Comments on: We’re winning

By: Rider

Rider — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 17:05:10 +0000

Drivers, marrage, auto, doctors, lawyers, construction workers, LEO’s, all require some sort of special licences and all are recognized by all stetes. WHY NOT CCW????????

By: Ron W

Ron W — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:03:53 +0000

Why don’t these states without a CCW law simply look at the 30+ states that have them and see that gun permit holders have a stellar record for the safe carry of firearms. Do they think their own citizens are less capable or moral? I would think not!

Here in Tennessee and the many other states, law-abiding citizens carrying firearms are a threat only to criminals–according to the facts. The bigotted predictions that having such would result in “wild west shootouts” and “blood in the streets” never happened!

And according to the Constitutions of most states as well as the U.S. version, keeping and carrying the means to self-defense is a RIGHT! So where are those so-called civil rights advocates on this?

“The closest the framers came to the affirmative side of liberty was in “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” –William O. Douglas (true liberal) Supreme Court Justice, 1963

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:31:02 +0000

Education is what will win back the Second Amendment

Well said.

By: Marlando

Marlando — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 06:59:07 +0000

Good luck on winning. I’m in kansas, and it’s still not a reality here. I think the 5 year refresher course is a great idea, if the alternative would be to not be able to ccw, then it seems like pretty much a win-win. Think about if they let just anyone walk in and buy a gun, then walk out and carry it around. You would have people that may be completely inexperienced with a firearm just itching to shoot it or handling it in an improper way. Basic safety concepts that are no-brainers to us may not be for someone else. Such things as, always be aware of what’s behind your target, only point at what you intend to do harm to, and other aspects such as proper trigger safety are musts to learn before shooting. Think about if, there were a bunch(or even a few) ignorant idiots that accidently killed a family member by not handling a gun right, the repercussions could lead to something like a repeal of the law. I’d feel safer if people had to brush up on there skills every once in a while and were properly trained. Hell, it might even be a nice way to meet other gun lovers and to see new models, etc. Education is what will win back the Second Amendment, and it is also what will keep those of us that do express that right safe.

By: tgirsch

tgirsch — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:19:45 +0000

With great power comes great responsibility. If the objection to refresher training is the cost, then provide the training at state expense. On the surface, it looks like a pretty good law to me.

By: Ron W

Ron W — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:40:13 +0000

Why don’t they require a state-approved class to purchase, possess and partake in alcoholic beverages? Actully I’m not for that either, but in arguments I’ve suggested that to some anti-gunners I know who think my RIGHT should severely restricted for safety purposes, but reject the notion that they should be similarly restricted in the public use of something that causes many more accidential (vehicular) deaths than guns.

By: cube

cube — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:46:07 +0000

While i belive that you should be responsible and take classes, I do not belive that the goverment should enforce it. They are only going to raise the cost of what should be a basic right.

Secondly, They don’t make you take your driving test every 5 years do they.

By: countertop

countertop — Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:19:38 +0000

I’ve got no problems with the refresher training requirement – as long as it includes a variety of training options. I’d hate to go through Handgun 101 all over again, but if I could take a different course that works ona specific set of skills, Id think that was a win-win situation.