Seattle Times Letter to the Editor

I believe anyone getting a concealed carry permit should have to prove they know how to use a firearm as well as their moral responsibility of carrying and using a firearm.

Click to expand...

LETTER

Here is a typical self acclaimed 'Life NRA' member writing the biggest newspaper in the state. Note that the 1st commentator to his letter agreed with him and the second....well I didn't.

Left my two cents, thx.

Apply that same logic/standard to the 1A, or any of the others, and see how well it goes over.

Sorry, you cannot have free speech or freedom of religon, because you are not properly trained or of good moral character.

Like a turd in a swimming pool. And the person who suggests this craziness with the 2A is simply idiotic, or a fascist, or a communist... or a liberal. Oh wait, there's not much difference between the four.

How would you even determine who has "good character?" The system now is enough. You pass a background check and your good. While I recommend learning from those who have experience with firearms when you are learning how to handle them yourself, a law is not needed. Adding a class just makes it cost even more. Leave it alone. Besides, the people who are hurting people with guns (mainly criminals who get their guns illegally) aren't going to give a crap about a class (or even a permit). Who would this really help?

Zing... i may get a little detailed but i left a nice reply.
:banana:

So on that theory, no one should be able to use the 1st amendment without passing english class.

He must be from MA, MD, NY or NJ.. sounds just like them,

Left my opinion on the subject

amzbrady said:

So on that theory, no one should be able to use the 1st amendment without passing english class.

Click to expand...

Whoa, you might actually be on to something there.....

CEM said:

How would you even determine who has "good character?" The system now is enough. You pass a background check and your good. While I recommend learning from those who have experience with firearms when you are learning how to handle them yourself, a law is not needed. Adding a class just makes it cost even more. Leave it alone. Besides, the people who are hurting people with guns (mainly criminals who get their guns illegally) aren't going to give a crap about a class (or even a permit). Who would this really help?

Click to expand...

+1

I even have a problem with the background check, it "infringes" and the government can lower the bar of what constitutes a felony.

CEM
How would you even determine who has "good character?" The system now is enough. You pass a background check and your good. While I recommend learning from those who have experience with firearms when you are learning how to handle them yourself, a law is not needed. Adding a class just makes it cost even more. Leave it alone. Besides, the people who are hurting people with guns (mainly criminals who get their guns illegally) aren't going to give a crap about a class (or even a permit). Who would this really help?

Click to expand...

+1

I totally agree with this. Besides the firearm issue, the Government uses background checks for lots of things. Such as joining the military, police, political positions, DOD/State/City employees, and Agencies. It's how they give people security clearences. Background checks are The governments way of seeing if we have done anything illegal, and for what reason. If you pass, they are Assuming that you are a law abiding citezen and of good morals and ethics because you Don't or haven't broken any major laws. You never really know What a person is capabale of or will do in the future. That guy is and idiot. Enough said.

as a veteran with an honorable discharge, I am automagically a "citizen in good standing" with the government of the US....does that count? (OK, given the state of the government, maybe not much)...

I'm "confused".

I read the forum posts first and then went and read the article. At least 3 of the posts have something in quotes ( "quote" ). Usually, when you're talking about a article, and using quotes, the quoted thing should be something from the article. In this case they are not.

Which makes it kind of confusing and I think misleading. I think we are all capable of reading the article and understanding what it says without trying to put words into the guys mouth.

Just my .02¢ worth.

sudden valley gunner said:

I even have a problem with the background check, it "infringes" and the government can lower the bar of what constitutes a felony.

Click to expand...

The government has been steadily lowering the bar of what constitutes a felony, and declaring more and more acts felonious, for years.

http://www.google.com/search?q=three+felonies+a+day

sudden valley gunner said:

+1

I even have a problem with the background check, it "infringes" and the government can lower the bar of what constitutes a felony.

Click to expand...

They have lowered "the bar on what constitutes a felony" but they just call it a domestic abuse violation that COULD have resulted in jail time of a year or more---- WHETHER ONE WAS EVER SENTENCED TO THAT LENGTH OF JAIL TIME OR NOT!

sudden valley gunner said:

+1

I even have a problem with the background check, it "infringes" and the government can lower the bar of what constitutes a felony.

Click to expand...

So then would it be ok with you if say an Islamic extremist who had prior convictions for violent crimes but was let out early for good behavior to own a fully automatic weapon? If you really want to remove all "infringements" like background checks, this is what you will have; violent, mentally unstable people in possession of dangerous weapons.

Now my comments. I do believe that before people go practicing their rights enumerated in the B.O.R. they do need to know what it's all about and how to use them. Yes people in America should understand what the 1st Amendment is all about and perhaps know the language of the land before spouting off. I also believe people need to understand firearm safety, how to use their firearm and how to care for it before being permitted to carry it. Think of all the NDs that could be prevented if everyone who wanted to purchase a firearm had to go through a basic safety class that would teach them about their chosen firearm.

Yes we have rights and freedoms, but we also have people take a test before they can get a drivers license to try and make sure they are at least competent on the road. In Germany you have to go through almost a year of school to get licensed to drive on the Autobahn. You have to go through years of training before you can get a pilots license.

I believe the point is you don't want to just put very dangerous machines in just anyone's hands, but to make sure that the person that has that machine is capable and competent. With every RIGHT comes a RESPONSIBILITY. Not everyone who wants to exercise a right understands and can uphold the responsibility. Perhaps now I'll go read the letter.

****

Now that I have read the letter I fully agree with him. The interesting thing I see in this is that he states that people "should have to prove they know how to use a firearm as well as their moral responsibility" and commenters automatically assume that he means that the Government must handle everything. What if it was like it was only a few decades ago where children were taught firearm safety in grade school and the high schools had shooting teams along with the swim team and football team. When they completed high school along with their diploma they got a certificate of completion for a firearms course. Then the person could take that to prove their training in order to purchase a firearm or receive a CPL. How about a firearm safety course, similar to the hunter safety course that was either free or very low cost. The government doesn't have to manage the training. In fact I would hate to see the government manage it as they tend to screw training up. But if each person got competent training in firearm safety, use and responsibility it would certainly reduce the number of NDs out there.

I think people are spending too much energy focusing on the word "moral" rather than the word "responsibility." Yes we have a right to free speech, but there is a responsibility that goes along with that like not shouting "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire or shouting "what's the hold up" in line at the bank when things are slow. There is a responsibility to the press to report the truth equally and unbiased (something that the MSM fails to do now.) The same thing applies to the right to keep and bear arms. We have a responsibility to understand how our firearms work, how to care for them so they work properly, to understand the laws surrounding the use of firearms and an understanding on when and where it's appropriate to use it. The goal is to ensure that the people who have access to firearms aren't going to use them to rob banks, shoot up neighborhoods, threaten people on the highway or accidentally shoot themselves in the hoohoo in Lowe's.

That's my $0.10 worth.

^^^^
fail

We get to exercise the "Right to Vote" at 18 as long as we are drawing breath. The State has nothing to do with us reaching this requirement. Each Right does come with a Responsibility and the State should have nothing to do with the ability of a person to exercise either. If your actions cause harm to another, then and only then should you be limited, due to your own actions, not just to "protect" us, in the exercise of your Rights and Responsibilities.

sirpuma said:

So then would it be ok with you if say an Islamic extremist who had prior convictions for violent crimes but was let out early for good behavior to own a fully automatic weapon? If you really want to remove all "infringements" like background checks, this is what you will have; violent, mentally unstable people in possession of dangerous weapons.

Click to expand...

Yep, I'm fine with that. If the person is violent and dangerous, they shouldn't be let out. If they're allowed out, they should retain their rights.

Now my comments. I do believe that before people go practicing their rights enumerated in the B.O.R. they do need to know what it's all about and how to use them. Yes people in America should understand what the 1st Amendment is all about and perhaps know the language of the land before spouting off. I also believe people need to understand firearm safety, how to use their firearm and how to care for it before being permitted to carry it. Think of all the NDs that could be prevented if everyone who wanted to purchase a firearm had to go through a basic safety class that would teach them about their chosen firearm.

Click to expand...

So, basically, you shouldn't be allowed to talk because you haven't had classes in formal logic? Think about all the logical fallacies that could be prevented if everyone who wanted to speak had to go through a basic formal logical class that would teach them about their chosen position.

Yes we have rights and freedoms, but we also have people take a test before they can get a drivers license to try and make sure they are at least competent on the road. In Germany you have to go through almost a year of school to get licensed to drive on the Autobahn. You have to go through years of training before you can get a pilots license.

Click to expand...

The orphaned right. Just because something is, doesn't mean it ought to be. Hume's guillotine.

I believe the point is you don't want to just put very dangerous machines in just anyone's hands, but to make sure that the person that has that machine is capable and competent. With every RIGHT comes a RESPONSIBILITY. Not everyone who wants to exercise a right understands and can uphold the responsibility. Perhaps now I'll go read the letter.

Click to expand...

We don't make sure that every person who wants to exercise freedom of their religion understands and upholds religious freedom of other religions. We don't say that the right against search and seizure must first involve training in what search and seizure is. Basically, it's only when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms that we lose our collective perspective on what it means to have a right.

Now that I have read the letter I fully agree with him. The interesting thing I see in this is that he states that people "should have to prove they know how to use a firearm as well as their moral responsibility" and commenters automatically assume that he means that the Government must handle everything. What if it was like it was only a few decades ago where children were taught firearm safety in grade school and the high schools had shooting teams along with the swim team and football team. When they completed high school along with their diploma they got a certificate of completion for a firearms course. Then the person could take that to prove their training in order to purchase a firearm or receive a CPL. How about a firearm safety course, similar to the hunter safety course that was either free or very low cost. The government doesn't have to manage the training. In fact I would hate to see the government manage it as they tend to screw training up. But if each person got competent training in firearm safety, use and responsibility it would certainly reduce the number of NDs out there.

Click to expand...

If we required everyone who wanted freedom of speech to undergo formal logic training, there would be fewer fallacies out there. If we required everyone who wanted freedom against unreasonable search and seizure to first have their property searched completely and all purchases they made log, we wouldn't have so many people buying illegal things. Guess what? There is an inevitable tradeoff when comparing freedom versus security, and most of the people here fall on the "freedom" side of the spectrum.

gogodawgs said:

^^^^
fail

Click to expand...

Which part is fail, the part where I feel people should be educated in their rights and responsibilities or the part where I feel people should be educated in their firearms and firearm safety? Because that's my point.

So as an example. Per everyone's arguments my older brother should have unrestricted access to any and all firearms same with my younger brother. Neither of which should every have one. How about Gary Ridgeway when he gets out? Perhaps we should hand 18 year olds who have never been around firearms a loaded handgun and tell them to carry it.

Sorry, but I'm not the one failing.