Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 177

Thread: Mandatory Training for OC and CC

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    54

    Mandatory Training for OC and CC

    Here's a question that I always like to get people's opinion on...

    Should all citizens, whether they carry openly or concealed, be made to attend and successfully pass standardized training in order to carry?

    The reason I ask is because I believe the greatest argument against open carry/concealed carry is that the training requirements for open/concealed carry is severely lacking. Even obtaining a CCP is but a simple written test (sometimes multiple choice). Being a LEO, I attended a six month academy, where I was trained paramilitary style in shooting, retention, case law, situational awareness, defensive tactice, medical, and a range of other areas that I had to pass in order to be able to carry openly. This is accompanied by requals and yearly inservices of all skills. Even with all the training, there are still a multitude of senarios that I would be uncomfortable in carrying off duty, even though I'm covered by H.R. 218. Constrast this with Joe Citizen who can simply buy gun and holster and carry throughout his state without any type of physical or legal training. I know many citizens (especially on this site) feel it is their duty and responsibility to train and learn about legal precedent as to what they can and can't do, but its not required. So should there be mandatory training for citizens who wish to carry?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Uber_Olafsun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    585
    Did you have training to type on this forum? Did you have training to not allow police in without a warrant? A right is just that a right. It is not a conditional right.

  3. #3
    Herr Heckler Koch
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by RyanC1985 View Post
    Here's a question that I always like to get people's opinion on...

    Should all citizens, whether they carry openly or concealed, be made to attend and successfully pass standardized training in order to carry?
    No. Which part of "shall not be infringed" confuses you?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by RyanC1985 View Post
    Should all citizens, whether they carry openly or concealed, be made to attend and successfully pass standardized training in order to carry?
    Only if you also support mandatory training to vote, pray, and not testify against yourself.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by RyanC1985 View Post

    Should all citizens, whether they carry openly or concealed, be made to attend and successfully pass standardized training in order to carry?
    No.

    The reason I ask is because I believe the greatest argument against open carry/concealed carry is that the training requirements for open/concealed carry is severely lacking.
    It is a RIGHT to keep and bear arms; not a right to keep and bear arms only if you have certified training.

    Even obtaining a CCP is but a simple written test (sometimes multiple choice). Being a LEO, I attended a six month academy, where I was trained paramilitary style in shooting, retention, case law, situational awareness, defensive tactice, medical, and a range of other areas that I had to pass in order to be able to carry openly. This is accompanied by requals and yearly inservices of all skills. Even with all the training, there are still a multitude of senarios that I would be uncomfortable in carrying off duty, even though I'm covered by H.R. 218.
    Depending on your state. Every state has different requirements for obtaining CCPs, CWPs, CHLs, whatever. Being a LEO, how often do you train with your firearm? How often do you shoot, and how much do you shoot?

    Constrast this with Joe Citizen who can simply buy gun and holster and carry throughout his state without any type of physical or legal training. I know many citizens (especially on this site) feel it is their duty and responsibility to train and learn about legal precedent as to what they can and can't do, but its not required. So should there be mandatory training for citizens who wish to carry?
    Again, NO. And the way you say "Joe Citizen" comes across as if you believe in a class seperation, a "us versus them" mentality, if you will. Cops are citizens too. Or should we all be referred and defined by our professions rather than as American citizens?

    To sum up: NO, no and NO. Personal responsibility is a great thing, and most people use it when left to their own lives.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    --
    Posts
    88
    It's a difficult question.

    On one hand I'd want the people who are members of the same community as me to be responsible when using various tools such as weapons or vehicles and government mandated licenses seems like the straightforward and the most practical solution. On the other hand I abhor the thought of being a slave to someone else's rules and permissions to do whatever and hold the strong belief that everyone should be free to do as they wish as long as they don't hurt anyone else or their property.

    If we didn't have a government I believe through evolution the OP's question would get solved by insurance companies. At first, when people had a misfortune with any tool in public and caused an injury or damage to property these people would need to get sued and the victims substantially financially reimbursed. The financial burden of accidental damage should be so grave that it would force people to buy insurance before using the tool. Insurance companies could then offer different price for different kind of insurance packages. There could be a package that would financially incentivize the insurers to obtain some sort of proof in proficiency in the use of a given tool such as a weapon.

    So in a perfectly free society everyone would be free to carry a gun but if they messed up they'd be significantly financially liable therefor it would become prudent to seek insurance for the use of a gun and if one wanted to get the insurance cheaply one would have to take classes in proficiency in the use of a gun mandated by the insurance company.


    I realize this answer is not really what the OP was looking for but I wanted to share it anyway because I see to many people stuck in this false paradigm of either government tyranny or complete chaos which of course is a complete fallacy and a false choice.

  7. #7
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

    This is all I need. Section 13 of my state's constitution. I do spend time and money training and learning about my state's laws regarding the carrying of firearms and their use in my defense. But the bottom line is what the Founders deemed to be written and cast in stone.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  8. #8
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by RyanC1985 View Post
    Here's a question that I always like to get people's opinion on...

    Should all citizens, whether they carry openly or concealed, be made to attend and successfully pass standardized training in order to carry?

    If this is OK, then I expect that people shouldn't have a problem with a training and certification requirement to own a laser printer, a camera, a religious text, a printing press, a webcam, an internet connection, a PA system, a karaoke machine, or a guitar amplifier.

    They can have my letterpress and type when they pry them from my cold dead fingers...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  9. #9
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by donny View Post
    Yes. Except even training wouldn't make a lot of people on this board fit to carry.

    The same could be said about 1A rights, and certain people on this forum...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    SW Idaho
    Posts
    1,552

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by donny View Post
    Yes. Except even training wouldn't make a lot of people on this board fit to carry.
    I'm glad that you've appointed yourself to determine who is fit to exercise their inalienable rights.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South end of the state, Illinois, USA
    Posts
    314
    The one right that says " shall not be infringed" and even some gun owners want to stomp all over it!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by RyanC1985 View Post
    Here's a question that I always like to get people's opinion on...

    Should all citizens, whether they carry openly or concealed, be made to attend and successfully pass standardized training in order to carry?

    The reason I ask is because I believe the greatest argument against open carry/concealed carry is that the training requirements for open/concealed carry is severely lacking. Even obtaining a CCP is but a simple written test (sometimes multiple choice). Being a LEO, I attended a six month academy, where I was trained paramilitary style in shooting, retention, case law, situational awareness, defensive tactice, medical, and a range of other areas that I had to pass in order to be able to carry openly. This is accompanied by requals and yearly inservices of all skills. Even with all the training, there are still a multitude of senarios that I would be uncomfortable in carrying off duty, even though I'm covered by H.R. 218. Constrast this with Joe Citizen who can simply buy gun and holster and carry throughout his state without any type of physical or legal training. I know many citizens (especially on this site) feel it is their duty and responsibility to train and learn about legal precedent as to what they can and can't do, but its not required. So should there be mandatory training for citizens who wish to carry?
    No it shouldn't be required. It is a right and by REQUIRING training it is no longer a right, but instead a priviledge. Also this starts down the "slippery slope" of gun control. After all, who decides what training should be required? And then what happens when another person comes along and thinks that much training isn't enough? And then who starts paying for all of this training? You very quickly end up with a situation where the "right" requires too much "training" and is too costly for most people to exercise. I mean my parents raised me from a child in dealing with guns. I knew more about firearms at age 18 than many cops/military members. But yet if "training" were mandatory then all of that real training I got wouldn't count and that's another issue with mandatory "training;" it doesn't count anything that isn't "official."

    Now, you're a cop. You should be trained on these things as part of your profession. After all you are more likely to need to use it and you couldn't do your job if you can't properly use it. But this is an issue of your profession, not of exercising a right. Just as how a journalist "should" be trained in journalism (though this isn't the case anymore) not because they are exercising their 1A right, but because their profession needs the training. Also as someone who is "supposed" to uphold and enforce the laws you should be better trained than the average citizen. After all, how can you enforce the laws if you don't know them? Oh wait, that would be "qualified immunity" but that's a different issue and I digress. But don't let the fact that you had to have training to become a cop jade your view on exercising one's Constitutional right.

    Finally, the fact that there has to be so much training on all the laws is another issue. The only laws on the matter should be using a weapon (ANY weapon or "arms" and not just a gun) in a crime gets you extra time and that you are authorized to use your weapon when you feel reasonably threatened for your life or grievous bodily injury. Outside of that the only other law that I can see being "needed" is if one is allowed to defend property with deadly force and if defending others extends to pets (I'm all for deadly force for defending one's property/pets but others aren't and it is something to be left to the states imo). All of these various laws on where I can't carry, GFSZ, etc are BS. And if I'm not able to carry somewhere that is public property (private property falls under property rights and doesn't conflict with 2A rights) then they had better provide PROPER security and not just a sign saying no guns.

  13. #13
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by jayspapa View Post
    The one right that says " shall not be infringed" and even some gun owners want to stomp all over it!
    That should tell you something.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    If it is a matter of training than why do police have a higher ratio of collateral damage than those acting in pure self defense or are not in the position of a LEO?

    Just something to mull over.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member MatieA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Egbert, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    403
    Absolutely NOT!
    If you do not test yourself every single day,
    then it is just another wasted day.
    --Semper Fi--

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    LEOs are trained to go into situations where they are more than likely to encounter violence and the need to at least draw, if not shoot, their firearm. Very few "ordinary citizens" (as opposed to just what makes LEOs or anybody else "extraordinary"?) intentionally go into a situation that is known to be dangerous. A small number do find themselves in such a situation in spite of their desire and attempt to avoid it.

    That (among many other reasons) is why cops go through the sort of training the OP describes. Some states require that the basics of self-defense law be covered in a formal training process before you get your permission slip to carry concealed. No state (that I am aware of) requires any training to carry openly. It all seems to go back to the notion of who intentionally goes into situations and who tries to avoid situations where it may become necessary to shoot another person.

    While I would rather that everyone (not just gun owners, or just gun carriers) receive training in the skillset of shooting a handgun at a human being who is actively trying to cause death or serious bodily harm, I understand that it aint gonna happen. Seeing as how low the probability is that any given non-LEO gun owner will get into a them-or-me life-or-death shooting situation, I'm OK with them winging it. At least the non-LEO can be helf both criminally and civilly liable for bullets that go where they should not. LEOs, with all their vaunted training, get a free pass.

    LEOs train regularly to do stuff they encounter regularly. Some gun owners/users train at some competence level and some frequency to do stuff they may never in their lives encounter. Which group "needs" to train?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    SNIP

    ...No state (that I am aware of) requires any training to carry openly...
    Per the OCDO map there's plenty of states that require a License to OC. So while they might not require OC specific training, they still require training (CC permit) to be able to OC.

    Outside of that I agree completely with your post.

  18. #18
    Regular Member SovereignAxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Elizabethton, TN
    Posts
    795
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Per the OCDO map there's plenty of states that require a License to OC. So while they might not require OC specific training, they still require training (CC permit) to be able to OC.

    Outside of that I agree completely with your post.
    this is true. TN doesn't make a distinction between OC and CC, which is reflected in the name of our license: Handgun Carry Permit. The literature and laws make no mention of CC, and we must have the license to do either.

    I would love for it to be like MI, NC, WA, VA and many other states where they at least have constitutional OC, but alas, here I am.
    "Anyone worth shooting once is worth shooting twice." -Zeus

    "Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!" - Malcolm Reynolds

    EDC = Walther PPQ 9mm

  19. #19
    Regular Member Gil223's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Weber County Utah
    Posts
    1,428

    "Infringed" seems to mean different things to different people...

    The question was, "Should all citizens, whether they carry openly or concealed, be made to attend and successfully pass standardized training in order to carry?" It seems most of the folks here believe that to require such training would violate Amendment II of our Constitution, and I can understand their concerns in that regard. However, my life has been dedicated to playing 'devil's advocate', and why should today be any different?

    Definition of INFRINGE (courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

    transitive verb

    1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>

    2: obsolete: defeat, frustrate


    My problem would be that there are those who would drive themselves - and everybody around them - absolutely nuts trying to define (or, in some cases, redefine) the word "standardized"... but, I'll come back to that later.

    I don't see requiring training ("standardized" probably at the state level - it would be a 10th Amendment "States rights" issue) as an infringement upon our right to "keep and bear arms". Most of the things we keep, we keep in or around our domicile. If I am "keeping" guns, I certainly won't have them all on my person. And, in this instance anyway, the "bearing of arms" is synonymous with "the carrying of arms" (the available definitions of the word "bear" deal primarily with large, fur-covered omnivores). I don't see anything in Amendment II that protects, permits - or even encourages - the unskilled presentation and discharge of those arms. Do we simply assume those abilities are invisibly included, or 'understood', in 2A? I would support standardized training of some kind, HOWEVER... there would have to be a stipulation that no goverment agency (at whatever level) may charge additional fees or taxes for the conduct of such training and certification, above those already paid for government services. As I see it, to charge for such training and certification is where the 'infringement' would come in. Such training would have to be provided pro bono (for public good, not to be confused with Cher's late ex) and therefore supporting our 2nd Amendment right.

    Now, back to the word "standardized". If the word itself were standardized, there would be little discussion over its meaning! But, it ain't, so there. Here's what I believe comes closest to what we would take as our meaning when used with the object word "training": Standardized: verb (used with object) 1. to bring to or make of an established standard size, weight , quality, strength, or the like. (Color added for emphasis - we would be looking for consistent quality in this type of training). The language which we generally refer to as "English" is actually American English, but it is no more or no less complex than is British English and - because of its complexity - we lean toward disagreement over the semantics of an argument rather than its intent.

    Anyway, my bottom line on the question is, I don't believe a training requirement alone would be an 'infringement' upon 2A for the above reasons. I do believe that placing any sort of fee or tax on that training would then make the requirement an infringement. Pax!
    Last edited by Gil223; 01-15-2012 at 05:30 PM.
    MOLON LABE
    COUNTRY FIRST
    Glocks ROCK!

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    By using your definition it is still an infringement. By requiring me to get training in order to carry my weapon you are encroaching on it.

    Encroach - to advance beyond proper, established, or usual limits; make gradual inroads

    The training requirement would be "make(ing) gradual inroads" against that right. Remember, the first step is simply requiring training. From there the eventual move (regardless of it's in 6 months or 50 years) is to start making the requirements more and more restrictive. Eventually you end up with a situation where the requirements are so restrictive that the average citizen can't exercise that "right" and it is no longer a right, but a privledge.

  21. #21
    Regular Member hermannr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Okanogan Highland
    Posts
    2,332
    The State of Washington has no license required for OC (forever), and no training required, shall issue, for CC (since 1961). If you can legally own a firearm here in WA, you can obtain a CPL, and almost 350,000 have.

    You don't hear of a lot of problems with law abiding citizens mishandling firearms here. Much more likely to hear about the law enforcement community, who are "highly trained", having a problem...yes, I mean accidents.

    So, to answer your question: It appears to me that putting the responsibility on the citizen to learn how to properly be responsible for knowing the laws, and also the care and feeding of their own weapons, it works.

    Laws and "one size fits all" never work perfectly, and only occationally do they work properly. Then you have Article 1 Section 24 of the Washington state constitution as well as the 2A to contend with.
    Last edited by hermannr; 01-15-2012 at 05:05 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Gil223 View Post
    The question was, "Should all citizens, whether they carry openly or concealed, be made to attend and successfully pass standardized training in order to carry?" It seems most of the folks here believe that to require such training would violate Amendment II of our Constitution, and I can understand their concerns in that regard. However, my life has been dedicated to playing 'devil's advocate', and why should today be any different?

    Definition of INFRINGE (courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

    transitive verb

    1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>

    2: obsolete: defeat, frustrate


    My problem would be that there are those who would drive themselves - and everybody around them - absolutely nuts trying to define (or, in some cases, redefine) the word "standardized"... but, I'll come back to that later.

    I don't see requiring training ("standardized" probably at the state level - it would be a 10th Amendment "States rights" issue) as an infringement upon our right to "keep and bear arms". Most of the things we keep, we keep in or around our domicile. If I am "keeping" guns, I certainly won't have them all on my person. And, in this instance anyway, the "bearing of arms" is synonymous with "the carrying of arms" (the available definitions of the word "bear" deal primarily with large, fur-covered omnivores). I don't see anything in Amendment II that protects, permits - or even encourages - the unskilled presentation and discharge of those arms. Do we simply assume those abilities are invisibly included, or 'understood', in 2A? I would support standardized training of some kind, HOWEVER... there would have to be a stipulation that no goverment agency (at whatever level) may charge additional fees or taxes for the conduct of such training and certification, above those already paid for government services. As I see it, to charge for such training and certification is where the 'infringement' would come in. Such training would have to be provided pro bono (for public good, not to be confused with Cher's late ex) and therefore supporting our 2nd Amendment right.

    Now, back to the word "standardized". If the word itself were standardized, there would be little discussion over its meaning! But, it ain't, so there. Here's what I believe comes closest to what we would take as our meaning when used with the object word "training": Standardized: verb (used with object) 1. to bring to or make of an established standard size, weight , quality, strength, or the like. (Color added for emphasis - we would be looking for consistent quality in this type of training). The language which we generally refer to as "English" is actually American English, but it is no more or no less complex than is British English and - because of its complexity - we lean toward disagreement over the semantics of an argument rather than its intent.

    Anyway, my bottom line on the question is, I don't believe a training requirement alone would be an 'infringement' upon 2A for the above reasons. I do believe that placing any sort of fee or tax on that training would then make the requirement an infringement. Pax!
    For centuries, people have been led down the path of evil under the pretext of trusting a government. Personally, I prefer the concept and ideas of our Founders in such matters. They didn't trust government and neither do I.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    If it is a matter of training than why do police have a higher ratio of collateral damage than those acting in pure self defense or are not in the position of a LEO?

    Just something to mull over.
    1. Police as dispatched to active shooters situation where private citizens can walk away

    2. Police rarely have the element of surprise given the uniform

    3. Police deal with the violent people of society more regularly than private citizens

    4. Most private citizen shootings involve home protection from a defensive position with the homefront advantage

    These are just a couple reasons...plenty more to choose from if that's not enough.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    LEOs are trained to go into situations where they are more than likely to encounter violence and the need to at least draw, if not shoot, their firearm. Very few "ordinary citizens" (as opposed to just what makes LEOs or anybody else "extraordinary"?) intentionally go into a situation that is known to be dangerous. A small number do find themselves in such a situation in spite of their desire and attempt to avoid it.

    That (among many other reasons) is why cops go through the sort of training the OP describes. Some states require that the basics of self-defense law be covered in a formal training process before you get your permission slip to carry concealed. No state (that I am aware of) requires any training to carry openly. It all seems to go back to the notion of who intentionally goes into situations and who tries to avoid situations where it may become necessary to shoot another person.

    While I would rather that everyone (not just gun owners, or just gun carriers) receive training in the skillset of shooting a handgun at a human being who is actively trying to cause death or serious bodily harm, I understand that it aint gonna happen. Seeing as how low the probability is that any given non-LEO gun owner will get into a them-or-me life-or-death shooting situation, I'm OK with them winging it. At least the non-LEO can be helf both criminally and civilly liable for bullets that go where they should not. LEOs, with all their vaunted training, get a free pass.

    LEOs train regularly to do stuff they encounter regularly. Some gun owners/users train at some competence level and some frequency to do stuff they may never in their lives encounter. Which group "needs" to train?

    stay safe.

    Actually, LEOs don't get a free pass, i'm legally responsible for any collertal damage I cause

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by RyanC1985 View Post
    Actually, LEOs don't get a free pass, i'm legally responsible for any collertal damage I cause

    This is not the time or place to discuss qualified immunity, but that's what I'm talking about. You haz it, I don't.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •