Posted on Aug 28, 2017
Do you think that more lawfully armed Americans is a good or bad thing and why?
1.51K
23
21
3
3
0
Posted in these groups: 
Firearms and Guns
2nd Amendment
Firearms and Guns 2nd Amendment
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
4
4
0
I would say it's a good thing. I say that from a law enforcement perspective. After 30+ years on the job, I can tell you that bad guys will always have guns. All the laws in the world won't stop them because they don't follow laws.
The only way to combat the bad guys is to have good guys with guns. Prison doesn't scare bad guys, the police don't scare bad guys, what does scare them is Joe Citizen who isn't afraid and is willing to send them to Hell.
However, I would require mandatory training and yearly update training for anyone who is carrying a gun. Along with the usual criminal and mental health checks.
The only way to combat the bad guys is to have good guys with guns. Prison doesn't scare bad guys, the police don't scare bad guys, what does scare them is Joe Citizen who isn't afraid and is willing to send them to Hell.
However, I would require mandatory training and yearly update training for anyone who is carrying a gun. Along with the usual criminal and mental health checks.
(4)
(0)
MAJ Bryan Zeski
Whoa, careful there SMSgt. Requiring training surely infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms! Putting more guns in the hands of more people without training or sense of responsibility should be just as good!
(Please note the sarcasm in the above statement. Your position is one of rational gun legislation [because it regulates PEOPLE, not guns] and I'd fully support it.)
(Please note the sarcasm in the above statement. Your position is one of rational gun legislation [because it regulates PEOPLE, not guns] and I'd fully support it.)
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
Lawfully armed and trained = Good
Lawfully armed and Untrained = Not so good
Lawfully armed and Untrained = Not so good
(3)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
PFC (Join to see) - The bottom line in the discussion is a moral issue and the key to that is the phrase "shall not be infringed"; there are no qualifiers, unless you want to drag in the separate part about "a well regulated militia", then you open up a conundrum, just like the 'chicken and the egg' problem.
(0)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
PFC (Join to see) - That is one interpretation. But not the one that I hold.
Examples - people in jail or prison - restricted rights; certain legally convicted criminals - restricted rights; mental competence - depends (reasons and who is deciding). And if it is well thought through - the boundaries are or should be set by the due process clauses of the Constitution, primarily the 5th and 14th Amendments.
Examples - people in jail or prison - restricted rights; certain legally convicted criminals - restricted rights; mental competence - depends (reasons and who is deciding). And if it is well thought through - the boundaries are or should be set by the due process clauses of the Constitution, primarily the 5th and 14th Amendments.
(0)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
That's what I have been saying. I don't care to restrict people's right to own and bear firearms I own some myself. Experience tells me there are some who shouldn't have it because that would just be asking for trouble.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Most certainly a good thing. Laws only effect people willing to follow them. Gun free zones create targets and venerable groups of people. I carry and will always carry where legal.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google