Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Do gun clubs offer safety training courses?

Some do, depends on the club.

And are clubs open at the weekend?

Depends on the club. My current one, for example, lets you shoot any day from 10am until dark, or noon-dark on Sundays. They don't have any classes though, the only formal gathering is occasional Cowboy Action Shooting events. Otherwise, the range is usually empty when I go.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Umm, how can they not be? Are there places in the US without Police or Gun Clubs?

Actually yes to both Not like we need cops out in the middle of nowhere New Mexico, and you'll very easily find that the number of gun clubs present in an area heavily corresponds with how urbanized it is.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its not logical at all. Such safety courses cannot be guaranteed to be equally distributed.

Umm, how can they not be? Are there places in the US without Police or Gun Clubs?

There are many places where such things would be an hour or more away from your place of residence.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Its not logical at all. Such safety courses cannot be guaranteed to be equally distributed.

Umm, how can they not be? Are there places in the US without Police or Gun Clubs?

There are many places where such things would be an hour or more away from your place of residence.

Ahh, I wonder how they get guns out there.

Because in rural places like that a general store, which would sell firearms, might be closer to you than the Sheriffs.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Umm, how can they not be? Are there places in the US without Police or Gun Clubs?

Actually yes to both Not like we need cops out in the middle of nowhere New Mexico, and you'll very easily find that the number of gun clubs present in an area heavily corresponds with how urbanized it is.

How many gun clubs in the city of Chicago?

 Frazzled wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Umm, how can they not be? Are there places in the US without Police or Gun Clubs?

Actually yes to both Not like we need cops out in the middle of nowhere New Mexico, and you'll very easily find that the number of gun clubs present in an area heavily corresponds with how urbanized it is.

How many gun clubs in the city of Chicago?

Do gangs count

 LordofHats wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Umm, how can they not be? Are there places in the US without Police or Gun Clubs?

Actually yes to both Not like we need cops out in the middle of nowhere New Mexico, and you'll very easily find that the number of gun clubs present in an area heavily corresponds with how urbanized it is.

How many gun clubs in the city of Chicago?

Do gangs count

State LEO's
National Guard
Cout to?

In the city of Chicago, sure. Not seeing where you're going to find national guard bases there, but I have been wrong before.

Oh wait now I see what you meant. I worded that so badly XD

I was saying that you won't find many gun clubs (or at least ones that are easy to get to) in big cities. The 'market' for gun clubs is at it's best in sub-rural and suburban areas. Rural and Urban areas are going to have a combination of distance and time that make gun clubs both less common and harder to get to.

Also, in rural locations, a lot of people just shoot on their own property rather than going to a range/club, so the demand for one is less.

 Alex C wrote:
Also, in rural locations, a lot of people just shoot on their own property rather than going to a range/club, so the demand for one is less.

I only do it to zero and verify my zero occasionally. Though I do have a militia group near me that at times......given me "flash backs"

 LordofHats wrote:
Oh wait now I see what you meant. I worded that so badly XD

I was saying that you won't find many gun clubs (or at least ones that are easy to get to) in big cities. The 'market' for gun clubs is at it's best in sub-rural and suburban areas. Rural and Urban areas are going to have a combination of distance and time that make gun clubs both less common and harder to get to.

I think that is going to depend greatly on the city in question. There's a gun club/shop that I know of that is most definitely NOT in the suburbs of Tacoma, it's just outside of "down town" but still very much in a heavily urbanized area.

There's gun clubs all over the place in the UK.

Seaward wrote:

It really doesn't, though. "Fighting words" is one of those things that people on the "restrict speech!" side of the free speech debate like to throw around, but never seem to actually research. It's simply not an applicable restriction anymore. The court has refused to invoke it for ~70 years, and has in fact continually narrowed, rather than expanded its domain every time the issue comes up.

It's dead in all but name.

Alito invoked it in his '11 dissent, and apparently John Paul Stevens supported his position; so did Ginsburg.

Just a note...First amendment and voting rights are not a fair comparison since neither include a 'well regulated' clause to them...

edit: that was harsh. Never mind.

Just a note, the 'well regulated clause' as you call it is not the operative clause. SCOTUS has agreed. So it is indeed fair to compare mandating training to exercise the right with any other protected right.

Just because a conservative court ruled against the Constitution doesn't make the phrase it not in there.

 skyth wrote:
Just because a conservative court ruled against the Constitution doesn't make the phrase it not in there.

No one said it is not there. What was said it it is not the operative clause. The operative clause gives the right to The People, not to a militia.

Still had a conservative court ignore what is actually written in the constitution.

 skyth wrote:
Still had a conservative court ignore what is actually written in the constitution.

Conservative court?

I missed that when Kelo or PPACA was ruled for the libs.

 skyth wrote:
Still had a conservative court ignore what is actually written in the constitution.

Shall we derail this with how the same court ruled on Obamacare as a tax? Or would you rather just drop the bitter partisanship now?

 skyth wrote:
Still had a conservative court ignore what is actually written in the constitution.

While grammar gets ignored on the internet frequently, it is important. "Well regulated" refers specifically to the militia, not to the right to bear arms. The issue addressed was not whether or not the militia needed to be regulated, it was whether or not "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" referred to an individual right to bear arms that happened to also allow a militia to be formed, or if you could only bear arms within the confines of being a member of a militia. Considering the historical context in that many people not only owned guns but relied on them as a source of food and protection from natives, foreign military, wildlife, etc, and that the militias of the time consisted of people grabbing their personal firearms (which, for rich people included artillery pieces, warships, and other high end military gear of the time) and meeting up with the rest of the neighborhood, it's very clear what it was originally intended to mean. You might disagree with it, and you absolutely have that right, but you shouldn't mistake "what should be" for "what is".

 skyth wrote:
Still had a conservative court ignore what is actually written in the constitution.

By that logic, we had a liberal court invent a right to abortions out of whole cloth. Come on.

 skyth wrote:
Just because a conservative court ruled against the Constitution doesn't make the phrase it not in there.

"Well Regulated" doesn't mean what you think it means.

In the jargon of the time, regulated was synonymous with trained or disciplined. It did NOT refer to laws or some form of government oversight.

So "well regulated militia" actually means skilled and disciplined militia. Furthermore, its not the focus of the clause. The Amendment says that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed, and the reason for this is because the security of a free state requires a well regulated militia. Militia have always been the citizenry themselves taking up arms, usually the weapons they personally owned. Its a very recent phenomena for governments to arm and equip their soldiers. Prior to 200 or so years ago, most soldiers owned their own weapons and armor. You didn't show up to the army expecting to be handed stuff, you brought your own. Occasionally the kingdom might have some extra stuff laying around they might dole out, but that was an exception and not the norm.

No where else in the document does The People refer to a subset of The People.

 CptJake wrote:
No where else in the document does The People refer to a subset of The People.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Just saying

They're still "the people". Even when they were only 3/5 of a person.

Setting the 3/5ths compromise aside as a case of the post-Colonial South wanting to have it's cake and eat it to, the document very clearly identifies a subset of people as 'the people' because Free people were the only ones prior to the Reconstruction Amendments (12th, 13th, and 14th) to whom the Constitution assured rights and protections.

Arguably until Woman's Suffrage and the Civil Rights Act assured (at least as a matter of law) equality of all Americans in a general sense, 'the people' were only free white males.