Are we in trouble? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Are we in trouble?


rides a horse
05-01-2007, 14:31
Allen County Sheriff Ken Fries, who attended the luncheon, said he believes in the right to bear arms, but he agreed that safeguards need to be put in place even if that means that law-abiding citizens have to jump through hoops to buy guns.




Link; http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/17161064.htm

KSFreeman
05-01-2007, 15:45
Prior restraint is O.K. then?:shocked: :animlol:

RF7126
05-01-2007, 16:29
Slightly off-topic: You know, I think I'm gonna get flamed for this but I wouldn't mind a higher class of license that would require training (put on by the gov at a reasonable expense and convenience to us), in exchange for us being allowed to carry in more places (schools, casino, etc.). I know most people here would say it should be that way anyway -and I agree- but I think it would be a nice compromise with the left.

-donning flame suit-:outtahere:

cougar_guy04
05-01-2007, 17:23
Originally posted by RF7126
Slightly off-topic: You know, I think I'm gonna get flamed for this but I wouldn't mind a higher class of license that would require training (put on by the gov at a reasonable expense and convenience to us), in exchange for us being allowed to carry in more places (schools, casino, etc.). I know most people here would say it should be that way anyway -and I agree- but I think it would be a nice compromise with the left.

-donning flame suit-:outtahere:
I wouldn't argue with that. Our rangemaster/gun club father figure/fixer of things we break and I were talking about that Friday night. Heck, even one of my uber-liberal friends said the only thing she had against the permits in Indiana was the lack of training required.

RF7126
05-01-2007, 17:51
I agree, I think the "no training" requirement unfortunately reinforces the stereotype of some guy buying a random gun and shoving into his belt.

epsylum
05-01-2007, 18:58
Then how about we go ahead and privatize the training so that way we know there will be accountability and competition. ;)

dwh79
05-01-2007, 19:35
I am all for it if and only if this would mean that are permits our reconized by all other states that issue carry permits. I travel for work and I hate that my license isn't valid in places like Ohio. I also reluctantly agree with keeping just someone who has never been around guns from buying one and starting to carry it and be a danger to themselves and others around them.

sjstill
05-01-2007, 19:48
Do away with the effing license ala Vermont & Alaska. Screw compromises, we've compromised enough already.

Cops are not shining examples of training making for great shooters. What are their hit ratios? How many of them piss and moan when in-service range time time rolls around.

That article was an anti-gun piece of propaganda, full of mis-information and feel-good BS.

Those last 2 paragraphs are priceless;

Helmke said most Americans believe that it is too easy to obtain guns, and they don’t understand why convicted felons or those with mental illness can get their hands on weapons. Legitimate gun owners will have to accept that they will be made to go through more red tape to make the streets safer, Helmke said

Allen County Sheriff Ken Fries, who attended the luncheon, said he believes in the right to bear arms, but he agreed that safeguards need to be put in place even if that means that law-abiding citizens have to jump through hoops to buy guns.

I'm sick and tired of these polished turds stomping on our rights.

NO, NO, 1000 times NO!

epsylum
05-01-2007, 20:31
Originally posted by sjstill
Do away with the effing license ala Vermont & Alaska. Screw compromises, we've compromised enough already.

Cops are not shining examples of training making for great shooters. What are their hit ratios? How many of them piss and moan when in-service range time time rolls around.

That article was an anti-gun piece of propaganda, full of mis-information and feel-good BS.

Those last 2 paragraphs are priceless;

Helmke said most Americans believe that it is too easy to obtain guns, and they don’t understand why convicted felons or those with mental illness can get their hands on weapons. Legitimate gun owners will have to accept that they will be made to go through more red tape to make the streets safer, Helmke said

Allen County Sheriff Ken Fries, who attended the luncheon, said he believes in the right to bear arms, but he agreed that safeguards need to be put in place even if that means that law-abiding citizens have to jump through hoops to buy guns.

I'm sick and tired of these polished turds stomping on our rights.

NO, NO, 1000 times NO!

You have to quit thinking to understand what he is saying. I mean nevermind the fact that the vast majority of gun crimes are caused by those who DON'T have a permit. Why that would mean you would have to use logical thought and there is no room in the gun control debate for that. ;)

mpholic
05-02-2007, 06:18
Originally posted by RF7126
You know, I think I'm gonna get flamed for this but I wouldn't mind a higher class of license that would require training (put on by the gov at a reasonable expense and convenience to us

I don't mean to be insulting but...Training provided by the government?? Reasonably priced??? Convenient???

What government have you been living under lately?

What would motivate the government to provide ANY thing reasonably priced or convenient?

The government would control the content of the training? The government would control the standards on who passes and who doesn't?

This has got to be the most naive, short sighted thing I have heard in a LONG time. I can't believe there is anyone on this board even receptive to the suggestion. Keep compromising and see what happens.

minuteman32
05-02-2007, 08:45
You could move to UT. There, w/ an LTC, you can carry almost anywhere you'd want to go (school, college, church, bar, etc.). Now they do require training for their LTC, but they also recognize all other permits, so you could carry on your IN LTC. The only problematic area would be schools b/c of the federal law, not state law. You would probably only have a problem in a school if you were caught there by a fed. who was having a bad day.

I would like to see IN go to pre '94 law. That is when we lost schools, and since then we've lost courthouses, casinos (which we didn't have), and soon to be, state house & offices.

Like so many times in the past, we gain some (lifetime LTC, state parks) and loose others (above).

The only place one should be restricted from carry is a correctional, or similar locked down, secure, facility.

Snowman92D
05-02-2007, 09:01
I'd be all for increased training, but definitely not at the hands of some gov't sponsored program. My thought is simply to make citizen defensive shooters more sure of themselves and what they can do, and thereby make them more formidable during a fight. That's it...case closed.

For the rest of our lives, we're gonna be fighting increasingly violent, militarized criminals and the mindless murderers of radical Islam. We desperately need a citizenry that has ready access to defensive weapons and the skills needed to survive tangling with hyper-violent people. We have almost everything in place to be a very formidable group of people, but our citizen defensive shooters need to know the dynamics of winning a fight so they will be able to respond without a blink of hesitation. There's no reason for us to needlessly sacrifice our best and bravest when they choose to fight back.

The Israeli model works because virtually every adult over there has been in the military. They live and breathe a hard-edged commitment to see their communities and country prevail over those who live to destroy them. They've lived their Holocaust and, if pushed to it, are willing to pull down the pillars that support the temple of humanity before they submit to the murderer's control again.

I'd like to see some sort of 40 hours, give or take, school that combined the things that are taught by some of our top civilian trainers...like John Farnam, or Tom Givens, or Mas Ayoob, for example...as a requisite to holding a handgun license. Assuming we're gonna continue "licensing" handgun-carriers. I'm assuming we will, since we have a long-standing and rarely challenged legal tradition of licensing drivers, vehicles, outdoorsmen, nurses and private investigators, etc. The training has to be affordable somehow...but it needs to be done.

Maintaining ready access to a defensive firearm, to me, is not only a citizen's "right", it's a citizen's duty...just the same as voting and serving on juries, etc. The republic needs knowledgeable, informed armed defenders just the same as it needs knowledgeable and informed voters and jurors. Regardless of how the liberal bliss-ninnies see things, that's the price of having a free and open society. Citizen defensive handgunners should be armed with a solid, basic knowledge of how to stay alive in situations where is isn't easy to do so...especially when taking the risks to defend other innocents, or simply to defend themselves.

Christ...even a day of classroom work followed by a day of tactical training on a range would put our citizenry at a much better level of preparedness than we are now. The rub, of course, is implementing it without having the gov't mandating obligatory "sexual harrassment" and "cultural diversity" touchy-feely training...and that, in the end, is what will kill it. The hyper-violent criminals and Muslim terrorists will grow stronger and more deeply entrenched...and we'll continue to fight for our "right" to scare little kids and soccer-moms in the check-out line with open carry.

rhino465
05-02-2007, 09:14
Agreed on all points!

Re: running afoul of the Federal laws w/ respect to schools ... it doesn't apply to anyone with a state-issued license or permit to carry.


Originally posted by minuteman32
You could move to UT. There, w/ an LTC, you can carry almost anywhere you'd want to go (school, college, church, bar, etc.). Now they do require training for their LTC, but they also recognize all other permits, so you could carry on your IN LTC. The only problematic area would be schools b/c of the federal law, not state law. You would probably only have a problem in a school if you were caught there by a fed. who was having a bad day.

I would like to see IN go to pre '94 law. That is when we lost schools, and since then we've lost courthouses, casinos (which we didn't have), and soon to be, state house & offices.

Like so many times in the past, we gain some (lifetime LTC, state parks) and loose others (above).

The only place one should be restricted from carry is a correctional, or similar locked down, secure, facility.

mpholic
05-02-2007, 09:24
Originally posted by Snowman92D
I'd be all for increased training, but definitely not at the hands of some gov't sponsored program. My thought is simply to make citizen defensive shooters more sure of themselves and what they can do, and thereby make them more formidable during a fight. That's it...case closed.

For the rest of our lives, we're gonna be fighting increasingly violent, militarized criminals and the mindless murderers of radical Islam. We desperately need a citizenry that has ready access to defensive weapons and the skills needed to survive tangling with hyper-violent people. We have almost everything in place to be a very formidable group of people, but our citizen defensive shooters need to know the dynamics of winning a fight so they will be able to respond without a blink of hesitation. There's no reason for us to needlessly sacrifice our best and bravest when they choose to fight back.

The Israeli model works because virtually every adult over there has been in the military. They live and breathe a hard-edged commitment to see their communities and country prevail over those who live to destroy them. They've lived their Holocaust and, if pushed to it, are willing to pull down the pillars that support the temple of humanity before they submit to the murderer's control again.

I'd like to see some sort of 40 hours, give or take, school that combined the things that are taught by some of our top civilian trainers...like John Farnam, or Tom Givens, or Mas Ayoob, for example...as a requisite to holding a handgun license. Assuming we're gonna continue "licensing" handgun-carriers. I'm assuming we will, since we have a long-standing and rarely challenged legal tradition of licensing drivers, vehicles, outdoorsmen, nurses and private investigators, etc. The training has to be affordable somehow...but it needs to be done.

Maintaining ready access to a defensive firearm, to me, is not only a citizen's "right", it's a citizen's duty...just the same as voting and serving on juries, etc. The republic needs knowledgeable, informed armed defenders just the same as it needs knowledgeable and informed voters and jurors. Regardless of how the liberal bliss-ninnies see things, that's the price of having a free and open society. Citizen defensive handgunners should be armed with a solid, basic knowledge of how to stay alive in situations where is isn't easy to do so...especially when taking the risks to defend other innocents, or simply to defend themselves.

Christ...even a day of classroom work followed by a day of tactical training on a range would put our citizenry at a much better level of preparedness than we are now. The rub, of course, is implementing it without having the gov't mandating obligatory "sexual harrassment" and "cultural diversity" touchy-feely training...and that, in the end, is what will kill it. The hyper-violent criminals and Muslim terrorists will grow stronger and more deeply entrenched...and we'll continue to fight for our "right" to scare little kids and soccer-moms in the check-out line with open carry.

I will agree with Snowman on a couple of points (sort of).

The Islamic threat is a REAL threat and it is NOT going to go away. If you think world peace is an attainable goal forget it.

I will agree the citizenry needs to arm itself and learn how to properly protect themselves, their families and their country. Training is a must, quality training is a must. Practicing that training on a regular basis is a must. I don't believe this training should be mandated by the government though. I believe every citizen should undergo this training from the same sense of duty that they do to vote. Freedom comes with a price.

I will also agree with Snowman on the fact that we should be focusing our priorities on being prepared for this eventuality (violent criminals and terrorists) instead of the "right" to scare soccer moms. IMHO I see no need to carry openly and unless circustances change drastically I will not being doing so. The problem though with concealment requirements is what is the definition of concealment? This is a real problem for some states where accidently exposing your gun or even simple "printing" can be considered a criminal act (brandishing).

R. Emmelman
05-02-2007, 09:40
Who is going to set the “standard” for training?

1. The legislature? If the general assembly sets the standards then they can easily change them. How would you like to have David Orentlicher to author the training requirements?

2. A licensing committee or board? Let us not forget that a “board” adopted rules to keep us from protecting ourselves at the State Fair and State Parks (Indiana administrative code).

3. The Indiana State Police? While I have the utmost respect for out troopers, I do not trust possible future superintendents. After all they are appointed by the governor and we may not always have a 2A friendly one.

Mandated training is just another way to control a right!

minuteman32
05-02-2007, 10:23
Originally posted by rhino465
Agreed on all points!

Re: running afoul of the Federal laws w/ respect to schools ... it doesn't apply to anyone with a state-issued license or permit to carry.


I know. I was trying to say that if someone w/ an IN LTC (& no UT LTC)were to go to UT, that they could carry there as if they did have a UT LTC. The only place that (under federal law) they could run afoul of the legal system, would be a school (as they would not have that states issued LTC). I personally think that, w/ regard to this obscure & stupid federal law (like that narrows it down much!), one should be legal in all locations that that particular state allows for their own permitees (which SHOULD be all locations!).

rhino465
05-02-2007, 10:30
There is only one way I would support any kind of mandatory training, and all of the items below would be necessary.

1. We either adopt "Vermont Style" laws where no license is necessary to carry as we do now, or we keep the current licenses as they are, but add a "super license" that would require both training and qualification/certification.

2. The super license must then be valid in every state, territory, and other political subdivisions of the United States. It must be valid everywhere (except maybe truly "secure" places like prisons, jails, where no one can be armed, even the guards), including airplanes, federal buildings, and everywhere else our licenses are not currently valid.


I'd gladly submit to the actual shooting portions of the qualifications required of various federal police agencies, and I would pass the test. I should be able to carry everywhere they do. In fact, as a citizen, I should have MORE places I could carry, as the laws should limit what the government and its agents can do, not what private citizens can do.

minuteman32
05-02-2007, 10:34
Originally posted by rhino465
There is only one way I would support any kind of mandatory training, and all of the items below would be necessary.

1. We either adopt "Vermont Style" laws where no license is necessary to carry as we do now, or we keep the current licenses as they are, but add a "super license" that would require both training and qualification/certification.

2. The super license must then be valid in every state, territory, and other political subdivisions of the United States. It must be valid everywhere (except maybe truly "secure" places like prisons, jails, where no one can be armed, even the guards), including airplanes, federal buildings, and everywhere else our licenses are not currently valid.


I'd gladly submit to the actual shooting portions of the qualifications required of various federal police agencies, and I would pass the test. I should be able to carry everywhere they do. In fact, as a citizen, I should have MORE places I could carry, as the laws should limit what the government and its agents can do, not what private citizens can do.


HERE, HERE!!!!

RHINO465 FOR PRESIDENT (or @ least Director of the DHS)!

This is pretty much what I was thinking, too.
I have so many good ideas, that I have to keep them stored in the minds of millions of other people! Thanks for releasing this one.:supergrin:

R. Emmelman
05-02-2007, 11:12
Originally posted by rhino465
There is only one way I would support any kind of mandatory training, and all of the items below would be necessary.

1. We either adopt "Vermont Style" laws where no license is necessary to carry as we do now, or we keep the current licenses as they are, but add a "super license" that would require both training and qualification/certification.

2. The super license must then be valid in every state, territory, and other political subdivisions of the United States. It must be valid everywhere (except maybe truly "secure" places like prisons, jails, where no one can be armed, even the guards), including airplanes, federal buildings, and everywhere else our licenses are not currently valid.


I'd gladly submit to the actual shooting portions of the qualifications required of various federal police agencies, and I would pass the test. I should be able to carry everywhere they do. In fact, as a citizen, I should have MORE places I could carry, as the laws should limit what the government and its agents can do, not what private citizens can do.
So... by taking training I can have more rights under 2A then without?

KSFreeman
05-02-2007, 11:27
Mandatory training is constitutionally viable under two circumstances:

1. Required for gradation for high school.

2. As a requirement for voting.

1 8 hour day of classroom exam (general knowledge, legal, historical, ballastics, inter alia), 1 8 hour exam on range (field stripping, cleaning, load/unload, easy shooting test for service small arms, M16, M9, M240G, etc.).

Classes would begin in grade school and continue throughout high school.

Training required to exercise the RKBA is an illegal prior restraint.

mpholic
05-02-2007, 11:44
Originally posted by KSFreeman
1. Required for gradation for high school.


Firearms training in school. What a concept!

:thumbsup:

R. Emmelman
05-02-2007, 11:57
Originally posted by mpholic
Firearms training in school. What a concept!

:thumbsup:
But they would have to use a blackboard eraser to pratice with. :rofl:

KSFreeman
05-02-2007, 12:39
Blackboard erasers? No, public school funded indoor (urban) and outdoor ranges. Rifle and pistol teams should be reintroduced and funded with public funds and private volunteers.

KSFreeman
05-02-2007, 12:42
rides a horse, the way to deal with the good Sheriff is to ask him to put his money where his mouth is. Ask that his FTU (Firearms Training Unit) start accepting private citizens for training classes. Volunteer to be the first student.

Ask for public funding of ammunition. Ask that his deputies teach firearms to 4-H, Cub Scouts, etc.

If the Sheriff wants training, great! Let's get out in front of it and make him responsible for the training.:)

Put up or shut up, Sheriff.

R. Emmelman
05-02-2007, 13:44
Originally posted by KSFreeman
Blackboard erasers? No, public school funded indoor (urban) and outdoor ranges. Rifle and pistol teams should be reintroduced and funded with public funds and private volunteers.
When I was in high school (back in the dark ages) we had a ROTC range in the school and shot .22LR

RF7126
05-02-2007, 13:49
The "super-license" is what I would really like to see. The reason I mentioned govt sponsored is because I cannot come close to affording much of the training available, especially any specialized training. However, I'm sure that a bunch of citizens wouldn't mind pitching in to pay an officer's overtime for some extra training. It's just that most of these guys charge a minimum of a few hundred dollars per person. I'm at the point financially where I have to think for a while before I allow myself to eat at Subway! It's just not possible for me to get professional training. I do alright by myself copying their methods, but a pro is better.

Aside from that, I agree that less govt intervention is always better. :)

mpholic
05-02-2007, 14:43
Originally posted by RF7126
The "super-license" is what I would really like to see. The reason I mentioned govt sponsored is because I cannot come close to affording much of the training available, especially any specialized training.

Sure you can. It's called the Armed Forces. their training is very reasonably priced. I'd stay away from the Air Force if you want your money's worth (firearms training). Best bang for the buck...USMC.

RF7126
05-02-2007, 14:58
I'm getting there, I want to finish college first though. Not everyone can join the military though, isn't the essence of the 2nd Amendment to provide all people the ability to keep and bear arms?

mpholic
05-02-2007, 15:05
Originally posted by RF7126
I'm getting there, I want to finish college first though. Not everyone can join the military though, isn't the essence of the 2nd Amendment to provide all people the ability to keep and bear arms?

That was more of a tongue in cheek joke than anything. But I do believe a couple of years in the military wouldn't hurt anyone.

Nothing short of a mental or physical handicap should keep you out of the military for at least a short stint. I'm sure there are exceptions that I am not thinking of.

arbitrary
05-02-2007, 16:06
How about a gun owner's group modeled like ABATE? They are a motorcycle owner's organization that conducts very good safety classes for new riders. Those who pass get their license endorsement. A tightly-run group of gun owners/enthusiasts, perhaps supplemented by LEOs, who conduct classes that are consistently formatted, could provide a great service to those wanting to learn. I know I would pay to attend.

The best way to predict the future is to invent it -- Alan Kay

Snowman92D
05-02-2007, 16:34
Originally posted by KSFreeman
...public school funded indoor (urban) and outdoor ranges. Rifle and pistol teams should be reintroduced and funded with public funds and private volunteers.

Ditto.

I also vote for semi-trailers set up as mobile indoor firing ranges that we can hook up and transport to shopping malls, office complexes and parks, like they do in Israel. You can step outside on your lunchbreak, and use the 3-position mobile range for a bit of practice. Then have it hooked it up and moved somewhere else.

RF7126
05-02-2007, 16:36
Originally posted by Snowman92D
Ditto.

I also vote for semi-trailers set up as mobile indoor firing ranges that we can hook up and transport to shopping malls, office complexes and parks, like they do in Israel. You can step outside on your lunchbreak, and use the 3-position mobile range for a bit of practice. Then hook it up and move it somewhere else.

They have those?! :shocked: :drool: :drool:

rhino465
05-02-2007, 21:01
Originally posted by R. Emmelman
So... by taking training I can have more rights under 2A then without?

That's one way to look at it, but I would see it as a way to reduce the number of restrictions that already exist.

Ideally there would be zero weapons-specific laws on the books. When people act badly with them, imprison them based on their actions, not what they used for them. Unfortunately such common sense will never penetrate the minds of the people who make the laws, nor the people who vote for and enable them.

So ... given that we can't avoid restrictions on some level, I see it as a way to reduce them to a barely tolerable level.

rhino465
05-02-2007, 21:07
ABATE is a good group. They also seem to care more about their goals than any group of gun owners I've met outside of the "activist" community.

If 5% or even 1% of the people who own guns cared as much about their rights and were willing to work as hard to restore them as the ABATE people were and are, there would be no anti-RKBA laws on the books. The NFA would be either nullified by legislation or a supreme court that was compelled to do the right thing. It would all fall into place from there.

The problem is, people who own guns just don't care enough. Those who do get burned out long before the battles are won because they are doing the heavy lifting for all of the others time and time again.



Originally posted by arbitrary
How about a gun owner's group modeled like ABATE? They are a motorcycle owner's organization that conducts very good safety classes for new riders. Those who pass get their license endorsement. A tightly-run group of gun owners/enthusiasts, perhaps supplemented by LEOs, who conduct classes that are consistently formatted, could provide a great service to those wanting to learn. I know I would pay to attend.

mpholic
05-03-2007, 05:40
Originally posted by rhino465
ABATE is a good group. They also seem to care more about their goals than any group of gun owners I've met outside of the "activist" community.

If 5% or even 1% of the people who own guns cared as much about their rights and were willing to work as hard to restore them as the ABATE people were and are, there would be no anti-RKBA laws on the books. The NFA would be either nullified by legislation or a supreme court that was compelled to do the right thing. It would all fall into place from there.

The problem is, people who own guns just don't care enough. Those who do get burned out long before the battles are won because they are doing the heavy lifting for all of the others time and time again.

"Soccer moms" and liberals don't think motorcycles are evil, they do think guns are evil. Gun owners face considerably more negative resistance than some other interest groups. I will concede the fact that many gun owners don't fight for their rights anywhere near as hard as they should but if they did the battle wouldn't be as easy as you portray it.

There are just as many uneducated liberal gun haters as there are gun owners. Amongst those gun owners are a number of Elmer Fudds who could care less about their gun rights as long as they can shoot skeet, hunt ducks, or shoot deer.

How many articles have you read lately about members of congrss trying to outlaw motorcylces? It's apples and oranges.

arbitrary
05-03-2007, 10:31
If you want to improve the public image of gun owners, especially handgun owners, I suspect you will accomplish more by demonstrating that we are safe and responsible. One way to do this is to conduct and attend safety classes. People begin to understand that an average person can own a handgun and be safe and responsible about it. Then we are perceived as less of a threat, and more mainstream. If all the focus is on political fighting for more gun rights, your average citizen sees us as a fringe group only interested in an arms race.

For what it's worth, my perceptions are as a new gun owner who is just learning about the gun culture from the owner's side of things. I'm glad I can own and shoot guns, but I understand the concerns of those who have no first-hand gun experience. They are nervous about irresponsible or untrained people packing deadly weapons (as am I). If they do not see responsible gun owners, and only hear about the problems, it should be no surprise that there is a perception problem. Seems to me that we as gun owners can improve perceptions better than any politician or government agency. If people's perceived threat levels goes down, so will desires for new gun restrictions that don't help anything.

R. Emmelman
05-03-2007, 10:36
arbitrary

While I agree that training is a good thing, I do not think this will have any impact on safety. No more then training creates safe drivers. People will either be safe (responsible) or not.

RF7126
05-03-2007, 10:51
Originally posted by R. Emmelman
While I agree that training is a good thing, I do not think this will have any impact on safety. No more then training creates safe drivers. People will either be safe (responsible) or not.

For serious shooters that's true, but I've met a lot of people who just decided to buy a gun but didn't know what to do with it. They had no idea about safety, the mechanics, or sometimes even what ammunition it took. Fortunately I've been able to help some with this, and they responded positively, but a lot of people just haven't been taught anything.

mpholic
05-03-2007, 11:00
Originally posted by arbitrary
If you want to improve the public image of gun owners, especially handgun owners, I suspect you will accomplish more by demonstrating that we are safe and responsible. One way to do this is to conduct and attend safety classes. People begin to understand that an average person can own a handgun and be safe and responsible about it. Then we are perceived as less of a threat, and more mainstream. If all the focus is on political fighting for more gun rights, your average citizen sees us as a fringe group only interested in an arms race.

For what it's worth, my perceptions are as a new gun owner who is just learning about the gun culture from the owner's side of things. I'm glad I can own and shoot guns, but I understand the concerns of those who have no first-hand gun experience. They are nervous about irresponsible or untrained people packing deadly weapons (as am I). If they do not see responsible gun owners, and only hear about the problems, it should be no surprise that there is a perception problem. Seems to me that we as gun owners can improve perceptions better than any politician or government agency. If people's perceived threat levels goes down, so will desires for new gun restrictions that don't help anything.

This may be true for a handful of moderate, logical thinking people. This is NOT true for the rabid anti gun crowd.

They simply think we are NOT capable of safe responsible gun ownership with any amount of training. Unfortunately these people are the ones with the loudest voice and fuel the fire. As much respect as I have for the law enforcement community as a whole some of their ranks also believe the average citizen has no business owning anything beyond a hunting rifle or shotgun.

RF7126
05-03-2007, 11:26
mpholic,
I agree that the rabid anti-gun people will never be swayed. However, there are a lot of quiet fence-sitters that go whichever way the wind blows on this issue. They get their perception of gun people from the media, which as we know is extremely twisted. These are the people who can be swayed by an image of responsible gun ownership. These are also the people who can make the difference for us when legislation rolls around.

mpholic
05-03-2007, 14:17
Originally posted by RF7126
mpholic,
I agree that the rabid anti-gun people will never be swayed. However, there are a lot of quiet fence-sitters that go whichever way the wind blows on this issue. They get their perception of gun people from the media, which as we know is extremely twisted. These are the people who can be swayed by an image of responsible gun ownership. These are also the people who can make the difference for us when legislation rolls around.

On the surface that sounds logical, even plausible. Let's assume though that every gun owner the fence riders are exposed to are safe, trained, responsible gun owners but the fence riders are not gun owners themselves. Who do you think they are going to be exposed to the most? The responsible gun owner or the liberal media. Even if one of their coworkers or neighbors is a gun owner I doubt they will be able to tell how safe he is from casual conversation. Without seeing the gun owner in action with his guns how will they determine he is a safe gun owner? Conversely he will be exposed to gun violence on the morning or evening news on a daily basis.

Don't get me wrong I think the first thing someone should do when they buy their first gun is get safety training. I just don't think it will have any impact on non gun owners opinions of us. We would do better by trying to convert the fence riding non gun owners into new gun owners so they could experience first hand that guns are not "evil".

RF7126
05-03-2007, 14:20
I just don't think it will have any impact on non gun owners opinions of us. We would do better by trying to convert the fence riding non gun owners into new gun owners so they could experience first hand that guns are not "evil".

I agree wholeheartedly, but are they going to want to associate with people they have a low opinion of? Or will they want to associate with people they feel are unsafe? The first step to convert these people (in my opinion) is to provide positive examples of responsible gun ownership. I'm not 100% sure how to do that, but every positive experience is a plus. :)

mpholic
05-03-2007, 14:27
Originally posted by RF7126
I agree wholeheartedly, but are they going to want to associate with people they have a low opinion of? Or will they want to associate with people they feel are unsafe? The first step to convert these people (in my opinion) is to provide positive examples of responsible gun ownership. I'm not 100% sure how to do that, but every positive experience is a plus. :)

Agreed. I guess we could start with the ones who aren't necessarily against guns but see no reason why we should be allowed to carry them on their person. Invite them to the range and ndoctrinate them slowly. Like you I'm not sure of a real plan that would work in most cases.

arbitrary
05-03-2007, 14:36
Bumper stickers!
Happiness is a warm gun.
Honk if you’re loaded.
Got guns?

mpholic
05-03-2007, 15:00
Originally posted by arbitrary
Bumper stickers!
Happiness is a warm gun.
Honk if you’re loaded.
Got guns?

:rofl:

Where do I send my order?

arbitrary
05-03-2007, 16:03
Like you I'm not sure of a real plan that would work in most cases.

Here's an idea. Ever hear The Car Guys on public radio? Besides taking calls and giving car advice, they joke around, give marital advice, and have puzzles. They get calls from those who know about cars, and from those who are clueless, but feel safe calling. We need a Gun Guys (or Persons, as the case may be) radio show, with callers asking questions, focused on information and safety. It would need to stay away from all politics, or nothing else would get done, and everyone would just get pissed off. Make it very friendly and accessible, not something exclusively for gun culturists. Like an hour on WIBC on Saturdays. With so many gun owners (and wannabe owners)in Indiana, there's a big potential audience. If anyone uses the idea, my fee is 5% of all gross revenues.

RF7126
05-03-2007, 16:14
That's a really good idea, but how do we implement it....

arbitrary
05-03-2007, 16:35
I'll be the guy who's new to guns, so he can relate to callers who are newbies, but knows enough to answer the basics, and pass the hard ones to the expert guy, who knows about all types of guns, knows how to talk on the radio (not as easy as you think, as I recall from my college radio daze), has a lot of patience, has a lot of gun-related contacts for guests, and a good sense of humor. Then we make a demo tape, play it to some potential sponsors, then take it around to the radio stations. If you have some sponsors lined up, they'll listen.

Snowman92D
05-04-2007, 05:00
Originally posted by arbitrary
If you want to improve the public image of gun owners, especially handgun owners, I suspect you will accomplish more by demonstrating that we are safe and responsible. People begin to understand that an average person can own a handgun and be safe and responsible about it. Then we are perceived as less of a threat, and more mainstream. If all the focus is on political fighting for more gun rights, your average citizen sees us as a fringe group only interested in an arms race.

I'm glad I can own and shoot guns, but I understand the concerns of those who have no first-hand gun experience. They are nervous about irresponsible or untrained people packing deadly weapons (as am I). Seems to me that we as gun owners can improve perceptions better than any politician or government agency. If people's perceived threat levels goes down, so will desires for new gun restrictions that don't help anything.

Nicely put...sadly though, this sort of logic takes a back seat to in-your-face attempts to "educate" the public on one's "right" to cause a stir by open carry in places where it isn't appropriate.

FThorn
05-04-2007, 05:09
Better/easier/trendier would be to put together a PODCAST.

Apple will host/distribute audio-recordings, and anyone with iTunes (FREE) can SUBSCRIBE to it.

There are ALREADY gun/2A podcasts out there. You can google for some. But it's preferred to open up iTunes, go the the STORE, select PODCASTS, and search for gun or firearm or second amendment or rifle, etc. I don't have a list in front of me at the moment.

mpholic
05-04-2007, 05:51
Originally posted by FThorn
Better/easier/trendier would be to put together a PODCAST.

Apple will host/distribute audio-recordings, and anyone with iTunes (FREE) can SUBSCRIBE to it.

There are ALREADY gun/2A podcasts out there. You can google for some. But it's preferred to open up iTunes, go the the STORE, select PODCASTS, and search for gun or firearm or second amendment or rifle, etc. I don't have a list in front of me at the moment.

Are podcasts live or recorded?

If recorded how do you take listeners questions?

I'll have to plead ignorance on the ipod stuff since I tend to stay away from trends with such mass appeal.

FThorn
05-04-2007, 06:55
Originally posted by mpholic
Are podcasts live or recorded?

If recorded how do you take listeners questions?

I'll have to plead ignorance on the ipod stuff since I tend to stay away from trends with such mass appeal.

They are recorded, uploaded to Apple's servers, and distributed to listeners to iTunes and can be synced/loaded onto iPods. THOUSANDS of churches broadcast their services everyweek on it, for instance.

Shows like Car Talk are recorded, and read listener letters/emails, so in effect they are still taking 'calls'.

KSFreeman
05-04-2007, 08:28
If we have a call in show, can I be the wacky sidekick? You know, like Chic McGee on Bob & Tom?

"O.K., let's take our first caller. It's Darrell from Martinsville. Darrell welcome to Indy Gun Talk. What's on your mind?"

"Ummm, first time listerner, long time caller. Is a .416 enough gun for a water heater throwed out in the ravine?"

"What do you think, KSFreeman?"

"Well, if you expect the water heat to charge, I'd use a .505 Gibbs."

mpholic
05-04-2007, 10:00
Originally posted by KSFreeman
If we have a call in show, can I be the wacky sidekick? You know, like Chic McGee on Bob & Tom?

"O.K., let's take our first caller. It's Darrell from Martinsville. Darrell welcome to Indy Gun Talk. What's on your mind?"

"Ummm, first time listerner, long time caller. Is a .416 enough gun for a water heater throwed out in the ravine?"

"What do you think, KSFreeman?"

"Well, if you expect the water heat to charge, I'd use a .505 Gibbs."

:rofl:

epsylum
05-04-2007, 16:27
Originally posted by KSFreeman
If we have a call in show, can I be the wacky sidekick? You know, like Chic McGee on Bob & Tom?

"O.K., let's take our first caller. It's Darrell from Martinsville. Darrell welcome to Indy Gun Talk. What's on your mind?"

"Ummm, first time listerner, long time caller. Is a .416 enough gun for a water heater throwed out in the ravine?"

"What do you think, KSFreeman?"

"Well, if you expect the water heat to charge, I'd use a .505 Gibbs."

Well you know you can never have too much gun. I'd say 20mm just to be safe. :supergrin:

4sarge
05-05-2007, 04:36
State Licensing

Up the fees,
add Training requirement - require mandatory training
Register firearms to be carried
Super license to Carry Firearms

Man, sounds too good to be true :laughabove: and it is :rofl:

If you could trust the state or lived in Oz then this would work but we must live in REALITY

Continue to Up the fees make it too costly for some to continue
continue to make training stringent to weed out undesirables,
require more training to weed out more undesirable license holders,
register all firearms - pass legislation to outlaw certain evil firearms, require the evil firearms to be turned in or ?

State suspends licensing to carry, requires all listed firearms to be turned in after a VA Tech like shooting and the Rosie O'Donnell and liberal media outcry

Can anyone say "slippery slope"

Illinois begins Gun Confiscation (http://www.kc3.com/news/chicago_confiscation.htm)

Believe me - I am NOT a Conspiracy Theorist but the Goal is to Outlaw Guns and Live in the One World Union of Countries.

Take Australia - very similar culture to ours (wild west & such) They lost their guns. We are about the only ones left. Rhodesia & South Africa (whatever the countries are named this week) the farmers are being slaughtered by the indigenous after the government changed the rules. Can we be far behind? I'll probably never be affected - too old - but guns will be gone in the USA unless the WASPs take a stand. AND they will not. Did you see the evening news - LA Riots. Police respond and now they are chastised. Who will protect you? 12 really more like 25 million potential illegal new voters who could care less if you have gun rights - they don't - why should we. Wake Up - We (Gun owners) are the only ones who care about Gun Control. Interesting piece on 20/20 last nite - Gun Control Myth - Debunked - Maybe there is hope :upeyes:

Leave Our Gun Rights Alone without State Interference

kahrcarrier
05-05-2007, 06:50
Leave it the way it is.

If you start changing it, it will eventually change in the direction we do NOT want, I guarantee it.

dwh79
05-05-2007, 15:17
I agree it is a slippery slope but I believe that our right to carry will continue to be eroded as more states pass rules requiring training and eventually we will only be able to carry in Indiana. I am going to DC for some meetings with politicians concerning my work in the underground construction field and I will also make it known my opinion on the second amendment and national recipriciocity(sp).

tlish
05-05-2007, 19:49
Originally posted by KSFreeman
If we have a call in show, can I be the wacky sidekick? You know, like Chic McGee on Bob & Tom?

i get to be the token female!

KSFreeman
05-06-2007, 14:07
Ummm, dwh, hate to burst your bubble of gloom and doom, but you know more states are recognizing Indiana's license to carry, not fewer.

Recently Texas, which requires training and you numbnuts told me that there was no way I could get Texas to recognize Indiana, announced that it was going to recognize Indiana.

rhino465
05-06-2007, 14:51
Originally posted by KSFreeman
Ummm, dwh, hate to burst your bubble of gloom and doom, but you know more states are recognizing Indiana's license to carry, not fewer.

Recently Texas, which requires training and you numbnuts told me that there was no way I could get Texas to recognize Indiana, announced that it was going to recognize Indiana.

:notworthy:

:yourock: :kilt:

dwh79
05-06-2007, 16:40
I am glad to hear that I would much rather be proven wrong on this issue than right. Now if we can just get the states east of us to recognize it I would feel much better.

KSFreeman
05-06-2007, 16:41
Wait, I just read dwh's post again. Underground construction? Do you do ranges?:banana:

dwh, the best route to go in carrying in other states is to procure an Utah and Florida license. These two will get you far.:)

Until the Republicans win back the Congress we are unlikely to have federal nationwide reciprocity.

dwh79
05-07-2007, 20:25
I am what you might call a mole or tunnel rat.

I have always wondered how that works. If I get a Florida or Utah non-resident license how does that work as being recognized in other states? I have thought about getting one of those license but I want to make darn sure it will work before I spend the money or time to get it.

Has anyone been stopped in a place and had to use one of these to get out of a jam in a place like Ohio.

Thanks for the help in advance.

minuteman32
05-08-2007, 09:06
Originally posted by dwh79
I am what you might call a mole or tunnel rat.

I have always wondered how that works. If I get a Florida or Utah non-resident license how does that work as being recognized in other states? I have thought about getting one of those license but I want to make darn sure it will work before I spend the money or time to get it.

Has anyone been stopped in a place and had to use one of these to get out of a jam in a place like Ohio.

Thanks for the help in advance. I have always wondered how that works. If I get a Florida or Utah non-resident license how does that work as being recognized in other states? I have thought about getting one of those license but I want to make darn sure it will work before I spend the money or time to get it.

Has anyone been stopped in a place and had to use one of these to get out of a jam in a place like Ohio.

Thanks for the help in advance. [/B][/QUOTE]

Check handgunlaw.us & packing.org. W/ an IN LTC you can carry in 22-23 states. Other states either recognize our LTC or or have reciprocal agreements, meaning, you can carry in those states as though you had one of their permits.
Some states do NOT recognize IN LTC's, but do recognize another states permit (issued by FL, UT, etc.). In those states, you can NOT carry on your IN LTC. If you have a permit from a state that this 3rd state recognizes, then you can carry in that 3rd state, on a non resident 2nd states permit.
To further complicate this, if this 3rd state only recognized permits issued to residents of the states from whom the 3rd state recognizes, and they recognize the IN LTC & you are an IN resident, you are good to go. If they do not recognize IN LTC's, but do recognize the 2nd states license, but only for residents of state 2, and you are a resident of IN (& not a resident of state 2) you can NOT carry on state 2's permit in state 3.
Now, @ this time, the only state that recognizes either UT or FL permits for residents only of UT or FL is KS (they recognize FL) & KS does NOT recognize IN LTC's. The other "resident only states are, NH, FL, SC, WV & MI. Of these NH, MI & FL recognize the IN LTC. WV & SC don't recognize either (yet).
Hope this is helpful.

dwh79
05-08-2007, 10:45
Thanks for the info. I think I will call Ohio and see if they will recognize a florida permit. Ohio and Virginia not including DC is who I am mainly trying to get a permit for.

minuteman32
05-08-2007, 11:11
They do. OH recognizes FL, UT & several others, just not IN (due to age(18)/training(none).

FL is easy to get as they accept a LOT of different things for their training requirement, but they are expensive ($117 every 5 years, for a non res.) UT, on the other hand is not quite as easy (must take a class from a UT certified instructor), but cost is $59 for the 1st 5 yrs, $10 each 5 yrs thereafter. You also gain MN & WA w/ UT, but lose PA (which can be had for $26/5yrs). FL, you lose MN & WA, but gain PA.

Either UT or FL will net you OH & VA.

Again, check handgunlaw.us & packing.org and you can print off maps of covered states, local/state laws (such as legally binding gun free zones)& contact info for the various state/local agencies.

4sarge
05-08-2007, 12:08
Originally posted by minuteman32
I have always wondered how that works. If I get a Florida or Utah non-resident license how does that work as being recognized in other states? I have thought about getting one of those license but I want to make darn sure it will work before I spend the money or time to get it.

Has anyone been stopped in a place and had to use one of these to get out of a jam in a place like Ohio.

Thanks for the help in advance.

Check handgunlaw.us & packing.org. W/ an IN LTC you can carry in 22-23 states. Other states either recognize our LTC or or have reciprocal agreements, meaning, you can carry in those states as though you had one of their permits.
Some states do NOT recognize IN LTC's, but do recognize another states permit (issued by FL, UT, etc.). In those states, you can NOT carry on your IN LTC. If you have a permit from a state that this 3rd state recognizes, then you can carry in that 3rd state, on a non resident 2nd states permit.
To further complicate this, if this 3rd state only recognized permits issued to residents of the states from whom the 3rd state recognizes, and they recognize the IN LTC & you are an IN resident, you are good to go. If they do not recognize IN LTC's, but do recognize the 2nd states license, but only for residents of state 2, and you are a resident of IN (& not a resident of state 2) you can NOT carry on state 2's permit in state 3.
Now, @ this time, the only state that recognizes either UT or FL permits for residents only of UT or FL is KS (they recognize FL) & KS does NOT recognize IN LTC's. The other "resident only states are, NH, FL, SC, WV & MI. Of these NH, MI & FL recognize the IN LTC. WV & SC don't recognize either (yet).
Hope this is helpful. [/B]

Confusing - EXACTLY and thats what happens when you involve 50 different state jurisdictions setting specific requirements for CCW. They will only agree to disagree and standard requirements will constantly be changing and we will end up in a bureaucratic nightmare.

minuteman32
05-08-2007, 12:35
Originally posted by 4sarge
Confusing - EXACTLY and thats what happens when you involve 50 different state jurisdictions setting specific requirements for CCW. They will only agree to disagree and standard requirements will constantly be changing and we will end up in a bureaucratic nightmare.

I hear ya!

I would like to see legislation, on the federal level, that said something along the lines of, "....(you) shall carry defensive weapons anywhere w/in the U.S., according to the laws of your home state/town/ etc., the location any 'License to Carry' is issued from, or the location (you) are currently in, whichever laws are most permissive..."

So, if you are from IN, but in TN & have an LTC from IN & UT, you would be able to carry into a bar (illegal in TN, but ok in IN & UT) or a school (illegal in IN & TN but legal in UT).

I suppose the best option would be to get the 2nd Amendment to just be enforced throughout the entire U.S. Then we all could own (keep) & carry (bear) whatever guns & knives (arms) whenever & where ever (shall not be infringed) we like! [I know, this fuzzy stuff all around my peripheral vision must mean I'm dreaming!?]

rhino465
05-08-2007, 22:15
I wonder if West Virginia will ever accept licenses from anywhere other than resident Virginia. There are a few good facilities in W Virginia that I'd like to visit some day.

minuteman32
05-09-2007, 08:02
Anything is possible, I suppose. Look @ SC! They actually have legislation to recognize all other states permits. That from fighting tooth & nail to recognize ANY other permits.

Like the line from the VW commercial ..... "hope springs".