Re: What is wrong with the NFB?
@30, I give up. But I'll re-afirm another flaw -- just copy, really -- something that I added to post 29 which completely nullifies the hole idea of "constitutional carry":
Also... by your own logic, those who are a clear danger to society should be able to use a firearm too. Those who are mentally insane should be able to use a firearm. By your own logic, the hole idea of constitutional carry is discriminatory because it involves background checks!
But hey, if you can provide evidence (yes, actual evidence, not BS) on how constitutional carry (a.k.a. gun anarchy) is reasonable (i.e. the below definition), please do so.
Beginning with Florida in 1987 and ending with Illinois in 2013, every state has enacted legislation to permit the carry of concealed firearms. Most, however, require carriers to obtain a license, and along with it, proof of firearms knowledge or hands-on training. Kentucky, for example, requires “actual range firing of a handgun in a safe manner,” proving an applicant can put 11 out of 20 shots on a paper silhouette target, to be licensed. Illinois requires at least 16 hours of firearms training. The National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups fought for most of these licenses and screening standards.
In recent years, though, gun lobbyists have fought to expand gun owners’ immunity from prosecution and litigation arising from the use, display, or carry of their weapons — from the castle doctrine to stand your ground to, now, constitutional carry. The latter concept relieves gun owners of most existing proficiency requirements and screening standards: If they can pass a background check to obtain a firearm, they can carry it — no license necessary, no questions asked.
-- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
