate ourselves from the animals, then the media will lump us all together, for convenience, which ultimately harms the cause.

For example, right now, anecdotally, we can say "Anyone who has gone through the the CCW permit process is far less likely to be involved in a shooting than someone who carries a gun without having completed that training." Why, because the person who took the class is NOT likely to be a gangbanger. It's the same logic that we already know, but from a different angle. A person with a gun who shoots another person is a "gunman". A person who was properly trained and legally armed who shoots another person is a "citizen who used deadly force to protect his safety". It is valuable to our agenda to keep that delineation.

With that said, I am not saying that I support the permitting process, I hate it, I think it is silly, BUT, I do support having ways to be sure that our agenda of constitutional carry doesn't get F'd up by some asshat that holds his gun sideways. I am NOT for more bureaucracy, paperwork, permitting, etc. I am in support of proper education and training. I LOVE Felid's idea, and that to me, is what I meant when I said that I would be willing to concede this point, I just couldn't put my finger on it. I think such a thing would be GOOD for the agenda, not even a concession, really. The best kind of concession is the one that in fact isn't.

While we are on the topic of education, how cool would it be if this suggested k-12 educational component also included learning to Reload, and some basic survival skills? Imagine an entire generation of HS Grads that were well versed in such topics. How would that change the political climate in the country WRT firearms, and such? Mmm, now you got me thinking..

Firearms training should be done by the parents. Mandating that parents train their kids in the safe handling and use of firearms is anti-liberty.

The Founders envisioned, I believe, that the liberty to exercise our rights must be free from government interference.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Click to expand...

The singular focus of these words should be self-evident. In my view, the citizen is the final arbiter of how and when they exercise their liberty. A government instituted by men must never be permitted to place any qualifier on the free exercise of our rights. This includes compulsory firearms training.

Now, if firearms training were a elective, paid for by the parents and not my tax dollars, go for it.

My definition of constitutional carry is that the citizen and the citizen alone decides whether or not to carry and the method of carry. The government must not have any involvement with the right to keep and bear arms....ever.

Take a look at Arizona. Quote:

Read it all here:
http://www.gunlaws.com/HighSchoolMarksmanship.htm

OK, So here is how I see it. Yes, all people who own guns should be trained how to use them period.

Now, who should train them?

Well lets see, my grandfather trained my father, my father trained me and had me attend a hunter safety course when I was 12 yrs old, and I trained my wife, daughter, and son. I also had my daughter attend a hunter safety course when she was 12 yrs old and my son will too when he turns 12 yrs old.

This is something that the government has NO BUSINESS regulating.

We've already got such a nanny state now, to give them one more power is just one more step to complete socialism.

We need to get back to family values and teaching our own wives, children, or other family members these life lesions and not expect the government to do it for us.

JM2C

I like your signiture, some nights I am a little mre on edge and instead of:

I LOVE MY GOD, MY COUNTRY, AND MY CONSTITUTION. GIVE IT BACK!

I see:

I LOVE MY GOD, MY COUNTRY, AND MY CONSTITUTION. I'M TAKING IT IT BACK!

I understand's ASW's reservations about anyone (except prohibited persons) being entitled to carry, but freedom entails risks.

The ONLY correct answer to the poll question is YES.

mbogo470

mbogo470 said:

I understand's ASW's reservations about anyone (except prohibited persons) being entitled to carry, but freedom entails risks.

The ONLY correct answer to the poll question is YES.

mbogo

Click to expand...

That IS the answer he gave.


And, that isn't the only correct answer. It is only the correct answer for those who want Constitutional Carry.

wrightme said:

That IS the answer he gave.


And, that isn't the only correct answer. It is only the correct answer for those who want Constitutional Carry.

Click to expand...

He eventually gave that answer. His original reply was not an answer, but an equivocation.

mbogo470

wrightme said:

And, that isn't the only correct answer. It is only the correct answer for those who want Constitutional Carry.

Click to expand...

Those who don't want constitutional carry are completely incorrect in their understanding of the American concepts of individual liberties protected by law and a federal government strictly limited by the Constitution.

So yes, it is the only correct answer.

mbogo470 said:

He eventually gave that answer. His original reply was not an answer, but an equivocation.

mbogo470

Click to expand...

So?

Ultimately, through discussion and thought, he arrived at his "yes" response. Some people decided to not await his answer, and placed him in a box prematurely.

Ridiculous!!!

Vegassteve said:

From the other gun forum here in the state. The question was Should NV have Constitutional carry? And the response from a vendor below...Until they can show that they indeed vote yes, then in my book they are a anti.


I didn't vote yet. I am certainly leaning toward yes, but I always have this burning question in the back of my mind....what do you do about all the people you see everyday that you KNOW you wouldn't want them to have a gun.....whatever your reasons are. IQ, road rage, ignorant, hot headed, whatever...
can there be a category for a vote yes for constitutional carry, but with mandatory training? I can speak for myself, I went a long time without training, and it wasn't until I was shown what I didn't know (i.e. training), that I realized I was a danger to myself and those around me.

just spit balling here....looking for comments.
__________________
Thanks,

ASW
www.ammosupplywarehouse.com
serving your ammunition needs for, eh...a few weeks now!

Click to expand...

I would first like to thank everyone who took some time to type out and make intelligent points instead of just lambasting me and our business without really thinking about what I was posting in the thread on Nevada Shooters.

I'd like to just state FOR THE RECORD.....I OPEN CARRY....EVERY DAY.....EVERYWHERE I CAN!!!!
WE SUPPORT TO THE 100000000 X 10 TO THE 15th POWER ANY TYPE OF CARRY, OPEN, CONCEALED OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF CARRY YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE.
ANYONE CAN CARRY IN OUR SHOP WHENEVER YOU WANT!!!! IN FACT, I ENCOURAGE IT.

I find it almost impossible to believe that there are gun shops that would say to a customer that you CANNOT carry in their store. I don't even really understand that...at all.

ok, that being said, I'm sorry if I had a question or concern that was lingering in my mind. I'm sorry that there are people who have knee jerk reactions to other people when someone doesn't follow their tenants to the letter. I appreciate that there are THINKING people, on here and on NEVADA SHOOTERS, where the original post started, who can see that my post was not ANTI ANYTHING!!!

I'd like to give the OP (STEVE) the opportunity to correct this thread, as it starts off slanderous. In reality, he should be the one being chastised for posting his "opinion" on another site, IN HASTE. He didn't give time for anyone to chat or debate about the topic before he ran off and posted this thread....like someone hired him as the town crier! I was not willing to just roll over and just say whatever someone else wanted to hear. In fact, it really should be applauded that someone took the time to post a "personal" thought on a public forum in hopes to have some of you guys make comments on. Additionally, by Steve (this thread's OP) posting this thread on this forum the way he did, all he accomplished was discourage anyone from having any thought other than what HE deemed correct. He offered no debate, no points of interest, just his scathing disapproval, and his threat of not spending money with ASW. If anyone failed the "liberty test", it is he, because all he accomplished was publicly slandering a business that he knows literally nothing about and discouraging anyone from having and sharing a differing (not even dissenting) opinion from his own. It seems like what he really meant was "shut up, do as I say (think like I do), or else!" Sorry, but I'd rather have some intelligent conversation and make informed decisions, than placate someone that I don't even know.

and on a little side note, Steve never followed thru on putting in his order as he said.
Steve, I'd like to extend the olive branch and move on from this. You are welcome in our shop, in my home, or wherever....anytime. I would appreciate you editing this post though, or starting a new post that instead promoted our business!

Thanks,

ASW

www.ammosupplywarehouse.com

AMMO SUPPLY WAREHOUSE said:

ok, that being said, I'm sorry if I had a question or concern that was lingering in my mind.

Click to expand...

Noted.

The natural, inherent right of every human being to armed self-defense, without asking whatever local government he happens to be afflicted with for permission or qualification, is non-negotiable.

The part I got stuck on was this tidbit apparently from ASW on another thread:

Can there be a category for a vote yes for constitutional carry, but with mandatory training?

Click to expand...

ASW also said he wanted a discussion, I would like to know how "mandatory training," and "shall not be infringed " mix together if at all?

DON`T TREAD ON ME said:

The part I got stuck on was this tidbit apparently from ASW on another thread:



ASW also said he wanted a discussion, I would like to know how "mandatory training," and "shall not be infringed " mix together if at all?

Click to expand...

Hi Tread....It doesn't mix at all. As my thought progression continued through the posts on the Nevada Shooters thread, the more I tested these "criteria" against logical thought and against liberty and "shall not be infringed"....the more they kept revealing themselves to be illogical and fear based. So the end result was NO CRITERIA, 100% constitutional carry.

I hope that clears up any questions. thanks,

ASW

I'm certainly glad you cleared it up. Sometimes we have to talk things through or work them out. Not always is our first opinion our last opinion. A man learns and reasons.

ASW,

I do have my own mind and while I do read the threads here I do not follow, "Lock-in-step", with what someone might want me to do or not do on here. I have not seen you shop, would you please PM me your address I would like to check it out. As a small business owner like yourself I know how important it is to support the local companies in town. We can't get ourselves out of this recession if we don't.

The one thing I do agree on is people are allowed to have thought and let it evolve as time goes by. I know the guys on here are, "In your face", "Hard core", "To the n'th degree passionate", about their beliefs. And I applied them for that. But I also feel sometimes, because of that, they don't give any thought to anyones else's' thought process before jumping to an opinion. Hell I've seen them go after each other like piranha on a dead fish over a minor difference of opinion. But in the long run they are good people who are just asking for their rights to be upheld and protected.

We all want the same thing, for the government to just enforce the laws as they are in the Constitution and make no law that infringes on those freedoms.

AMMO SUPPLY WAREHOUSE said:

ok, that being said, I'm sorry if I had a question or concern that was lingering in my mind. I'm sorry that there are people who have knee jerk reactions to other people when someone doesn't follow their tenants to the letter. I appreciate that there are THINKING people, on here and on NEVADA SHOOTERS, where the original post started, who can see that my post was not ANTI ANYTHING!!!

I'd like to give the OP (STEVE) the opportunity to correct this thread, as it starts off slanderous. In reality, he should be the one being chastised for posting his "opinion" on another site, IN HASTE. He didn't give time for anyone to chat or debate about the topic before he ran off and posted this thread....like someone hired him as the town crier! I was not willing to just roll over and just say whatever someone else wanted to hear. In fact, it really should be applauded that someone took the time to post a "personal" thought on a public forum in hopes to have some of you guys make comments on. Additionally, by Steve (this thread's OP) posting this thread on this forum the way he did, all he accomplished was discourage anyone from having any thought other than what HE deemed correct. He offered no debate, no points of interest, just his scathing disapproval, and his threat of not spending money with ASW. If anyone failed the "liberty test", it is he, because all he accomplished was publicly slandering a business that he knows literally nothing about and discouraging anyone from having and sharing a differing (not even dissenting) opinion from his own. It seems like what he really meant was "shut up, do as I say (think like I do), or else!" Sorry, but I'd rather have some intelligent conversation and make informed decisions, than placate someone that I don't even know.

and on a little side note, Steve never followed thru on putting in his order as he said.
Steve, I'd like to extend the olive branch and move on from this. You are welcome in our shop, in my home, or wherever....anytime. I would appreciate you editing this post though, or starting a new post that instead promoted our business!

Thanks,

ASW

www.ammosupplywarehouse.com

Click to expand...

1. I didnt put a order in yet that is correct. I started to then I saw the high shipping charges. So I thought I would wait until we came up to lovell canyon next month with our friends we go shooting with. And pick it up in person.

2.NOTHING I did was slanderous. I posted YOUR EXACT WORDS. If you think it was slanderous then lawyer up and sue. I would be happy to send you my info.


3. If you took the time to read this thread you would have seen where I posted a corrected statement. And I have no way of editing the topic.

4. When it comes to the Bill of Rights there is no gray area for me. It is very plain. And the 2nd is very plain. SHALL NOT INFRINGE.

ManInBlack said:

Noted.

The natural, inherent right of every human being to armed self-defense, without asking whatever local government he happens to be afflicted with for permission or qualification, is non-negotiable.

Click to expand...

Does a person have a Natural Right to self-preservation? I say Yes. Just a Premise though.

I reject the premise that a person has a Natural Right to armed self-preservation. There is nothing Natural about a firearm; it is artificial. Life is Natural--firearm is Artificial. Do you follow me?

While I respect your assertion that Liberty is not negotiable, it is, unfortunately.

Beretta92FSLady said:

Does a person have a Natural Right to self-preservation? I say Yes. Just a Premise though.

I reject the premise that a person has a Natural Right to armed self-preservation. There is nothing Natural about a firearm; it is artificial. Life is Natural--firearm is Artificial. Do you follow me?

While I respect your assertion that Liberty is not negotiable, it is, unfortunately.

Click to expand...

Human beings have been using inanimate objects as weapons since we developed opposable thumbs.

Saying there is no natural right to armed self-defense, because some arms happen not to be entirely natural, is like saying that we don't have a natural right to speech with anything other than our unaided voices. No quill pens, typewriters, computers, microphones, megaphones, etc.

However, since you are a committed statist who doesn't believe in rights, only privileges granted you at the discretion of the almighty government, I wouldn't expect you to understand that.

Let's keep this civil folks... Maybe get back on topic??