Pax states:
Quote:
|
but how would you feel if you knew in your heart that you hadn't done your best for them?
|
Ah, now there's the kicker.
I live in Alaska, where no training is required... also no permit is required for either open carry or concealed carry; an arrangement that I agree with. As has been mentioned, no blood running in the streets.
If we begin with an agreement in the 2nd Amendment, along with the concept of inalienable rights and living within a Republic, it is ultimately an individual's legal/civil responsibility to be accountable for one's actions.
While handing over political power to the government (which now can legislate/regulate or at the minimum attempt to regulate the people, in theory working for the best interests of the people while maintaining the "standards" set forth upon the creation of the government) that government can create "rules" that the individual will be held accountable to; however, ultimately it is still the individual's own moral code and values which will determine their personal belief system.
This belief system may or may not include training with a firearm. It may or may not include advanced training with a firearm.
An individual may consider the very small chance that he/she may have to actually face an altercation resulting in the use of a firearm in defense of oneself and or loved ones, and decide that the X number of hours and the Y dollars taken in training would be better spent with his/her family.
Another individual may consider the same chances, and decide to seek training, spending both time and money away from the family; again believing it to be to the benefit of the family.
Which individual is doing the "best for them"?
Regardless of social/legal ramifications (which exist) each individual has the opportunity to make his/her own mind up concerning such topics.
We all have a limited amount of time, not one of us is guaranteed to be waking up tomorrow, and how we spend it is paramount to any legacy that we may leave behind.