many of us here are gun people. like 'em, own' em, shoot 'em. in a lot of circumstances we all see the same issue in the same way. the previous post brought an interesting question to my mind. one that i think gets bounced around gun lobbyists offices and legislatures desks pretty frequently. on one hand shooter has correctly called out all those gun owners and ccw carriers who are not prepared in any way to act should the need arise. there's a complete lack of initial training as well as ongoing practice and maintenance of techniques for most ccw holders. this can be completely attributed to the words, "shall not be infringed". required training and knowledge? an infrigement. there would be a test right? and if you fail the test does that mean you shouldn't/ won't be allowed to defend yourself? shooting qualification? infringement. what exactly are the standards by which this would be judged? and what happens to the poor sap who can't hit the ground with spit but want's to be able to fend off an attacker who in many cases will be literally on top of him? it's a slippery slope, one where you can't alienate potential gun owners, nor can you deny citizens the right to protect themselves based on educational knowledge or technical ability. it's very synonomous with denying the illiterate the right to vote. and "shall not be infringed" suggests to me that i be allowed to buy any firearm ever manufactured including those manufactured right now. why can't i walk into wal-mart and buy an m-16? we've decided that maybe full auto is a little much for most citizens to own. as such they have become very expensive and the background check is analogous to a senate judiciary commitee hearing. should it be this way? it does say "shall not be infringed". i don't recall an execption for full-auto. on the other hand ministerofdeath suggests we all have florida's protection from civil suit. i, as a potential victim who thwarts my attacker see this as an absolute must. it's completely unacceptable that someone could threaten my life, cause me to defend my life at the expense of theirs, whereby I am held liable for the ATTACKER'S death. not the victim's death. i'm the victim!!! but now we have an interesting situation. do we extend civil suit immunity and release duty to retreat rights to ccw holders who have no training or knowledge? hmmm... what could this mean? on the other hand you've protected the guy laying down suppresive fire in the parking lot. when he misses the single attacker but kills soccer mom and her cargo because he was shooting with his eyes closed, shouldn't he ultimately be held accountable. if someone had a negligent discharge that resulted in a death, would it be enough to say, "i thought he was attacking me." and get off scott free? because it would be hard to prove otherwise. should we have mandatory training? how intense should it be? yearly qualifications? the ability to carry any gun or just the one we qualiy with? it has been suggested to me by an anti-gun friend (yes, anti-gun. friend none-the-less.) that if the gun owners and lobbyists don't do something to regulate ourselves, we will be subject to new laws no matter their ineffectiveness at fighting the real problem, which is negligent gun owners, not the guns themselves. we all know cars are involved in many more deaths than guns. we don't see a cry to ban cars, but we do see improvements in them that are effective at saving lives. anyone who has hit both a windshield and an airbag (separate crashes) can attest to that. we're freeing up gun laws while britain is banning guns and basically anything capable of inflicting death including knives that end in a point. "this just in, british people agree to have the fingers severed due to the fact that they could be used to stangle someone to death." where does gun control end (which it should)and people control begin?(this would include ccw as a group of people too) where do ccw rights and obligations meet? long post, sorry!! thoughts?