Testing for your rights

al45lc · 01-13-2011, 04:36 PM

Is it just me, or do others here (I would expect many do, but have been surprised elsewhere) see the 'testing' that many states require for a permit as discriminatory and unconstitutional?
In Colorado, I spent roughly $200 and about 6 hours to obtain my permit.
Is this average?
After all, we don't test for our right to vote, or for many of our other rights.
The money and time is of no consequence to me, per se, but what about the single mother with two jobs and the crazy ex-hubby? (This is an actual person I'm aware of through association) If that woman literally has no time nor the money for her take a course to obtain her permit to excercise her Constitutional right, is that not discriminatory?
Not to mention I see no reason why I should "prove" to anyone that I can or cannot shoot, or handle a gun. After all, are we not each responsible for our own actions? The idea that it's "in the public interest for safety" is a crock, I'm part of that public, and the state certainly doesn't gaurantee my safety.
The Supreme Court has ruled that no police organization has an obligation to protect any individual , but only the public "at large".( Many may remember that case from '05'{the crime was in '99} right here in Colorado, a terrible tragedy)
So, in light of that, I wonder where the states get off with this testing nonsense.
Originally, I came from Indiana, where all I had to do was fill out the application and get fingerprinted for a permit. I'm fine with reasonable licensing procedures, but my experience with the testing and classes was a joke, and a complete waste of time. And as I said, I see it as an infringement of my rights, designed to 'weed out' and discourage those who can't afford it.
There it is, what are the thoughts and observations of others?

armedandsafe · 01-13-2011, 06:17 PM

Poll Tax, anyone? I thought the Supreme Court had ruled on that.

Found this on another site:

Quote:

"No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore." -Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, US Supreme Court, 1943
-----------------------------------------------------
We emphasized that the 'inherent vice and evil' of the flat license tax is that 'it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties' and 'inevitably tends to suppress their exercise.' 319 U.S. page 114, 63 S.Ct. page 875, 146 A.L.R. 81.-Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944]

Pops

pickenup · 01-13-2011, 06:41 PM

I was with you, until you got to this.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by al45lc

I'm fine with reasonable licensing procedures,

Since I am not a criminal, I am NOT fine with ANY government infringement on my right to keep and BEAR arms. The "permit" itself, is UNconstitutional. Vermont, Alaska, and now Arizona are the only states that have it right.

As for the training, there are so many types of training, it's a joke. Some instructors "test" your ability to shoot, some don't even do that.

As with many things, as far as I'm concerned, it's mostly about the money.

johnlives4christ · 01-13-2011, 06:41 PM

all gun laws/restrictions are a violation of my rights. therefore the government is not to be trusted

Eddie N · 01-13-2011, 07:21 PM

Probably the biggest reason I haven't got my CCW yet. If other states can do it, why can't they all? The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution, doesn't say anything about permits.

al45lc · 01-14-2011, 08:32 AM

I agree about the permits themselves, I was just being "reasonable" as some would call it.
I'm a member of another forum (on motorcycles) and the number who think that my principled stand against 'testing' is unreasonable is enormous.
The greatest thorn of all is the "it's the law" argument, along with those who think it's OK to allow incremental infringement (testing) of their rights.
Nearly all use the eliteist argument that people who aren't trained shouldn't carry, for public 'safety'. I've yet to find the part in the Constitution that ensures public safety from others actions, I always thought that we were each responsible for our actions, and were to be held accountable for them.
Isn't that what the Courts are for?
I, like many others here I suspect, feel that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is 'the law' of the land, not some legislated half ass attempt to restrain or hobble my rights.
But I thought I 'd troll the waters for more and varied input, hence the post.
Keep 'em coming!

Double D · 01-14-2011, 08:48 AM

I am in agreement with you guys, BUT, I have students that have never held a gun come to take concealed classes. If someone wasnt there to instruct them and teach them safety it could be a disaster.

RunningOnMT · 01-14-2011, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armedandsafe

Poll Tax, anyone? I thought the Supreme Court had ruled on that.

Found this on another site:

"No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore." -Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105, US Supreme Court, 1943
-----------------------------------------------------
We emphasized that the 'inherent vice and evil' of the flat license tax is that 'it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties' and 'inevitably tends to suppress their exercise.' 319 U.S. page 114, 63 S.Ct. page 875, 146 A.L.R. 81.-Follett vs. Town of McCormick, S.C., 321 U.S. 573 [1944]

Pops

Excellent info Pops. I wonder if anyone has ever successfully defended themselves against a charge of concealed carry without a permit, using that ruling.

hogger129 · 01-14-2011, 03:26 PM

In my opinion, any kind of "licensing" is an infringement. I believe that the Second Amendment grants an absolute right to keep and bear arms. It even specifically goes out of its way and says "shall not be infringed." I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

As for the people selling them, yes, they should be allowed to do a background check. They should not be forced to sell to anybody they don't want to.

In my opinion, licensing people to carry a firearm is like the Poll Tax that they used to have for voting. Both are Constitutional rights and anything impeding that is a violation of Due Process.

I think if you are legally able to buy a gun, you should be able to carry it.

And there was a judge here in Wisconsin who not to long ago ruled the ban on concealed carry here unconstitutional. I would not be surprised if in the next year or so they legalize it or go to a Constitutional Carry system where you need no permit.

I'm sure that if someone had the time and money to challenge permits as a violation of Due Process, it would get appealed to the SCOTUS. And right now, I don't know how they would vote on that since Kagan is now on the court and I can tell she is no friend to the Second Amendment.

RunningOnMT · 01-14-2011, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hogger129

In my opinion, any kind of "licensing" is an infringement. I believe that the Second Amendment grants an absolute right to keep and bear arms. It even specifically goes out of its way and says "shall not be infringed." I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

As for the people selling them, yes, they should be allowed to do a background check. They should not be forced to sell to anybody they don't want to.

In my opinion, licensing people to carry a firearm is like the Poll Tax that they used to have for voting. Both are Constitutional rights and anything impeding that is a violation of Due Process.

I think if you are legally able to buy a gun, you should be able to carry it.

And there was a judge here in Wisconsin who not to long ago ruled the ban on concealed carry here unconstitutional. I would not be surprised if in the next year or so they legalize it or go to a Constitutional Carry system where you need no permit.

I'm sure that if someone had the time and money to challenge permits as a violation of Due Process, it would get appealed to the SCOTUS. And right now, I don't know how they would vote on that since Kagan is now on the court and I can tell she is no friend to the Second Amendment.

I agree 100%. I would think that stare decisis would have to be followed in any ruling the court would make, regardless of who was on it.

al45lc · 01-16-2011, 12:02 AM

As an update, I was rather thoroughly 'trounced' on that motorcycle forum by many who carry (including the admin) for my anti-testing stance, proving that just because some are fond of guns, they might still be brainwashed by the 'in the interest of public safety' garbage.
I was treated quite rudely, in fact.

ofitg · 01-16-2011, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by al45lc

As an update, I was rather thoroughly 'trounced' on that motorcycle forum by many who carry (including the admin) for my anti-testing stance, proving that just because some are fond of guns, they might still be brainwashed by the 'in the interest of public safety' garbage.
I was treated quite rudely, in fact.

They sound like "authority worshippers".

A common failure of the human mind.

Hatch · 01-16-2011, 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by al45lc

I agree about the permits themselves, I was just being "reasonable" as some would call it.
I'm a member of another forum (on motorcycles) and the number who think that my principled stand against 'testing' is unreasonable is enormous.
The greatest thorn of all is the "it's the law" argument, along with those who think it's OK to allow incremental infringement (testing) of their rights.
Nearly all use the eliteist argument that people who aren't trained shouldn't carry, for public 'safety'. I've yet to find the part in the Constitution that ensures public safety from others actions, I always thought that we were each responsible for our actions, and were to be held accountable for them.
Isn't that what the Courts are for?
I, like many others here I suspect, feel that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is 'the law' of the land, not some legislated half ass attempt to restrain or hobble my rights.
But I thought I 'd troll the waters for more and varied input, hence the post.
Keep 'em coming!

your community of motorcycle enthusiasts is just as vulnerable to their rights being marginalized, regulated and outright nullified as gun owners.

I've been gone for some time so please forgive me because I don't know if you've posted that you are sport bike or cruiser rider, rare sure, but possibly it's both?

You dont "NEED" that Ninja, Busa, Gixxer...
HOW FAST DOES THAT GO???
It's loud
People stunt bikes
YOU could get hurt

How loud does your cruiser have to be?
you could get hurt
people stunt bikes (please recall that Indian Larry died while being filmed for national TV on a 5 mph stunt on a cruiser)

And thats just off the top of my head, and what you probably don't know is I have a 12R in the garage.

I understand your concerns about losing your gun rights, as well as the random attacks on m/c and other groups... how many people would vote FOR a tax on cigarettes because smoking is bad for you, it's costing money in hospitals and insurance... why not stop TAXING cigarettes and start passing laws that say if you do this "thing" you are not entitled to public welfare. and same goes with motorcycles, if you want to ride without a helmet, and then get in a wreck, it's your problem, if you dont have insurance, or if you do, but they never authorized you to ride without a helmet and you lost half your face doing the asphalt slide... too bad.

Ever ask the guys on the m/c forum if they want to brick up all the windows that people get pushed out of, put fences on every roof in America, ban every car that isnt made out of NERF foam?

See what I'm getting at?

al45lc · 01-17-2011, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatch

your community of motorcycle enthusiasts is just as vulnerable to their rights being marginalized, regulated and outright nullified as gun owners.

I've been gone for some time so please forgive me because I don't know if you've posted that you are sport bike or cruiser rider, rare sure, but possibly it's both?

You dont "NEED" that Ninja, Busa, Gixxer...
HOW FAST DOES THAT GO???
It's loud
People stunt bikes
YOU could get hurt

How loud does your cruiser have to be?
you could get hurt
people stunt bikes (please recall that Indian Larry died while being filmed for national TV on a 5 mph stunt on a cruiser)

And thats just off the top of my head, and what you probably don't know is I have a 12R in the garage.

I understand your concerns about losing your gun rights, as well as the random attacks on m/c and other groups... how many people would vote FOR a tax on cigarettes because smoking is bad for you, it's costing money in hospitals and insurance... why not stop TAXING cigarettes and start passing laws that say if you do this "thing" you are not entitled to public welfare. and same goes with motorcycles, if you want to ride without a helmet, and then get in a wreck, it's your problem, if you dont have insurance, or if you do, but they never authorized you to ride without a helmet and you lost half your face doing the asphalt slide... too bad.

Ever ask the guys on the m/c forum if they want to brick up all the windows that people get pushed out of, put fences on every roof in America, ban every car that isnt made out of NERF foam?

See what I'm getting at?

I see it, and agree. It's a Dual-Sport (road/dirt) forum actually, and interestingly enough that you bring it up, one of the industry magazines (Friction Zone) just recently had an article on how insurance companies are trying to get certain types of motorcycles restricted or outright banned, due to high insurance claims on those machines.
I'm against helmet laws, but never ride without full gear (ATGATT) including and always a helmet.
Funny, but I think very few people would be injured by citizens carrying without training as compared to the number injured by poor drivers, yet our driving tests for licensing are often a joke, and it seems they hand them out to whomever.

Crpdeth · 01-17-2011, 12:04 PM

Somehow I missed this thread as well, but in reading through it, I thought the same as Hatch did... I wonder how your friends on the other forum liked it years back when helmets were made mandatory, then it was decided that you could go without one if you had so much insurance. To me, a motorcycle makes me feel free, gives me the ability to get out in the wind and exercise that feeling (Not that I have one atm). Then the government steps in and says "If you want to ride the roads that your taxes have built, you will wear this big gaudy ball to protect your dumb head", oh I understand some of the reasons, but it should be my choice, not theirs... Who do they think they are?

My fear is that they are striving for total dictatorship, one little piece at a time... If they can get us used to being told what to do "for our own good", as the years roll by and children are born into this world feeling that it is normal, then there wont be a total revolt by the sheep as they quietly place their thumb on us.

As far as the CCL class goes, hell I enjoyed it, the instructor is a friend of mine, and the question and answer portions are easy for firearm enthusiasts, but honestly, it is mostly common sense stuff that anyone here could "instruct". The instructor knew beforehand who was to attend the class, that we had no felonies and told us up front that we would all pass... I saw one girl put a round in the dirt, 10' in front of her man size silhouette and she passed, so the nice feeling that I was supposed to have because all mine were grouped nicely center mass kinda lost it's luster.

Crpdeth

pandamonium · 01-17-2011, 04:30 PM

I agree with most of what has been posted on this thread. I too, believe that any licensing fees, tests, or regulation is an infringement of my constitutional rights. I do think that anybody who is new to firearms should seek out professional training on how to safely handle, fire, and clean firearms. But it should NOT be a prerequisite to purchase or carry.

Our government has decided, maybe not collectively or even conciously, that the citizens of this great country need to be protected from themselves. Now, in observing people in general, i do believe that too many people are walking around without their helmets on! But I actually think that people have been conditioned to have someone else tell them what to do and when and where they should do it, now it is an automatic response! We have, in effect, been "dumbed down". The survival of the fittest instinct that made humans what we are has been conditioned out of many. Hence the appropriate name "sheeple". And these sheeple go right along with whatever those legislators come up with, "in our own best interest". I do not need some asshat in DC telling me I HAVE to wear a seatbelt while driving my car, or that I HAVE to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle. Our society, in general, in part due to the mentality I described above, no longer has Personal Accountability. It is automatic for folks to blame someone else for thier own stupidity! Lawyers don't help the situation at all!

I hope I didn't go too far off topic, but I feel the behavior of todays society is, IMO, largely due to the NANNY STATE laws our government has forced down our throats.

armedandsafe · 01-17-2011, 04:39 PM

Going back to the early days of the militia, from which the Second Amendment was drawn, it was mandatory for all members of the militia to attend regular training and classes in the use of their weapons.

That should start some discussions, of not arguments.

Pops

pandamonium · 01-17-2011, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armedandsafe

Going back to the early days of the militia, from which the Second Amendment was drawn, it was mandatory for all members of the militia to attend regular training and classes in the use of their weapons.

That should start some discussions, of not arguments.

Pops

Understood, but the militia in those days weren't told "if you dont take this training couse and take a test and pass a background check and pay for a permit and pay an illegal tax, then you can't have a gun and be in our militia"!!! I think not anyway! just sayin...

pandamonium · 01-17-2011, 04:51 PM

That training was what "well regulated" meant!!

hogger129 · 01-17-2011, 05:16 PM

The Second Amendment protects the rights of all citizens to keep and bear arms. It never said they had to be part of a militia to exercise that right. With that said, training in the use of arms is never a bad idea. But it isn't a requirement to "keep and bear arms."

al45lc · 01-18-2011, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hogger129

The Second Amendment protects the rights of all citizens to keep and bear arms. It never said they had to be part of a militia to exercise that right. With that said, training in the use of arms is never a bad idea. But it isn't a requirement to "keep and bear arms."

Exactly, and may I add, it doesn't say against whom the security was a neccesity for. Security is security, against all comers, foreign or domestic.
And it just goes to reason that to truly be secure, musn't one be able to 'bear' arms?

01-13-2011, 04:36 PM	#1
al45lc Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: colorful colorado Posts: 1,016	Testing for your rights Is it just me, or do others here (I would expect many do, but have been surprised elsewhere) see the 'testing' that many states require for a permit as discriminatory and unconstitutional? In Colorado, I spent roughly $200 and about 6 hours to obtain my permit. Is this average? After all, we don't test for our right to vote, or for many of our other rights. The money and time is of no consequence to me, per se, but what about the single mother with two jobs and the crazy ex-hubby? (This is an actual person I'm aware of through association) If that woman literally has no time nor the money for her take a course to obtain her permit to excercise her Constitutional right, is that not discriminatory? Not to mention I see no reason why I should "prove" to anyone that I can or cannot shoot, or handle a gun. After all, are we not each responsible for our own actions? The idea that it's "in the public interest for safety" is a crock, I'm part of that public, and the state certainly doesn't gaurantee my safety. The Supreme Court has ruled that no police organization has an obligation to protect any individual , but only the public "at large".( Many may remember that case from '05'{the crime was in '99} right here in Colorado, a terrible tragedy) So, in light of that, I wonder where the states get off with this testing nonsense. Originally, I came from Indiana, where all I had to do was fill out the application and get fingerprinted for a permit. I'm fine with reasonable licensing procedures, but my experience with the testing and classes was a joke, and a complete waste of time. And as I said, I see it as an infringement of my rights, designed to 'weed out' and discourage those who can't afford it. There it is, what are the thoughts and observations of others? -->

01-13-2011, 06:41 PM	#4
johnlives4christ Former Guest Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Kentucky Posts: 3,828	Re: Testing for your rights all gun laws/restrictions are a violation of my rights. therefore the government is not to be trusted

01-13-2011, 07:21 PM	#5
Eddie N Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Colorado Contributor Posts: 1,192	Re: Testing for your rights Probably the biggest reason I haven't got my CCW yet. If other states can do it, why can't they all? The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution, doesn't say anything about permits. __________________ September 11, 2001 Hope and Change: I hope there's some change left in my paycheck! 2012: Saying good bye to my paycheck.

01-14-2011, 08:32 AM	#6
al45lc Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: colorful colorado Posts: 1,016	Re: Testing for your rights I agree about the permits themselves, I was just being "reasonable" as some would call it. I'm a member of another forum (on motorcycles) and the number who think that my principled stand against 'testing' is unreasonable is enormous. The greatest thorn of all is the "it's the law" argument, along with those who think it's OK to allow incremental infringement (testing) of their rights. Nearly all use the eliteist argument that people who aren't trained shouldn't carry, for public 'safety'. I've yet to find the part in the Constitution that ensures public safety from others actions, I always thought that we were each responsible for our actions, and were to be held accountable for them. Isn't that what the Courts are for? I, like many others here I suspect, feel that the Constitution and Bill of Rights is 'the law' of the land, not some legislated half ass attempt to restrain or hobble my rights. But I thought I 'd troll the waters for more and varied input, hence the post. Keep 'em coming!

01-14-2011, 08:48 AM	#7
Double D TFF Moderator/Host Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: North Florida Contributor Posts: 8,054	Re: Testing for your rights I am in agreement with you guys, BUT, I have students that have never held a gun come to take concealed classes. If someone wasnt there to instruct them and teach them safety it could be a disaster. __________________ I own a bunch of scary guns. You want em? Come and take em..... Liberalism is a serious, non curable, mental disorder... NRA LIFE MEMBER Oath Keepers Member NRA Certified Instructor 30 Yr CC permit holder.

01-14-2011, 03:26 PM	#9
hogger129 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,064	Re: Testing for your rights In my opinion, any kind of "licensing" is an infringement. I believe that the Second Amendment grants an absolute right to keep and bear arms. It even specifically goes out of its way and says "shall not be infringed." I don't know what's so hard to understand about that. As for the people selling them, yes, they should be allowed to do a background check. They should not be forced to sell to anybody they don't want to. In my opinion, licensing people to carry a firearm is like the Poll Tax that they used to have for voting. Both are Constitutional rights and anything impeding that is a violation of Due Process. I think if you are legally able to buy a gun, you should be able to carry it. And there was a judge here in Wisconsin who not to long ago ruled the ban on concealed carry here unconstitutional. I would not be surprised if in the next year or so they legalize it or go to a Constitutional Carry system where you need no permit. I'm sure that if someone had the time and money to challenge permits as a violation of Due Process, it would get appealed to the SCOTUS. And right now, I don't know how they would vote on that since Kagan is now on the court and I can tell she is no friend to the Second Amendment. __________________ Samuel Adams once said, "among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." Last edited by hogger129; 01-14-2011 at 03:34 PM..

01-16-2011, 12:02 AM	#11
al45lc Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: colorful colorado Posts: 1,016	Re: Testing for your rights As an update, I was rather thoroughly 'trounced' on that motorcycle forum by many who carry (including the admin) for my anti-testing stance, proving that just because some are fond of guns, they might still be brainwashed by the 'in the interest of public safety' garbage. I was treated quite rudely, in fact.

01-17-2011, 12:04 PM	#15
Crpdeth Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Location: Location Contributor Posts: 8,247	Re: Testing for your rights Somehow I missed this thread as well, but in reading through it, I thought the same as Hatch did... I wonder how your friends on the other forum liked it years back when helmets were made mandatory, then it was decided that you could go without one if you had so much insurance. To me, a motorcycle makes me feel free, gives me the ability to get out in the wind and exercise that feeling (Not that I have one atm). Then the government steps in and says "If you want to ride the roads that your taxes have built, you will wear this big gaudy ball to protect your dumb head", oh I understand some of the reasons, but it should be my choice, not theirs... Who do they think they are? My fear is that they are striving for total dictatorship, one little piece at a time... If they can get us used to being told what to do "for our own good", as the years roll by and children are born into this world feeling that it is normal, then there wont be a total revolt by the sheep as they quietly place their thumb on us. As far as the CCL class goes, hell I enjoyed it, the instructor is a friend of mine, and the question and answer portions are easy for firearm enthusiasts, but honestly, it is mostly common sense stuff that anyone here could "instruct". The instructor knew beforehand who was to attend the class, that we had no felonies and told us up front that we would all pass... I saw one girl put a round in the dirt, 10' in front of her man size silhouette and she passed, so the nice feeling that I was supposed to have because all mine were grouped nicely center mass kinda lost it's luster. Crpdeth __________________ Our greatest pretenses are built up not to hide the evil and the ugly in us, but our emptiness. The hardest thing to hide is something that is not there. ~Eric Hoffer

01-17-2011, 04:30 PM	#16
pandamonium Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: South Jersey Posts: 36	Re: Testing for your rights I agree with most of what has been posted on this thread. I too, believe that any licensing fees, tests, or regulation is an infringement of my constitutional rights. I do think that anybody who is new to firearms should seek out professional training on how to safely handle, fire, and clean firearms. But it should NOT be a prerequisite to purchase or carry. Our government has decided, maybe not collectively or even conciously, that the citizens of this great country need to be protected from themselves. Now, in observing people in general, i do believe that too many people are walking around without their helmets on! But I actually think that people have been conditioned to have someone else tell them what to do and when and where they should do it, now it is an automatic response! We have, in effect, been "dumbed down". The survival of the fittest instinct that made humans what we are has been conditioned out of many. Hence the appropriate name "sheeple". And these sheeple go right along with whatever those legislators come up with, "in our own best interest". I do not need some asshat in DC telling me I HAVE to wear a seatbelt while driving my car, or that I HAVE to wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle. Our society, in general, in part due to the mentality I described above, no longer has Personal Accountability. It is automatic for folks to blame someone else for thier own stupidity! Lawyers don't help the situation at all! I hope I didn't go too far off topic, but I feel the behavior of todays society is, IMO, largely due to the NANNY STATE laws our government has forced down our throats. __________________ I took an oath to defend my country against all enemies, both foriegn and domestic. I do not recall being relieved of that oath. SEMPER FI!!!

01-17-2011, 04:39 PM	#17
armedandsafe Former Guest Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Moses Lake, WA Posts: 10,344	Re: Testing for your rights Going back to the early days of the militia, from which the Second Amendment was drawn, it was mandatory for all members of the militia to attend regular training and classes in the use of their weapons. That should start some discussions, of not arguments. Pops

01-17-2011, 04:51 PM	#19
pandamonium Member Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: South Jersey Posts: 36	Re: Testing for your rights That training was what "well regulated" meant!! __________________ I took an oath to defend my country against all enemies, both foriegn and domestic. I do not recall being relieved of that oath. SEMPER FI!!!

01-17-2011, 05:16 PM	#20
hogger129 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,064	Re: Testing for your rights The Second Amendment protects the rights of all citizens to keep and bear arms. It never said they had to be part of a militia to exercise that right. With that said, training in the use of arms is never a bad idea. But it isn't a requirement to "keep and bear arms." __________________ Samuel Adams once said, "among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." Last edited by hogger129; 01-17-2011 at 05:19 PM..