Respectfully, I do not want 'Constitutional Carry' in MN :)

[gunsmith]

I thought there was one GIANT beating dead horse emoticon....I had to go with 3 small ones

[bensdad]

Here's what I mean: the 'first six months' are actually 'easy' in that you know what to do...your instructor has literally scared the sheit out of you and you're walking on eggs and TRIPLE-THINKING every thing you do...

I did not experience this... YOU did.

"THE TEMPERING EXPERIENCE" is when you...'lose your temper while carrying a loaded firearm'

I have not experienced this. YOU have.

You wind up (usually behind the wheel of a car after some A-hole has almost killed you) and you realize "Oh My God, I have a loaded gun in my pocket and I want to Kill / intimidate that A-hole who so richly deserves it"

I have not experienced this. YOU have.

So....I think it takes a year for you to find your 'Tempering Experience' Training helps.

I think it's gonna take more than a year for you to figure out that you're projecting your own feelings and experiences onto others. In fact, you may never actually realize that we don't all share your particular set of weaknesses (temper, fear, distrust of others). You're not whipping a dead horse. It's just really hard for some of us to see our own faults. I could never see mine. The wife can sure find em' though.

[loose]

.....
So just visualize Minnesota wionstitutional Carry' starting tomorrow:

HOW MANY KNUCKLEHEADS WILL BE DOING DRUNKEN KNUCKLEHEAD STUNTS AND EMBARRASSING THE ENTIRE 2A COMMUNITY ON A WEEKLY BASIS.....

Isn't that sorta like saying if we let citizens carry guns we'll be reverting to the wild west/ OK Corral, there'll be blood in the streets, and fender-benders will turn into shoot-outs [/quote]

Good Point.

I'm NOT an instructor and probably never will be....but I HAVE OPINIONS and THEORIES.

One Theory is that it takes 2 years (possibly one) to "Learn to Carry'

Here's what I mean: the 'first six months' are actually 'easy' in that you know what to do...your instructor has literally scared the sheit out of you and you're walking on eggs and TRIPLE-THINKING every thing you do...

That's good for the first six months but you can't live practically and Triple-think everything.

Scared-Sheit-less that's part one....it will fade.

Part Two is: "THE TEMPERING EXPERIENCE" You've had one. I've had one.

"THE TEMPERING EXPERIENCE" is when you...'lose your temper while carrying a loaded firearm'

It's a turning point and it's an experience that can't be 'Staged' it's like a form of spiritual enlightenment...in that you can't learn it from a text-book or in a classroom.

You wind up (usually behind the wheel of a car after some A-hole has almost killed you) and you realize "Oh My God, I have a loaded gun in my pocket and I want to Kill / intimidate that A-hole who so richly deserves it"

A flash of inspiration follows: You realize that you need to live not one but two steps back from the edge of any confrontation. You realize that you have to let that drunken, illegal, retard smash up your new car and injure your passenger and YOUR FIREARM MUST NEVER ENTER THE EQUATION.

You will leave the encounter a 'changed man'

Training helps but you must learn this on your own. Requiring permits...'helps' and for some reason here in MN our 155,000 permit holders are not mucking things up every drunken weekend.

So....I think it takes a year for you to find your 'Tempering Experience' Training helps.

The whole concept of 'Constutional Government' is growing on me but I'm not an Idealist.

Constitutional Carry is #11 on my list of the top ten things we need to accomplish to support RKBA in MN.[/quote]


Almost 5 years later and I have yet to hit the tempering stage, is there something wrong with me? Or am I not a female and/or democrat and don't let emotions run my decision making process?

[Rip Van Winkle]

"Oh My God, I have a loaded gun in my pocket and I want to Kill / intimidate that A-hole who so richly deserves it"

I've carried almost 10 years, deal with multiple a-holes on a daily basis and have never had this thought. Perhaps our government overlords should look closely at your right to carry.

Back to,

[Erud]

Good Point.

I'm NOT an instructor and probably never will be....but I HAVE OPINIONS and THEORIES.

One Theory is that it takes 2 years (possibly one) to "Learn to Carry'

Here's what I mean: the 'first six months' are actually 'easy' in that you know what to do...your instructor has literally scared the sheit out of you and you're walking on eggs and TRIPLE-THINKING every thing you do...

That's good for the first six months but you can't live practically and Triple-think everything.

Scared-Sheit-less that's part one....it will fade.

Part Two is: "THE TEMPERING EXPERIENCE" You've had one. I've had one.

"THE TEMPERING EXPERIENCE" is when you...'lose your temper while carrying a loaded firearm'

It's a turning point and it's an experience that can't be 'Staged' it's like a form of spiritual enlightenment...in that you can't learn it from a text-book or in a classroom.

You wind up (usually behind the wheel of a car after some A-hole has almost killed you) and you realize "Oh My God, I have a loaded gun in my pocket and I want to Kill / intimidate that A-hole who so richly deserves it"

A flash of inspiration follows: You realize that you need to live not one but two steps back from the edge of any confrontation. You realize that you have to let that drunken, illegal, retard smash up your new car and injure your passenger and YOUR FIREARM MUST NEVER ENTER THE EQUATION.

You will leave the encounter a 'changed man'

Training helps but you must learn this on your own. Requiring permits...'helps' and for some reason here in MN our 155,000 permit holders are not mucking things up every drunken weekend.

So....I think it takes a year for you to find your 'Tempering Experience' Training helps.

The whole concept of 'Constutional Government' is growing on me but I'm not an Idealist.

Constitutional Carry is #11 on my list of the top ten things we need to accomplish to support RKBA in MN.

I agree with the others here that you are projecting your own feelings onto everyone else. I have been carrying since 2003 and my experiences do not mirror yours. In all of the times I have been cut off in traffic, etc, I have not yet had the urge to shoot someone or flash a gun at them. You apparently do have these urges, and you were not weeded out by the permitting process, so who is being protected? You may want to consider the possibility that you are simply too emotional to responsibly carry a firearm. Self-control will have better results than new laws every time.

Out of curiosity, how long have you had a permit?

[hunterfreakhd]

And who was your instructor?

[Ironbear]

"Oh My God, I have a loaded gun in my pocket and I want to Kill / intimidate that A-hole who so richly deserves it"

I've carried almost 10 years, deal with multiple a-holes on a daily basis and have never had this thought. Perhaps our government overlords should look closely at your right to carry.

I'm with Rip and others here. If anything I'm more willing to shrug off stuff, but it could be simply growing older and more mature rather than the permit. I can't really separate the effects.

[xd ED]

And who was your instructor?

And who was your Driver's Training instructor?

[DoxaPar]

On top of all of the other opinions expressed here I think you need to carefully consider how you feel about laws designed to prevent the possibility of a crime.

Some things are already illegal (murder, for example). Then some laws are designed to prevent crimes by restricting behavior, access to, or the reducing the possibility of a crime (e.g. take away access to firearms).

Are you really sure you want to continue to support laws that prevent the possibility of a crime? These types of laws are becoming more and more common and are the real tyrannical threat to our republic. We just call them "better safe than sorry" and "it's in the public interest" and "it's good for the community" and "common sense".

Let the murder be jailed for murder. Not for having the capacity for murder.

[sgruenhagen44]

I'll probably get a bunch of guys going after me for this one but o well.

There is not much that goes into carrying a gun. Keep your cool with d-bags. And use it to protect your life. That's why I am for constitutional carry. It obviously is good to know all the legal aspects of carrying a gun because laws exist and you should follow them. But in all honesty I am no more of a responsible gun owner after my PTC class than before. I credit that to my father.

[bensdad]

I credit that to my father.

Pretty amazing, the difference his presence can make. Pretty amazing, the difference His presence can make too.

[JJ]

Wow.

Opinion should be shaped by logic, fact, and experience. All I see is emotion, based on emotion.

Get help.

[Spinner]

Freedom and Liberty with stipulations. Welcome to the nanny state! Your government is already in place, sit back and relax.


Spinner

[jshuberg]

All the rights are qualified (fire in theater)...

This is a personal pet peeve of mine. The idea that rights can be restricted by government, because after all "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater". Well, its bull$hit. This common piece of folklore originated in the US Supreme Court ruling Schenck v. US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

The case involved a man who was distributing leaflets urging people to resist the draft during WWI. The Supreme Court ruled that speech is not protected by the 1st Amendment when it represents a clear and present danger. The reference to yelling fire in a crowded theater was never actually part of arguments, but simply used as a metaphor. The language in the opinion was:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

However, the court reversed itself in 1969 in the Brandenburg v. Ohio ruling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Here, the court found that a "clear and present danger" was too broad a criteria for limiting 1st Amendment protections, and adopted the new standard of an "imminent lawless action". So the commonly cited metaphor breaks down under the current standard. While falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater may be a danger, it's still protected as it's not the advocating of an imminent lawless action.

A person can yell fire in a crowded theater. He may be arrested, or even charged with a crime, but the standard set by the Supreme Court in 1969 results in his speech being protected, and he should not be found guilty of a crime simply because of his speech. Only when a person advocates or "eggs on" another person to commit a crime, and the commission of that crime was imminent is the speech not protected.

Our rights are not absolute, but any limitations on our rights have to be extremely narrowly defined. Specifically, speech that poses a danger *is* protected so long as it doesn't advocate for imminent lawlessness. Any limitations on our 2nd Amendment rights should follow the same model. They should not be limited based on any "potential" for danger, but only when a lawless action is imminent, or has already been committed. This should be the only restriction the people concede to the government concerning our fundamental human rights without due process of law.

[Erud]

All the rights are qualified (fire in theater)...

This is a personal pet peeve of mine. The idea that rights can be restricted by government, because after all "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater". Well, its bull$hit. This common piece of folklore originated in the US Supreme Court ruling Schenck v. US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States

The case involved a man who was distributing leaflets urging people to resist the draft during WWI. The Supreme Court ruled that speech is not protected by the 1st Amendment when it represents a clear and present danger. The reference to yelling fire in a crowded theater was never actually part of arguments, but simply used as a metaphor. The language in the opinion was:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

However, the court reversed itself in 1969 in the Brandenburg v. Ohio ruling:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Here, the court found that a "clear and present danger" was too broad a criteria for limiting 1st Amendment protections, and adopted the new standard of an "imminent lawless action". So the commonly cited metaphor breaks down under the current standard. While falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater may be a danger, it's still protected as it's not the advocating of an imminent lawless action.

A person can yell fire in a crowded theater. He may be arrested, or even charged with a crime, but the standard set by the Supreme Court in 1969 results in his speech being protected, and he should not be found guilty of a crime simply because he yelled fire in a crowded theater. Only when a person advocates or "eggs on" another person to commit a crime, and the commission of that crime was imminent is the speech not protected.

Our rights are not absolute, but any limitations on our rights have to be extremely narrowly defined. Specifically, speech that poses a danger *is* protected so long as it doesn't advocate for imminent lawlessness. Any limitations on our 2nd Amendment rights should follow the same model. They should not be limited based on any "potential" for danger, but only when a lawless action is imminent, or has already been committed. This should be the only restriction the people concede to the government concerning our fundamental human rights without due process of law.

Well sure, there's all that Supreme Court stuff, but what if you just don't "feel" good about a law?



Seriously though, great post.