View Full Version : Not sure i feel safer now or not.....
PhL0aTeR
11-02-2006, 11:05
I finally got my CCW class out of the way last night. I'm a bit dissappointed in the amount of training thats required for you to be legally running around with a firearm concealed. In saying that, im torn between the right to bear arms, and having big brother step in and tell me what i need to complete before im allowed to carry a weapon concealed.
Last night i took a 3 hour class and received a certificate in firearm safety. The company in this class was very diverse. There was an old lady, a young "kid" in the back that could have passed for a local gang member, a father and son, a lady in the front that looked positively terrified when the guns were being passed around so we could demonstrate loading and unloading with snap caps.... about 18 people in the class altogether.
I have taken a firearms safety course when it was paired with my hunters education in texas. I also received training when i got my CCW in texas (it has since expired). I dont really want to compare the requirements for obtaining the CCW here as opposed to there.... I'll just say that when i emerged from my training in texas, I was fully ensured that I, and the other people i took the class with, knew how to operate the firearm they were carrying and could demonstrate how to do so safely and fairly extensively knew the laws surrounding the effects of shooting someone in self defense. The class was 10 hours in length, 8 hours on saturday and 2 hours of rangetime on sunday. and it cost $125 plus ammo if you didnt bring the required type, or any at all.
Anyways, as i briefly pointed to a couple paragraphs ago, there was one person in my class last night who didnt know what in the world to do when the glock was handed to her. This is the type of person that colorado says its ok for her to carry a weapon. The 3 hours of training is basically the hoops, with one exception... you dont really have to jump through any of them. Just look at them, and be in the same vicinity when other people are making an attempt at jumping through them.
That being said, I'm an avid gun enthusiast, Ive been around them since i was old enough to hold them (no, really!), and am also an ex TDC firearms instructor, once certified to train the usage of S&W .357, Remington 870, and AR-15. I know alot of people like the lack of training, as its easier to get a permit, and thats what we all want, but i think there should be other requirements to obtain this holy grail that most gun owners seek.
Flame on....
You're not going to get flamed by me...I had the same mixed emotions after attending my CCW class. My class only had 5 people. There was an old timer in there who probably would have shot one or more of us if those snap caps had been real. I was glad to get my permit without much hassle, but would have felt better if people getting permits had to demonstrate basic shooting skills.
Out of curiosity - not that I disagree with the point being made by Atrain - how do you all reconcile the states that allow anyone to carry concealed without permitting or a training requirement?
PhL0aTeR
11-02-2006, 18:53
Out of curiosity - not that I disagree with the point being made by Atrain - how do you all reconcile the states that allow anyone to carry concealed without permitting or a training requirement?
i didnt know there was such a state...... which states allow that?
New Hampshire is one example.
IF you could guarentee that asswipe state legislators wouldn't rewrite the entire law to screw us over, then it might not hurt to change a few things. But you're never going to have that, and we don't really have a bloodbath in the streets right now with permit holders to blame.
Motor vehicles are the #1 cause of death, I used to have the link bookmarked but can't find it at the moment. There would be the more benefit in remedial driver edumacation.
HunterCO
11-02-2006, 22:11
Alaska and Vermont are another. I guess I have to ask since you think that the class was not up to your standards should I be afraid that you are going to carry? :roll:
PhL0aTeR
11-02-2006, 22:35
New Hampshire is one example.
IF you could guarentee that asswipe state legislators wouldn't rewrite the entire law to screw us over, then it might not hurt to change a few things. But you're never going to have that, and we don't really have a bloodbath in the streets right now with permit holders to blame.
Motor vehicles are the #1 cause of death, I used to have the link bookmarked but can't find it at the moment. There would be the more benefit in remedial driver edumacation.
Interesting.... i didnt know there were no restrictions on concealed carry in some states. I didnt mean to say that i was afraid that there was going to be a bloodbath, however i think that most of the population that have no experience with firearms, and wish to get started with taking a class should not be running around with a gun after that safety class. I think they should be coached at the range and learn that its not OK for granny to be showing their best friend with whom they meet at aisle # 19 at king soopers, their new "freedom". Enter legal class, common sence lectures etc.
Alaska and Vermont are another. I guess I have to ask since you think that the class was not up to your standards should I be afraid that you are going to carry? :roll:
Of course not.... as i stated, i have fairly extensive firearms training, safety and combat... So since i let my certifications expire, i had to jump through hoops, or go through the motions to get my CCW here. The problem, would be about half of the class not even knowing how to properly hold a gun, let alone load it.
I'm not really addressing anyone here either, so dont get offended, i assume 99% of the members here have a good amount of experience with firearms.
Funny that XJ mentioned motor vehicles. Would it make more sense for a CCW to be treated more like a drivers license? Study on your own with CCW study materials, take a written test, and take a basic shooting test?
westy1970
11-03-2006, 09:27
Funny that XJ mentioned motor vehicles. Would it make more sense for a CCW to be treated more like a drivers license? Study on your own with CCW study materials, take a written test, and take a basic shooting test?
Don't forget the vision test. [buck]
The Libertarian in me is offended by required training, however the safety guru in me is offended by a CCW class with no range time.
thedave1164
11-03-2006, 10:27
WHOA guys, you are starting to sound like a bunch of public school educated sheep.
With rights come responsibilities.
Handling of firearms used to be taught in the home, fathers taking up the task, and children knowing the safe handling of firearms from a young age.
Thanks to the age of aquarius, we have, as a society, said we don't want to be responsible. Let someone else, .gov, be responsible.
ie. Let the gov set the rules and determine who should be able to carry a firearm.
By virtue of the second amendment to the US Constitution, no one should need any kind of permit for owning or bearing a firearm. As responsible citizens of this great country, EVERYONE should own and maintain a firearm. I also believe everyone should carry one as well. As a responsible citizen, one would endevour to insure they knew how to properly use this implement of our freedom.
We should as responsible citizens, who take this right seriously, train up the next generation, and not let the agendized public school do our job.
How is that for a rant! :evil:
I will be blunt, if you are going to give up your rights because you do not want the responsibility, hand in your guns now, because you do not deserve to call yourself an American.
I certainly wont argue against our right to bear arms or our duty to learn how to use them. I thought the concern in this thread was about people who have little or no experience with a firearm getting a CCW...not about their right to get it. I would definitely like to hear more opinions regarding a person with no firearm experience getting a CCW and carrying in public places.
thedave1164
11-03-2006, 23:03
I certainly wont argue against our right to bear arms or our duty to learn how to use them. I thought the concern in this thread was about people who have little or no experience with a firearm getting a CCW...not about their right to get it. I would definitely like to hear more opinions regarding a person with no firearm experience getting a CCW and carrying in public places.
What part of bearing arms and shall not infringe do you not understand?
There is nothing about a CCW in the Constitution or BOR.
I didn't have to take any classes for my Colorado CCW. Scary isn't it :mrgreen:
It was harder to get my hunters safety card in colorado than my ccw. :roll:
thedave1164
11-04-2006, 07:25
I think many of you believe the liberals mantra of gunfights in the street, if the people are not trained.
Heck, some of you would not take the time to show someone else how to safely use a firearm, much less use one to protect someone else.
We really need to get an Appleseed shoot here, to get people back on the right track.
I think many of you believe the liberals mantra of gunfights in the street, if the people are not trained.
Heck, some of you would not take the time to show someone else how to safely use a firearm, much less use one to protect someone else.
We really need to get an Appleseed shoot here, to get people back on the right track.
1. If there is someone here that is a member and believes this, I'll be more than suprised.
2. That's just about as offensive as you can really get around here man. I may not know everyone here on a real personal level, but in my time here I've not met a single person who I believe this to be a true statement about. Speaking for myself, I've conducted training for 7 new shooters this year alone, and I don't charge.
3. Hell yeah we need an Appleseed event in Colorado, twice a year if it could be swung!
Oh..I would say there is plenty of elitism in the firearms community
Any group is prone to the them/us mentality and your qualifier "is a member" is just another indication that the "we are good, they are bad" is lurking just below the surface
Don't take that the wrong way....anytime you divide any group...of any size...by any criteria...that is a natural reaction
If you arbitrarily split the group at a club shoot into teams, there would be several people on each team that would be totally convinced that they were better/safer/etc. than the other team...even if they didn;t really know their new teammates they would be totally convinced that they were Da Bomb!
Human nature
In a perfect world everyone would pursue excellence in everything that they do...sadly...we do not live in a perfect world.
Just like when I see bad driving, bad gunhandling makes me want to avoid that person rather than mentoring them
And most people feel like genetics will allow them to operate either in a safe manner
Especially men...since most of us act like any critical review of our gunhandling is an attack on our manhood :-)
But just like your qualifications might not meet my qualifications...etc....
Nobody that is a member here thinks the government going to do a good job making the determination :P
I actually used the term member because of the audience, but that's a minor detail.
You are fairly right in your general assessment of sterotypical human behavior assesment. It's a socialization behavior that is programed socially and dare I say an evolutionary trait.
I know when I took the "manditory" saftey class - NRA basic pistol - that I was less than impressed with the matierial as it related to the responsibility that a CCW holder in today's society actually has.
I don't think we need the level or number of laws we have regarding guns. But I don't mind that folks are required to do something that most wouldn't do on their own. Much like I don't disagree with minors between 16 and 18 being requied to take drivers ed or have to drive supervised for 6-9 months before getting a license to drive.
Society needs regulation to mitigate human behavior and conduct. Then again I firmly believe that an armed society is a polite society.. oddly that doesn't seem to apply to being armed in a behind the wheel kinda way.
thedave1164
11-04-2006, 19:07
Sorry if my manner has offended some here on the board, but this really bugs me.
Driving is not a God given right with specific mention in the Bill of Rights, gun ownership is.
We can go round and round, but when I hear stories like the one related by the OP, I cringe.
Too many people will accept gov regulation before they will get off their backside and get their hands dirty. With all of the OP's qualifications, he should have offered to give some followup instruction for those less knowledgeable.
We do not live in a perfect world, and sometimes we can only make a difference in our little sphere of influence.
I admit, I have felt the same and reacted the same in similar circumstances, but had a fellow dress me down much the same as I have here. It has made a difference in my attitude towards beginners and newbies in the gun world.
If I have managed to give anyone a new perspective, then it has been worth it.
We shouldn't have to receive 'permission' from the government to arm ourselves. Self preservation is a natural right, and the right to do so with a firearm is an American right guaranteed by the Constitution.
I don't know of anyone in this group that would be unwilling to help someone learn how to responsibly and safely use a firearm.
PhL0aTeR
11-04-2006, 21:50
We shouldn't have to receive 'permission' from the government to arm ourselves. Self preservation is a natural right, and the right to do so with a firearm is an American right guaranteed by the Constitution.
I don't know of anyone in this group that would be unwilling to help someone learn how to responsibly and safely use a firearm.
True that, just to add... The way of the old west, and the times when little johhny knew at age 6 how to operate the shotgun hanging over the fireplace, are gone.
Nowadays, it is coming full circle, back to people arming themselves, which is good, but since most of them havent ever owned a gun, or held one, they need training. Perhaps what we have is fine, but maybe some non-profit organizations can offer some training apart from what is "required".
I'm always eager to teach people offline about firearms if they express an interest.
pickenup
11-05-2006, 00:58
It never ceases to amaze me how many GUN people are FOR gun control.
No wonder it’s been so easy to TAKE our gun rights away.
How many people have been accidentally killed or shot by CCWers in Colorado?
Until that number is greater than zero I don't think there should be any required training.
PhL0aTeR
11-06-2006, 02:26
How many people have been accidentally killed or shot by CCWers in Colorado?
Until that number is greater than zero I don't think there should be any required training.
I think many of you are taking what i said to a whole new level.... Lets say for instance that you are totally ignorant to firearms. You find out, "hey, its my right to carry a firearm concealed, if i want to!" and immediately begin researching a class. You find a class and take it, in its entirety... 3 hours. At the end of this three hours, you find yourself in not much better state than you were 3 hours prior, and not sure you want to take on the responsibility.
ON THE OTHER HAND.......... Same scenario, starting with the class, but a different class.... One that takes 2 days. 8 hours on saturday, and 2-3 hours of range time the next. You emerge from that class a confident, legally educated carrier of your preferred firearm.
Now which one of those people would you rather see emerge from a class?
The masses say.... "well, the latter of course, but who are you to say it should be required?" :roll:
Thats ok, some people never come around.....
thedave1164
11-06-2006, 05:13
How many people have been accidentally killed or shot by CCWers in Colorado?
Until that number is greater than zero I don't think there should be any required training.
I think many of you are taking what i said to a whole new level.... Lets say for instance that you are totally ignorant to firearms. You find out, "hey, its my right to carry a firearm concealed, if i want to!" and immediately begin researching a class. You find a class and take it, in its entirety... 3 hours. At the end of this three hours, you find yourself in not much better state than you were 3 hours prior, and not sure you want to take on the responsibility.
ON THE OTHER HAND.......... Same scenario, starting with the class, but a different class.... One that takes 2 days. 8 hours on saturday, and 2-3 hours of range time the next. You emerge from that class a confident, legally educated carrier of your preferred firearm.
Now which one of those people would you rather see emerge from a class?
The masses say.... "well, the latter of course, but who are you to say it should be required?" :roll:
Thats ok, some people never come around.....
Stick to supporting the pot amendment, we don't need your help in the firearms arena.
Like you said,
some people never come around.....
PhL0aTeR
11-06-2006, 09:46
Stick to supporting the pot amendment, we don't need your help in the firearms arena.
Like you said,
some people never come around.....
Youre right... maybe you dont.... but judging by the looks of the class i was in, there are far more of the other type (un-educated firearms owners) in the population, that DO need "my help".
Funny how a fellow shooter posing a concern about gun safety ends up getting accused of advocating gun control.
thedave1164
11-06-2006, 12:00
Funny how a fellow shooter posing a concern about gun safety ends up getting accused of advocating gun control.
From the original posters first post,
but i think there should be other requirements to obtain this holy grail that most gun owners seek.
Flame on....
his words not mine. [pirate]
True, but his initial comment was
I'm a bit dissappointed in the amount of training thats required for you to be legally running around with a firearm concealed. His suggested solution to that was to modify the existing process. If you don't like that solution or don't feel that we should even have a process, that's fine, but at least address his concern about those people that are carrying with no shooting experience.
thedave1164
11-06-2006, 13:49
True, but his initial comment was
I'm a bit dissappointed in the amount of training thats required for you to be legally running around with a firearm concealed. His suggested solution to that was to modify the existing process. If you don't like that solution or don't feel that we should even have a process, that's fine, but at least address his concern about those people that are carrying with no shooting experience.
Actually in Colorado, there are three circumstances where you can carry concealed and there is no training or permit required.
In your home or private place of business.
In your car.
While participating in an outdoor activity such as fishing or hunting.
Gangbangers have no training requirement.
I do not advocate any mandatory training, even if it were available free of charge. Mandatory training infringes on your rights.
How simple can I make it?
No mandatory training, no permit, for open or concealed carry.
KarlPMann
11-06-2006, 14:07
:mrgreen: Yeah buddy. Karl.
Gangbangers have no training requirement.
..and just look at how many innocent people they kill when they shoot at rival gang members [poke]
Look, this is an interesting topic and I don't necessarily disagree with you. I agree that we shouldn't have to get a permit to carry. That CCW class was a joke. I also agree with you that we have a responsibility to know how to use a firearm, especially one that we carry for self defense.
I guess where we differ is that I have concerns about those people who do not take carrying a firearm seriously. I know there are tons of people out there carrying who have little/no shooting experience, who carry around a brand new gun they haven't shot much, who carry a gun they can't hit the broad side of a barn with, who have physical problems or are taking medication that affect their shooting abilities.
I guess I think about these irresponsible people deciding to shoot around someone I love and that concerns me.
PhL0aTeR
11-06-2006, 17:59
and gang members get quite a bit of training as well..... moreso than the average citizen. speaking from experience, ive known prison inmates who learned at a very young age how to shoot, clean, (and even rapidly dispose of lol), a firearm....
there was just a deal on tv on the increasing number of sh!theads that are getting training in the military and bringing those skills back to their slums and teaching thier idiot "friends".
robsterclaw
11-07-2006, 10:31
Gangbangers have no training requirement.
..and just look at how many innocent people they kill when they shoot at rival gang members [poke]
I advocate mandatory training for gangbangers so they hit the other sh@theads their aiming at! :twisted:
Col. Cooper suggested supplying them with lots of ammo :-)
Well how simple can your friggen mind get.... This has grown to a level of F$%KING stupidity... You're rights... you're rights... FFS, we don't live in the society that had 5 year olds running around with their own .22's any more. Most people in America live in urban centers, not on farms or in the boonies. The people in these urban centers, more likely than not have not even held a firearm and you think it's just friggen peachy... because it's their right.. to turn them lose with a gun?
Get off your friggen "It's my right" high horse and come back down here where reality hangs out.
I still associate this to cars.. yeah brain child I know driving isn't a right, but it is a presumed privilege.. so if we take your stance, we shouldn't require anyone to have to be educated about the safe operation of a vehicle, or what the rules - read laws - are?
Unfortunately, militant "It's my right" fools making blanket, unrealistic and unyielding comments such as yours are the exact reason the Liberal Left even gains leverage with the uninformed.
Why the hell you think that people should just figure it out on their own, or apply the oxymoronic "common sense" to firearms is well and obviously beyond my ability to grasp.
Now don't you DARE assume that I want to forgo my right to keep and bear arms.. or to arm bears for that fact. I believe in that and the rest of the rights we as Americans have, but if you cannot accept that the rest of America thinks there needs to be controls and laws that allow that right but ensure civility and societal responsibility, then you need to stop sniffing glue and get some fresh "reality based" air.
Yeah.. this is really annoying me if you didn't figure that out.
thedave1164
11-10-2006, 12:25
Well how simple can your friggen mind get.... This has grown to a level of F$%KING stupidity... You're rights... you're rights... FFS, we don't live in the society that had 5 year olds running around with their own .22's any more. Most people in America live in urban centers, not on farms or in the boonies. The people in these urban centers, more likely than not have not even held a firearm and you think it's just friggen peachy... because it's their right.. to turn them lose with a gun?
Get off your friggen "It's my right" high horse and come back down here where reality hangs out.
I still associate this to cars.. yeah brain child I know driving isn't a right, but it is a presumed privilege.. so if we take your stance, we shouldn't require anyone to have to be educated about the safe operation of a vehicle, or what the rules - read laws - are?
Unfortunately, militant "It's my right" fools making blanket, unrealistic and unyielding comments such as yours are the exact reason the Liberal Left even gains leverage with the uninformed.
Why the hell you think that people should just figure it out on their own, or apply the oxymoronic "common sense" to firearms is well and obviously beyond my ability to grasp.
Now don't you DARE assume that I want to forgo my right to keep and bear arms.. or to arm bears for that fact. I believe in that and the rest of the rights we as Americans have, but if you cannot accept that the rest of America thinks there needs to be controls and laws that allow that right but ensure civility and societal responsibility, then you need to stop sniffing glue and get some fresh "reality based" air.
Yeah.. this is really annoying me if you didn't figure that out.
LOL
Sniffing glue, thats funny, I have never abused any drugs in my entire life.
As to my rights, they are absolute, as are yours and everybody elses. Whether you or any one else makes the choice to exercise them is neither here nor there. Once again, with rights you have responsibilities, but obviously you have decided to let .gov do that for you.
It is not .gov's responsibility to decide who gets to exercise their GOD given rights, depending on their being qualified to do so.
Come on Dave, you know how it works these days.
A CCW person in CO misses the BG and hits a little girl. The news media has a frenzy about CCW's and reports how you can go to a simple 3 hour lecture and get one without ever firing a gun. The majority of society, who could care less about this right, assumes none of us have fired a gun before...and we are made out to be dangerous, unskilled people carrying guns that shoot little girls on accident. Then our God given right gets more resticted or taken away completely.
I feel that is a realistic scenario because we are a minority. It seems to me that by having no minimum standards, we are vulnerable...making it easy for some irresponsible idiot to ruin it for the rest of us.
Should we just wait and see what happens?
Great-Kazoo
11-10-2006, 21:28
when i teach/instruct someone who wants to obtain a CCW, i spend a min. of 3 hrs range time with them.
there are some folks who have no business owning a gun, let along carrying one. some i have encountered who fall into the later catagory i suggest they find another way to defend themself.
to some this is being elitest. the ones i made this comment to thanked me for my time and did not pursue it any further.
i am a strong advocate of firearms training/instruction. and feel a X hr class, plus minimal range time is good for basics. however carrying should require much more hands on then that.
HunterCO
11-10-2006, 22:13
As to my rights, they are absolute, as are yours and everybody elses. Whether you or any one else makes the choice to exercise them is neither here nor there. Once again, with rights you have responsibilities, but obviously you have decided to let .gov do that for you.
It is not .gov's responsibility to decide who gets to exercise their GOD given rights, depending on their being qualified to do so.
+1
Nice to see sombody else understands the intent of our founding fathers. [usa]
thedave1164
11-11-2006, 08:30
Guys,
I am not against training, I am all for it.
I am against it being a requirement in order to exercise our rights.
As has already been discussed here the "requirements" fall woefully short as it is today. So it really is just about control, not about safety.
I am against the requirement of a hunters safety course before being able to hunt. Yet I support hunter safety and promote it. Again it is about control, not really about safety.
And don't even get me started about Licensing.......
Oh well, while it is on my mind...
A license is a legal authorization to do something that would normally be illegal. Think about that for a bit. A permit is pretty much the same.
Training is something everyone should want to do
But a requirement for it is, in essence, a tax.
Imagine the outrage if you had to have training to vote
Sure it might be a good idea for the citizens of Florida (or Denver) but you would immediately hear that it was a ruse to dicriminate against the poor
And any class that could turn out a truly safe and skilled shooter would not be $75 (or one night)
I have taught a lot of newbies and in my humble opinion attitude is everything (in life...not just shooting)
Some people are simply too cavalier about weapons (and everything else)
There are some very experienced shooters out there that don't take weapon handling, and skills seriously enough
Too many see a weapon as some kind of talisman that will cause them to be invincible. They don't feel that practice is required, after all...they read all the gun rags
And I am not certain how you would license attitude
I for one would rather see relatively untrained people that respect weapons and see it as another tool in the toolbox (right next to running away) rather than some rambo wannabee that is always going to default to his pistol and then try to use the Constitution to justify whatever bonehead move he decides to make
But I reject any effort to try to figure out, in advance...who is who
There is a big difference between being able to shoot and knowing how to fight with a firearm
A little training/practice can render you able to shoot...some might even be able to do reasonably well with no practice..I have seen some natural shots
Anyone interested in fighting with a handgun/long gun will belearning for the rest of their lives
SO who gets a CCW?
Well, there is a slight training requirement for voting.. believe it or not... it's called reading, and oddly we require all children to attend schooling. Hmm, tax on voting.. I think not.
What this comes down to for me is the societal differences between now and when the 2nd was written. There STILL is not a requirement other than the background check (not even that really) - dare ya to disagree with me on that being an excellent idea - to keep and bear arms.
For all the new shooters I've trained this year, they get a minimum of several hours of conversation about weapons in general and their needs in detail. They have all gotten at least 4 hours and around 500 rounds of range time. I have followed that up with 3 of them to another 8 or 10 hours and another 1000-1500 rounds. I think give them a very detailed talk about their responsibilities and the need to keep on shooting at least 500 rounds a month of their going to be carrying and at least 250 a month of it's just for home protection.
I speak with novice shooters all the time, I'm always an active proponent of the 2nd amendment any where I am. I'm always amazed at the shift in their view of me from a crazed gun nut to that guy that really has a clue about their new found joy in shooting.
The comments have been made about it really being our responsibility to constantly reach out to all level of shooters. I strongly believe in that and practice it all of the time just like we all should.
Yet I will not back down from the fact that people who don't know diddly about guns should be educated. If that means that they have to take a class, then so friggen be it. I consider myself a fairly experienced shooter and still took the class I needed for my CCW. Did I learn a whole lot, not even close, but I did learn and I'm a better shooter, gun owner and advocate because of it.
The fact still remains that the laws are there, if anyone feels so strongly about the constriction of our 2nd amendment rights and wants to do something about it... drive on baby, drive on.. hell I'll be one of the first in line to step up and help. If you're just going to sit on the side line and bitch about the erosion of your 2nd amendment rights, I'll continue to laugh at you and take what you have to say with absolutely no value or interest. Put your money where your mouth is or STFU. As a very wise man once told me... bring me your problems any time, but you damn well better bring a solution along as well!
You have to be able to read to vote......hmmmm...gotta check that
I voted this year and sure...I read the ballot...but I don't think it was required???
Nobody thinks training is a bad thing...quite the opposite in fact
And I believe that the requirement is that ALL applicatnts take a "class"
Not just those that are not aquainted with Diddly
Don't get me wrong...I am actually someone that thinks mandatory military service would be a good thing...and yes, it would include weapons familiarization.
I just draw the line at requiring it
I have known cops that are not gun guys and shudder at the thought of being around them if they ever need to use their weapon
And they have had substantially more training than the law requires for CCW
So by all means support some feel-good training requirement...just don't fool yourself into thinking it accomplishes much
If you're too poor to pay for whatever "class" or "certification" the government deems necessary, then what? The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to you?
Comparing the 2nd Amendment to a drivers license? Seriously?
The government can "ensure civility and societal responsibility"? We have laws that establish language defining crimes and penalties, but there is still crime. Do you think the government gives a crap that someone has fathered 8 children with 8 different women?
If accidental shootings were more common, I might think there was something to this discussion. I would appreciate the government spending more effort on enforcing the existing laws and going after criminals.
KarlPMann
11-13-2006, 00:09
Well, there is a slight training requirement for voting.. believe it or not... it's called reading,
[roll] Yeah right. You say that for one reason only, you can read. NO IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT! They will read the entire thing to you if they have to, or you can bring your own person to help. While I voted, an elderly woman was having her granddaughter read her hers because her eyes were too bad. Sorry. Karl.
Nor are we funding public education simply so people can read ballots
Although I did hear that several areas had bilingual ballots :cry:
The best news is that most non "gun-people" are unlikely to ever use their weapon
And the really bad ones will be lucky if said weapon will work
I have seen enough ND's in training over the years to realize that joe average will be hard pressed to even operate his sidearm if/when TSHTF
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.