User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/18/2015 8:35:22 AM EDT
[#1]
its a start
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2015 1:58:01 PM EDT
[#2]
Meanwhile, Maine passes constitutional carry. Ah....Oklahoma, where we finally pass open carry but only with a permit but we'll arm military personnel to protect them from the crazies out in the public. Granted, I totally agree that they should be armed, given the current state of affairs, but the rest of us are exposed to the crazies as well. Our state likes to brag about their "pro gun rights" laws but we continually lag behind the REAL pro 2A states like Arizona, Alaska, Arkansas, Wyoming, Maine and for FRICKS sake..KANSAS!!! Kansas is only supposed to exist so Oklahoma can have a state to make fun of and they are shaming us!! Even Missouri is preparing to pass constitutional carry!
Ack!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2015 2:55:00 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Meanwhile, Maine passes constitutional carry. Ah....Oklahoma, where we finally pass open carry but only with a permit but we'll arm military personnel to protect them from the crazies out in the public. Granted, I totally agree that they should be armed, given the current state of affairs, but the rest of us are exposed to the crazies as well. Our state likes to brag about their "pro gun rights" laws but we continually lag behind the REAL pro 2A states like Arizona, Alaska, Arkansas, Wyoming, Maine and for FRICKS sake..KANSAS!!! Kansas is only supposed to exist so Oklahoma can have a state to make fun of and they are shaming us!! Even Missouri is preparing to pass constitutional carry! Ack!! I'm not, why are you..? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2015 8:05:57 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not, why are you..? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Meanwhile, Maine passes constitutional carry. Ah....Oklahoma, where we finally pass open carry but only with a permit but we'll arm military personnel to protect them from the crazies out in the public. Granted, I totally agree that they should be armed, given the current state of affairs, but the rest of us are exposed to the crazies as well. Our state likes to brag about their "pro gun rights" laws but we continually lag behind the REAL pro 2A states like Arizona, Alaska, Arkansas, Wyoming, Maine and for FRICKS sake..KANSAS!!! Kansas is only supposed to exist so Oklahoma can have a state to make fun of and they are shaming us!! Even Missouri is preparing to pass constitutional carry! Ack!! I'm not, why are you..? Are you still in that bunker??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/18/2015 9:01:53 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you still in that bunker??? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Meanwhile, Maine passes constitutional carry. Ah....Oklahoma, where we finally pass open carry but only with a permit but we'll arm military personnel to protect them from the crazies out in the public. Granted, I totally agree that they should be armed, given the current state of affairs, but the rest of us are exposed to the crazies as well. Our state likes to brag about their "pro gun rights" laws but we continually lag behind the REAL pro 2A states like Arizona, Alaska, Arkansas, Wyoming, Maine and for FRICKS sake..KANSAS!!! Kansas is only supposed to exist so Oklahoma can have a state to make fun of and they are shaming us!! Even Missouri is preparing to pass constitutional carry! Ack!! I'm not, why are you..? Are you still in that bunker??? Whut? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2015 12:32:21 AM EDT
[#6]
If you're safe from the crazies you gotta be in a bunker cause otherwise you are definitely not safe from them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2015 1:02:18 AM EDT
[#7]
I think this only applies to full-time Oklahoma National Guardsmen, possibly ANG as well. Not to Active Duty personnel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2015 11:23:03 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you're safe from the crazies you gotta be in a bunker cause otherwise you are definitely not safe from them. It sounded to me like you were referring to carrying a firearm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/19/2015 5:28:19 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It sounded to me like you were referring to carrying a firearm. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you're safe from the crazies you gotta be in a bunker cause otherwise you are definitely not safe from them. It sounded to me like you were referring to carrying a firearm. My point being that the governor doesn't think twice about authorizing military folks to be armed in our (i.e. the civilian) world because of the crazies but the rest of us live in the same world and we have to fight tooth and nail for her to do the same thing. I used to be one of those people who thought that it was best for folks to go through a vetting process to get a carry permit to weed out the nutballs and the people who are just too irresponsible to carry a gun, however, not any more. You can legislate the process to death and you will never stop bad things from happening. Now I'm all for constitutional carry, the way our forefathers intended. They weren't encumbered by the nanny state mentality that has infected our government as time has gone on. They wanted every law abiding American citizen to be able to defend themselves from a rogue government as well as the dangers that are inherent when humans live together. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2015 11:03:08 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think this only applies to full-time Oklahoma National Guardsmen, possibly ANG as well. Not to Active Duty personnel. Full Time Guard Personnel (AGR) are Active Duty personnel. This will apply to Army and Air Guard not the Airforce or Army branch. As for the policy. It is yet to be put out and it will come from the State TAG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2015 12:31:14 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Full Time Guard Personnel (AGR) are Active Duty personnel. This will apply to Army and Air Guard not the Airforce or Army branch. As for the policy. It is yet to be put out and it will come from the State TAG. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think this only applies to full-time Oklahoma National Guardsmen, possibly ANG as well. Not to Active Duty personnel. Full Time Guard Personnel (AGR) are Active Duty personnel. This will apply to Army and Air Guard not the Airforce or Army branch. As for the policy. It is yet to be put out and it will come from the State TAG. Okay, this can get very technical and into semantics. I was just trying to break this down for the uninformed. I was referring to "Active Duty" as being the full-time personnel stationed at Tinker AFB, Vance AFB, Ft Sill, etc that are assigned to an Active Duty unit. The article excerpt said all full-time military in Oklahoma and this just isn't true. God bless our Governor, but she does not have the authority to arm the Active Duty Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marines here in Oklahoma; just the members of the National Guard (and in this case, just the full-time members of the Guard). The Air Force Reservists I knew with AGR slots were still Reservists. Their time was still counted as Title X time, and they retain all the same benefits of an Active Duty service member, but they do not belong to the Active Duty component of the Air Force. This is not the same as an Active Duty servicemember assigned (for whatever reason) to a Reserve unit. Perhaps this is different in the Guard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2015 12:41:59 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My point being that the governor doesn't think twice about authorizing military folks to be armed in our (i.e. the civilian) world because of the crazies but the rest of us live in the same world and we have to fight tooth and nail for her to do the same thing. I used to be one of those people who thought that it was best for folks to go through a vetting process to get a carry permit to weed out the nutballs and the people who are just too irresponsible to carry a gun, however, not any more. You can legislate the process to death and you will never stop bad things from happening. Now I'm all for constitutional carry, the way our forefathers intended. They weren't encumbered by the nanny state mentality that has infected our government as time has gone on. They wanted every law abiding American citizen to be able to defend themselves from a rogue government as well as the dangers that are inherent when humans live together. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you're safe from the crazies you gotta be in a bunker cause otherwise you are definitely not safe from them. It sounded to me like you were referring to carrying a firearm. My point being that the governor doesn't think twice about authorizing military folks to be armed in our (i.e. the civilian) world because of the crazies but the rest of us live in the same world and we have to fight tooth and nail for her to do the same thing. I used to be one of those people who thought that it was best for folks to go through a vetting process to get a carry permit to weed out the nutballs and the people who are just too irresponsible to carry a gun, however, not any more. You can legislate the process to death and you will never stop bad things from happening. Now I'm all for constitutional carry, the way our forefathers intended. They weren't encumbered by the nanny state mentality that has infected our government as time has gone on. They wanted every law abiding American citizen to be able to defend themselves from a rogue government as well as the dangers that are inherent when humans live together. Well, Il make couple of points. First, you can't equate the rights of a civilian and the rights of someone who is active duty military with in the scope of their duties. When you sign on the dotted line, you agree to give up some of your rights and freedoms. So far as a carrying a weapon on duty, that has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment. ETA: The second amendment is actually there to help counter a standing army. Second, Would "constitutional carry" be the best way to go? I wish it could be but the reality is that in todays world, most people do not get any kind of quality firearms education/skills training growing up. To the contrary, much of the media and society discourage knowledge of firearms. So, I have no problems with a vetting/training process. The fact that this is controlled by the state and not the federal government helps provide for a level of protection. I would say we have it good here and it keeps getting better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2015 5:17:30 PM EDT
[#13]
Many civilians are willing to stand guard at both schools and recruiting stations but do not like being labeled nut jobs or accused of wearing tinfoil.
That needs to be changed!!!!! First we need to start at the mosques where jihad is being preached to gullible individuals. Second clamp down on our wide open borders. When I went through AIT at Ft Huachuca prior to 9/11 a soldier having a private firearm was a big no-no. I don't believe that will ever change short of a massive crisis in this country. Soldiers can sacrifice their lives over in the sand box or come back maimed, but can't be trusted with a firearm in their own country!!!!! 
How screwed up is that shit!!!!!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2015 6:00:20 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, Il make couple of points. First, you can't equate the rights of a civilian and the rights of someone who is active duty military with in the scope of their duties. When you sign on the dotted line, you agree to give up some of your rights and freedoms. So far as a carrying a weapon on duty, that has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment. ETA: The second amendment is actually there to help counter a standing army. Second, Would "constitutional carry" be the best way to go? I wish it could be but the reality is that in todays world, most people do not get any kind of quality firearms education/skills training growing up. To the contrary, much of the media and society discourage knowledge of firearms. So, I have no problems with a vetting/training process. The fact that this is controlled by the state and not the federal government helps provide for a level of protection. I would say we have it good here and it keeps getting better. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you're safe from the crazies you gotta be in a bunker cause otherwise you are definitely not safe from them. It sounded to me like you were referring to carrying a firearm. My point being that the governor doesn't think twice about authorizing military folks to be armed in our (i.e. the civilian) world because of the crazies but the rest of us live in the same world and we have to fight tooth and nail for her to do the same thing. I used to be one of those people who thought that it was best for folks to go through a vetting process to get a carry permit to weed out the nutballs and the people who are just too irresponsible to carry a gun, however, not any more. You can legislate the process to death and you will never stop bad things from happening. Now I'm all for constitutional carry, the way our forefathers intended. They weren't encumbered by the nanny state mentality that has infected our government as time has gone on. They wanted every law abiding American citizen to be able to defend themselves from a rogue government as well as the dangers that are inherent when humans live together. Well, Il make couple of points. First, you can't equate the rights of a civilian and the rights of someone who is active duty military with in the scope of their duties. When you sign on the dotted line, you agree to give up some of your rights and freedoms. So far as a carrying a weapon on duty, that has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment. ETA: The second amendment is actually there to help counter a standing army. Second, Would "constitutional carry" be the best way to go? I wish it could be but the reality is that in todays world, most people do not get any kind of quality firearms education/skills training growing up. To the contrary, much of the media and society discourage knowledge of firearms. So, I have no problems with a vetting/training process. The fact that this is controlled by the state and not the federal government helps provide for a level of protection. I would say we have it good here and it keeps getting better. Even in states that require going through a class to get a permit, the people issued permits aren't "trained". My sister took hers here iin Oklahoma and said there were several people who were completely inept and couldn't put rounds on target despite it being very close. The instructors told them there wasn't a minimum score, they just have to show they know how to point and shoot. They were given permits. That's not just the case in Oklahoma, it's nationwide. Those states that have constitutional carry aren't having any issues that states with permit carry aren't having. While it seems common sense dictates putting folks through a permit class makes sense, when you break it down and see the actual facts of both types of carry, there is no difference except someone is making money off the permit states and those folks are denied their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2015 7:55:23 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even in states that require going through a class to get a permit, the people issued permits aren't "trained". My sister took hers here iin Oklahoma and said there were several people who were completely inept and couldn't put rounds on target despite it being very close. The instructors told them there wasn't a minimum score, they just have to show they know how to point and shoot. They were given permits. That's not just the case in Oklahoma, it's nationwide. Those states that have constitutional carry aren't having any issues that states with permit carry aren't having. While it seems common sense dictates putting folks through a permit class makes sense, when you break it down and see the actual facts of both types of carry, there is no difference except someone is making money off the permit states and those folks are denied their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you're safe from the crazies you gotta be in a bunker cause otherwise you are definitely not safe from them. It sounded to me like you were referring to carrying a firearm. My point being that the governor doesn't think twice about authorizing military folks to be armed in our (i.e. the civilian) world because of the crazies but the rest of us live in the same world and we have to fight tooth and nail for her to do the same thing. I used to be one of those people who thought that it was best for folks to go through a vetting process to get a carry permit to weed out the nutballs and the people who are just too irresponsible to carry a gun, however, not any more. You can legislate the process to death and you will never stop bad things from happening. Now I'm all for constitutional carry, the way our forefathers intended. They weren't encumbered by the nanny state mentality that has infected our government as time has gone on. They wanted every law abiding American citizen to be able to defend themselves from a rogue government as well as the dangers that are inherent when humans live together. Well, Il make couple of points. First, you can't equate the rights of a civilian and the rights of someone who is active duty military with in the scope of their duties. When you sign on the dotted line, you agree to give up some of your rights and freedoms. So far as a carrying a weapon on duty, that has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment. ETA: The second amendment is actually there to help counter a standing army. Second, Would "constitutional carry" be the best way to go? I wish it could be but the reality is that in todays world, most people do not get any kind of quality firearms education/skills training growing up. To the contrary, much of the media and society discourage knowledge of firearms. So, I have no problems with a vetting/training process. The fact that this is controlled by the state and not the federal government helps provide for a level of protection. I would say we have it good here and it keeps getting better. Even in states that require going through a class to get a permit, the people issued permits aren't "trained". My sister took hers here iin Oklahoma and said there were several people who were completely inept and couldn't put rounds on target despite it being very close. The instructors told them there wasn't a minimum score, they just have to show they know how to point and shoot. They were given permits. That's not just the case in Oklahoma, it's nationwide. Those states that have constitutional carry aren't having any issues that states with permit carry aren't having. While it seems common sense dictates putting folks through a permit class makes sense, when you break it down and see the actual facts of both types of carry, there is no difference except someone is making money off the permit states and those folks are denied their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Granted some people are inept with firearms. But who has the right to say they can't have the best they can get to defend themselves? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/20/2015 8:17:35 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Okay, this can get very technical and into semantics. I was just trying to break this down for the uninformed. I was referring to "Active Duty" as being the full-time personnel stationed at Tinker AFB, Vance AFB, Ft Sill, etc that are assigned to an Active Duty unit. The article excerpt said all full-time military in Oklahoma and this just isn't true. God bless our Governor, but she does not have the authority to arm the Active Duty Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marines here in Oklahoma; just the members of the National Guard (and in this case, just the full-time members of the Guard). The Air Force Reservists I knew with AGR slots were still Reservists. Their time was still counted as Title X time, and they retain all the same benefits of an Active Duty service member, but they do not belong to the Active Duty component of the Air Force. This is not the same as an Active Duty servicemember assigned (for whatever reason) to a Reserve unit. Perhaps this is different in the Guard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think this only applies to full-time Oklahoma National Guardsmen, possibly ANG as well. Not to Active Duty personnel. Full Time Guard Personnel (AGR) are Active Duty personnel. This will apply to Army and Air Guard not the Airforce or Army branch. As for the policy. It is yet to be put out and it will come from the State TAG. Okay, this can get very technical and into semantics. I was just trying to break this down for the uninformed. I was referring to "Active Duty" as being the full-time personnel stationed at Tinker AFB, Vance AFB, Ft Sill, etc that are assigned to an Active Duty unit. The article excerpt said all full-time military in Oklahoma and this just isn't true. God bless our Governor, but she does not have the authority to arm the Active Duty Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marines here in Oklahoma; just the members of the National Guard (and in this case, just the full-time members of the Guard). The Air Force Reservists I knew with AGR slots were still Reservists. Their time was still counted as Title X time, and they retain all the same benefits of an Active Duty service member, but they do not belong to the Active Duty component of the Air Force. This is not the same as an Active Duty servicemember assigned (for whatever reason) to a Reserve unit. Perhaps this is different in the Guard. Yes, the wording in the order was vague and should have referred to the National Guard. Not trying to be a smart ass. Bottom line it's all in the orders. I am AGR (Army Guard) and my orders say active duty same as a regular Army soldier the difference is I am under a state title and regular Army is under a different title. Both active duty but the money comes from different pots. My commander is Mary Falin unless we are federalized then it's the POTUS. The TAG is putting a policy out and there are already details but for the sake of opsec let's just keep everyone guessing and assume very Soldier you see in uniform is carrying. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/21/2015 6:55:47 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, the wording in the order was vague and should have referred to the National Guard. Not trying to be a smart ass. Bottom line it's all in the orders. I am AGR (Army Guard) and my orders say active duty same as a regular Army soldier the difference is I am under a state title and regular Army is under a different title. Both active duty but the money comes from different pots. My commander is Mary Falin unless we are federalized then it's the POTUS. The TAG is putting a policy out and there are already details but for the sake of opsec let's just keep everyone guessing and assume very Soldier you see in uniform is carrying. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think this only applies to full-time Oklahoma National Guardsmen, possibly ANG as well. Not to Active Duty personnel. Full Time Guard Personnel (AGR) are Active Duty personnel. This will apply to Army and Air Guard not the Airforce or Army branch. As for the policy. It is yet to be put out and it will come from the State TAG. Okay, this can get very technical and into semantics. I was just trying to break this down for the uninformed. I was referring to "Active Duty" as being the full-time personnel stationed at Tinker AFB, Vance AFB, Ft Sill, etc that are assigned to an Active Duty unit. The article excerpt said all full-time military in Oklahoma and this just isn't true. God bless our Governor, but she does not have the authority to arm the Active Duty Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marines here in Oklahoma; just the members of the National Guard (and in this case, just the full-time members of the Guard). The Air Force Reservists I knew with AGR slots were still Reservists. Their time was still counted as Title X time, and they retain all the same benefits of an Active Duty service member, but they do not belong to the Active Duty component of the Air Force. This is not the same as an Active Duty servicemember assigned (for whatever reason) to a Reserve unit. Perhaps this is different in the Guard. Yes, the wording in the order was vague and should have referred to the National Guard. Not trying to be a smart ass. Bottom line it's all in the orders. I am AGR (Army Guard) and my orders say active duty same as a regular Army soldier the difference is I am under a state title and regular Army is under a different title. Both active duty but the money comes from different pots. My commander is Mary Falin unless we are federalized then it's the POTUS. The TAG is putting a policy out and there are already details but for the sake of opsec let's just keep everyone guessing and assume very Soldier you see in uniform is carrying. Whatever policy is put out a lowly NCO in some podunk readiness center isn't going to know shit about it before the rest of the ARNG does. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2015 3:37:39 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whatever policy is put out a lowly NCO in some podunk readiness center isn't going to know shit about it before the rest of the ARNG does.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think this only applies to full-time Oklahoma National Guardsmen, possibly ANG as well. Not to Active Duty personnel. Full Time Guard Personnel (AGR) are Active Duty personnel. This will apply to Army and Air Guard not the Airforce or Army branch. As for the policy. It is yet to be put out and it will come from the State TAG. Okay, this can get very technical and into semantics. I was just trying to break this down for the uninformed. I was referring to "Active Duty" as being the full-time personnel stationed at Tinker AFB, Vance AFB, Ft Sill, etc that are assigned to an Active Duty unit. The article excerpt said all full-time military in Oklahoma and this just isn't true. God bless our Governor, but she does not have the authority to arm the Active Duty Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marines here in Oklahoma; just the members of the National Guard (and in this case, just the full-time members of the Guard). The Air Force Reservists I knew with AGR slots were still Reservists. Their time was still counted as Title X time, and they retain all the same benefits of an Active Duty service member, but they do not belong to the Active Duty component of the Air Force. This is not the same as an Active Duty servicemember assigned (for whatever reason) to a Reserve unit. Perhaps this is different in the Guard. Yes, the wording in the order was vague and should have referred to the National Guard. Not trying to be a smart ass. Bottom line it's all in the orders. I am AGR (Army Guard) and my orders say active duty same as a regular Army soldier the difference is I am under a state title and regular Army is under a different title. Both active duty but the money comes from different pots. My commander is Mary Falin unless we are federalized then it's the POTUS. The TAG is putting a policy out and there are already details but for the sake of opsec let's just keep everyone guessing and assume very Soldier you see in uniform is carrying. Whatever policy is put out a lowly NCO in some podunk readiness center isn't going to know shit about it before the rest of the ARNG does.
Correct. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2015 11:09:21 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even in states that require going through a class to get a permit, the people issued permits aren't "trained". My sister took hers here iin Oklahoma and said there were several people who were completely inept and couldn't put rounds on target despite it being very close. The instructors told them there wasn't a minimum score, they just have to show they know how to point and shoot. They were given permits. That's not just the case in Oklahoma, it's nationwide. Those states that have constitutional carry aren't having any issues that states with permit carry aren't having. While it seems common sense dictates putting folks through a permit class makes sense, when you break it down and see the actual facts of both types of carry, there is no difference except someone is making money off the permit states and those folks are denied their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you're safe from the crazies you gotta be in a bunker cause otherwise you are definitely not safe from them. It sounded to me like you were referring to carrying a firearm. My point being that the governor doesn't think twice about authorizing military folks to be armed in our (i.e. the civilian) world because of the crazies but the rest of us live in the same world and we have to fight tooth and nail for her to do the same thing. I used to be one of those people who thought that it was best for folks to go through a vetting process to get a carry permit to weed out the nutballs and the people who are just too irresponsible to carry a gun, however, not any more. You can legislate the process to death and you will never stop bad things from happening. Now I'm all for constitutional carry, the way our forefathers intended. They weren't encumbered by the nanny state mentality that has infected our government as time has gone on. They wanted every law abiding American citizen to be able to defend themselves from a rogue government as well as the dangers that are inherent when humans live together. Well, Il make couple of points. First, you can't equate the rights of a civilian and the rights of someone who is active duty military with in the scope of their duties. When you sign on the dotted line, you agree to give up some of your rights and freedoms. So far as a carrying a weapon on duty, that has absolutely nothing to do with the second amendment. ETA: The second amendment is actually there to help counter a standing army. Second, Would "constitutional carry" be the best way to go? I wish it could be but the reality is that in todays world, most people do not get any kind of quality firearms education/skills training growing up. To the contrary, much of the media and society discourage knowledge of firearms. So, I have no problems with a vetting/training process. The fact that this is controlled by the state and not the federal government helps provide for a level of protection. I would say we have it good here and it keeps getting better. Even in states that require going through a class to get a permit, the people issued permits aren't "trained". My sister took hers here iin Oklahoma and said there were several people who were completely inept and couldn't put rounds on target despite it being very close. The instructors told them there wasn't a minimum score, they just have to show they know how to point and shoot. They were given permits. That's not just the case in Oklahoma, it's nationwide. Those states that have constitutional carry aren't having any issues that states with permit carry aren't having. While it seems common sense dictates putting folks through a permit class makes sense, when you break it down and see the actual facts of both types of carry, there is no difference except someone is making money off the permit states and those folks are denied their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. So, Your saying "what difference does it make?" right? all they are required to do is demonstrate a basic understanding of the law and the ability to manipulate a firearm at the most basic level.
Isn't that a good thing? Why not try to do better than nothing. How does that infringe on anything? I wish everyone would go get training at a place like Gunsite but that will never happen. If it was up to me we would start training children in 1st grade about firearms safety and by high school graduation they would be expert marksman. We may get to the point where Oklahoma has "Constitutional Carry".. I'm fine with that. I'm also thankful for what we do have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/22/2015 11:46:19 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, Your saying "what difference does it make?" right? all they are required to do is demonstrate a basic understanding of the law and the ability to manipulate a firearm at the most basic level.
Isn't that a good thing? Why not try to do better than nothing. How does that infringe on anything? I wish everyone would go get training at a place like Gunsite but that will never happen. If it was up to me we would start training children in 1st grade about firearms safety and by high school graduation they would be expert marksman. We may get to the point where Oklahoma has "Constitutional Carry".. I'm fine with that. I'm also thankful for what we do have. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Even in states that require going through a class to get a permit, the people issued permits aren't "trained". My sister took hers here iin Oklahoma and said there were several people who were completely inept and couldn't put rounds on target despite it being very close. The instructors told them there wasn't a minimum score, they just have to show they know how to point and shoot. They were given permits. That's not just the case in Oklahoma, it's nationwide. Those states that have constitutional carry aren't having any issues that states with permit carry aren't having. While it seems common sense dictates putting folks through a permit class makes sense, when you break it down and see the actual facts of both types of carry, there is no difference except someone is making money off the permit states and those folks are denied their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. So, Your saying "what difference does it make?" right? all they are required to do is demonstrate a basic understanding of the law and the ability to manipulate a firearm at the most basic level.
Isn't that a good thing? Why not try to do better than nothing. How does that infringe on anything? I wish everyone would go get training at a place like Gunsite but that will never happen. If it was up to me we would start training children in 1st grade about firearms safety and by high school graduation they would be expert marksman. We may get to the point where Oklahoma has "Constitutional Carry".. I'm fine with that. I'm also thankful for what we do have. I'm thankful Oklahoma hasn't infringed on the 2A as much as a lot of other states but I'm still not satisfied and I won't be satisfied until we are constitutional carry just how the 2A was intended. Right now our 2A is being infringed upon by the state with requirements to attend a BS class and pay to use a right that is "protected" by the constitution. That is just state infringement. I am not even going to talk about government infringement with the NFA and machine guns and such.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2015 4:16:28 PM EDT
[#21]
I wish everyone would train with a firearm that they might carry but that isn't going to happen like Coyote says. But EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES WITH WHATEVER THEY HAVE. I say piss on anybody that thinks otherwise.
If they don't handle their defensive weapon well because of unfamiliarity, then the blame is on them.
But face it, firearms and ammo are expensive and some can't afford to train with a good handgun or rifle. Some can't afford the SDA license and a pox on those who made it so expensive. You can blame that on the LE community in Oklahoma. It was done to raise revenue for CLEET and to keep the hard working riff-raff from carrying. It hasn't prevented the turds from doing it anyway.
But even with an SDA license or in a righteous home defense shooting, you will a very close anal examination by LE. This is the age and the state we live in. It is what it is. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
