View Full Version : Do you oppose Senate Bill 13-195? If so, why?
I understand the opposition to most of the Bills being debated in the Senate but there is one which I thought that people on both sides of the gun debate would embrace. This is Senate Bill 13-195 which would put an end to online training for concealed-carry permits.
Over the years I have taken (and given) several CCW courses and, though I have learned a lot from every instructor, there are some courses that have focused a lot of attention on "the gun fight" but have completely ignored topics such as legal ramifications and Criminal/Civil Liabilities. Personally, I would like to see concealed-carry classes in Colorado standardized (like they are in states like Utah) where every instructor is teaching the same material and which requires the student to demonstrate not just proficiency in the use of a firearm, but also a course that thoroughly discuses topics such as situational awareness and conflict avoidance.
Most of the on-line courses that I have seen are nothing more than a regurgitation of the NRA First Steps course which, at best, offers only basic marksmanship skill. The other great limitation that I see with on-line courses is that the student's questions can go unanswered.
So, back on topic, do you oppose Senate Bill 13-195? If so, why?
battle_sight_zero
03-09-2013, 17:53
Not opposed to this having to be an in person course. However I don't believe it should be some long drawn out day long rigorous course. Far as I am concerned I have not seen anyone shooting up places with a CCW or being unsafe that makes me believe the current in person instruction is of concern. The process of going through the process at the sheriffs office can be hard enough for most people. Don't scare them away, we need more people out there with permits. Cover safety, law, rules of force etc and some range time would be great
No. Fuck that noise. Why do we continue compromising ourselves into further and further regulation? Leave the 2A alone.
Teufelhund
03-09-2013, 17:56
I understand the opposition to most of the Bills being debated in the Senate but there is one which I thought that people on both sides of the gun debate would embrace. This is Senate Bill 13-195 which would put an end to online training for concealed-carry permits.
Over the years I have taken (and given) several CCW courses and, though I have learned a lot from every instructor, there are some courses that have focused a lot of attention on "the gun fight" but have completely ignored topics such as legal ramifications and Criminal/Civil Liabilities. Personally, I would like to see concealed-carry classes in Colorado standardized (like they are in states like Utah) where every instructor is teaching the same material and which requires the student to demonstrate not just proficiency in the use of a firearm, but also a course that thoroughly discuses topics such as situational awareness and conflict avoidance.
Most of the on-line courses that I have seen are nothing more than a regurgitation of the NRA First Steps course which, at best, offers only basic marksmanship skill. The other great limitation that I see with on-line courses is that the student's questions can go unanswered.
So, back on topic, do you oppose Senate Bill 13-195? If so, why?
Tell me which of our other rights require a permission slip.
Tell me which of our other rights require a permission slip.
If I understand your questions correctly, you are implying that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to carry concealed weapons; is that right?
hurley842002
03-09-2013, 18:16
I don't embrace any further Gov control on the right to defend myself and my family PERIOD!
hurley842002
03-09-2013, 18:28
To further expand on my reply, if the "student" wishes to get the best instruction/experience possible, let it be their choice to seek out and obtain, not some government mandated "feel good" law.
I support it for the reason of reciprocity. It could have waited until other states cut us off, then there would be alot more support for it.
newracer
03-09-2013, 18:40
I don't think you should have to have any training for a CHP, so yes I am against the bill.
blacklabel
03-09-2013, 18:42
I don't believe that training to carry concealed should be required. It's not required to open carry.
They're simply instituting hoops to jump so that we can exercise a right. This isn't a privilege and shouldn't come with stipulations.
I am all in favor of training for CCW holders, much like I'm strongly in favor of motorcyclists wearing proper safety gear, but I don't believe it's the government's place to mandate either.
JM Ver. 2.0
03-09-2013, 18:48
Yep... Just the responses I expected from most people...
I don't believe that training to carry concealed should be required. It's not required to open carry.
Good point!
Bailey Guns
03-09-2013, 19:11
I make a decent supplemental income teaching concealed carry. I'd gladly give it up for Constitutional carry...no permit required for law abiding citizens. This bill is just another incremental step to more and more infringement of our 2A rights.
If I understand your questions correctly, you are implying that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to carry concealed weapons; is that right?
Damn skippy.
Keep and BEAR
Whether I have it in my house, car, hip, or under my shirt, the 2nd guarantees me the right to bear my weapon.
blacklabel
03-09-2013, 19:17
Yep... Just the responses I expected from most people...
God forbid we exercise our rights without government intrusion.
hurley842002
03-09-2013, 19:22
I am all in favor of training for CCW holders, much like I'm strongly in favor of motorcyclists wearing proper safety gear, but I don't believe it's the government's place to mandate either.
Agreed!
I understand where all of those who say "it is our right... you don't need to train for a right" are coming from. And on principal... I agree. However, I have seen tons of people handle and operate a firearm at the range and the thought of them concealed carrying scares the bejeezus out of me. Sweeping everyone in the range, finger on the trigger, just bad, awful, pisspoor discipline. I know, I know... they have just as much and every right to carry as you and I do. But good lord, I am not opposed to them getting some training and learning how to properly handle and operate a firearm. I also know a lot of people who don't have the proper mindeset and temperament for carrying a firearm. Myself... I had a much different mindset before I took my concealed carry class. So I stand on the side that there is LOTS of value in taking a good CCW course. If we don't care about people getting some good, proper training before hand... I guess we can always discipline them AFTER they make a fatal mistake. But I see where people on both sides of the fence are coming from.
I make a decent supplemental income teaching concealed carry. I'd gladly give it up for Constitutional carry...no permit required for law abiding citizens. This bill is just another incremental step to more and more infringement of our 2A rights.
Are residents of Colorado less trustworthy than the residents of Arizona?
I think the difference is that Arizona voters have elected representatives who are not inclined to second guess their citizens. Colorado voters seem to be leaning more and more toward government intrusion and nannyism.
Cy, I am a proponent of as much training as someone can afford and attend. I've been to expensive classes that weren't worth it and free classes that were worth more than a luxury cruise. It is really difficult to know what you are going to get before the class is over. I guess you could say that: Training is like a box of chocolates...[LOL]
I just know that if the legislature is involved, and given the average legislator's knowledge about firearms, tactics, and firearms liability, I do not want them writing any laws concerning what I have to spend my money on to exercise my rights.
My $.02
JM Ver. 2.0
03-09-2013, 19:29
God forbid we exercise our rights without government intrusion.
What part if my comment made you think it was a bad thing?
and yet we dont hear about people carrying concealed or open carry shooting themselves or others.
I will have to respectfully disagree with this statement. I know more than one CCW holder who have had a negligent discharge; one of them injured himself in the process. I don't know if more or better training would have prevented these incidents but they are a clear indicator that, when handling firearms, a mistake on our part can have serious consequences.
Cy, I am a proponent of as much training as someone can afford and attend.
I agree 100% and I wish that most gun owners would understand the value of proper training which I don't believe that anyone can get from an on-line class.
blacklabel
03-09-2013, 19:59
What part if my comment made you think it was a bad thing?
You know what they say about assuming...
Im just against the government mandating it.
How do you feel about the government mandating the consumption of chocolate? [Coffee]
Kraven251
03-09-2013, 20:12
Since a class is already required, I would prefer it to be an interactive class to be able to address questions and allow the instructor to assess the student. Not that I have heard of it happening but an instructor could decline to give someone their certificate.
If I understand your questions correctly, you are implying that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to carry concealed weapons; is that right?
I don't believe the founding fathers cared if a weapon was carried concealed or openly. They said that your right to be armed shall not be infringed. That includes in public...concealed or openly.
blacklabel
03-09-2013, 20:17
Since a class is already required, I would prefer it to be an interactive class to be able to address questions and allow the instructor to assess the student. Not that I have heard of it happening but an instructor could decline to give someone their certificate.
If the requirement must exist, I prefer that it be as accessible and inexpensive as possible. The requirement for training, background check etc. is simply a coat tax. I can carry my handgun openly but if I put my coat over it, I must pay a fee/tax.
I believe that anyone willing to carry a firearm is best off taking a thorough training class but certainly do not feel it is a requirement.
hurley842002
03-09-2013, 20:18
I don't believe the founding fathers cared if a weapon was carried concealed or openly. They said that your right to be armed shall not be infringed. That includes in public...concealed or openly.
This, whatever bullshit brainwashed concept of the 2nd these Libs have given to some of the alleged pro 2a folks is ridiculous!
Kraven251
03-09-2013, 20:27
If the requirement must exist, I prefer that it be as accessible and inexpensive as possible. The requirement for training, background check etc. is simply a coat tax. I can carry my handgun openly but if I put my coat over it, I must pay a fee/tax.
I believe that anyone willing to carry a firearm is best off taking a thorough training class but certainly do not feel it is a requirement.
Agree completely.
re open carry: Now that Deadly Weapon has been redefined, be vary careful how you answer the cop that comes to see you after the MWAG call. You might be disturbing the peace.
I make a decent supplemental income teaching concealed carry. I'd gladly give it up for Constitutional carry...no permit required for law abiding citizens. This bill is just another incremental step to more and more infringement of our 2A rights.
+1
honestly, I don't think there should be any training requirement. There isn't to own a gun. There isn't to open carry. There isn't to shoot at a range, to shoot in the woods (except hunting), to defend your family or your home.
If these absolutely HAS to be training, then I think it should be standardized, in person, with live fire and show the applicable laws and pathways to insurance, what lawyers to contact in the event of an incident, how to work with the police in a contact situation etc.
yes, those of us on here see a ton of info from the multiple instructors, but the average Joe who doesn't sit on here all the time might not get the best instructor, or does a quick online class and doesn't pay attention to the videos or googles any questions on a test.
The best proof though that nothing needs to change is the simple facts and data. I can't recall any concealed carry permit holders that have gone on shooting sprees, that have got into severe trouble, or really anything that has made the headlines.
ChunkyMonkey
03-09-2013, 21:28
Personal responsibility goes long way.
Goodburbon
03-09-2013, 21:31
If I understand your questions correctly, you are implying that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to carry concealed weapons; is that right?
It quite clearly guarantees the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, free from infringement. Determining the method of carry, capacity of carry, conditions of carry, locations of carry, permissable ammunition of carry (i.e. "copkillers") are clearly violations of the spirit of the law. Yet here we are, willing to accept that certain methods of carrying certain weapons are not legal as arbitrarily determined by the government that usurps our constitution incrementally.
Anyone who argues otherwise is making excuses for that oppressive government.
I can't recall any concealed carry permit holders that have gone on shooting sprees, that have got into severe trouble, or really anything that has made the headlines.
George Zimmerman
Teufelhund
03-09-2013, 21:55
If I understand your questions correctly, you are implying that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to carry concealed weapons; is that right?
It wasn't really a question, but yes, that is what I mean. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, without restriction.
While I think training is a great idea for everyone, according to the letter of the highest law of the land, the Constitution, it is illegal for the government to require it.
"...shall not be infringed."
That's pretty clear to me.
Sharpienads
03-09-2013, 23:07
I am all in favor of training for CCW holders, much like I'm strongly in favor of motorcyclists wearing proper safety gear, but I don't believe it's the government's place to mandate either.
Just 'bout sums it up. The fact that I need a permit to practice a natural, Constitutionally protected right is complete bullshit. You don't need a permit to speak your mind, practice your religion, peaceably assemble, or write down your thoughts, why do I need one to keep and bear arms, concealed or otherwise?
Sharpienads
03-09-2013, 23:08
George Zimmerman
If some dude starts beating the shit out of me and I am in fear of my life, I'd shoot him, too.
George Zimmerman
Only because the media pushed that bullshit.
Only because the media pushed that bullshit.
I was only refreshing Sniper7's memory when he said that he didn't recall the names of any CCW holders who "made the headlines" but fine, then how about: George Sodini, Paul Merhige, Christopher Speight or Michael McClendon (amongst others)? All of these folks were CCW holders at the time the committed their murders and I am willing to bet that you have never heard their names before today.
hurley842002
03-10-2013, 00:01
training would have stopped these murders from happening? so, of the thousands and thousands of permit holders, you can name a few who were bad guys. that still has nothing to do with training.
Seems it has more to do with trolling....
training would have stopped these murders from happening?
I seriously doubt that any amount of training would have prevented these men from committing their crimes. Again, I only mentioned them because someone here said that he didn't recall any CCW holders ever making the headlines (which btw is a completely separate topic from my original question).
Seems it has more to do with trolling....
How so?
Sharpienads
03-10-2013, 00:09
I seriously doubt that any amount of training would have prevented these men from committing their crimes. Again, I only mentioned them because someone here said that he didn't recall any CCW holders ever making the headlines (which btw is a completely separate topic from my original question).
Fair enough.
But for the original question, there should be no mandated training. There should be no permit to carry concealed in the first place.
dwalker460
03-10-2013, 00:17
I do not support this bill. In fact, I do not support the CCW laws, as they Un-Constitionally infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms. I also do not agree with background checks, as they violate my 4th Amendment right to privacy.
osok-308
03-10-2013, 07:27
I oppose it, because it is one more gun law for the books. I don't recall hearing of any CCW permit holder who shot up a place!
flan7211
03-10-2013, 07:49
Yes lets ask permission to exercise our rights. Training is a valuable tool. You should capitalize upon it as much as possible, but the 2A isn't about standards and practices. It is about RIGHTS, your right to keep and bear arms how you see fit to defend your life and liberty. Anything past that is tyranny and infringement.
Bailey Guns
03-10-2013, 07:53
FFS. We've beaten this topic to death in this forum. Here's the bottom line as I see it:
No one is arguing against permit holders obtaining voluntary training to improve their knowledge and skills. The argument is between those who want the training to be voluntary and those who want mandated training standards set by bureaucrats like Evie Hudak and John Morse and Rhonda Fields.
If you are in favor of gov't mandated training standards for people who want to defend themselves then, in my opinion, you are part of the problem we're facing here in Colorado and in the nation with gov't infringing more and more on our personal liberties. I'd suggest the democrat party is looking for folks like you.
Permit holders are not the problem regardless of the anecdotal stories of "I saw someone at the range handling a gun and they were really scary. I wish the gov't would save me from them". If you want the gov't to take care of you because personal freedom is dangerous and scary, the democrat party is looking for you.
What are you going to do when you can't pass the gov't standards? Oh, that's right. You'll have the gov't to protect you. If that's what you want, the democrat party is looking for you.
If you can't grasp the simple concept that personal freedom and liberty carries a price, if you aren't willing to pay the price, if you don't think others are worthy of the freedoms and liberties laid out in our Constitution, the democrat party is looking for you.
Goddamn, some of you people piss me off the way you talk outta both sides of your mouth about gun rights and freedom.
Boadie30
03-10-2013, 08:29
The average person, I know, can't afford this bullshit in the first place... 152.50 CCW... 500-600 for decent weapon...50-100 for decent holster... 45.50-150.00 training class, (open carried for years so i could not get the military training exemption). The average person will not open carry.
So what happens? They do not carry, they do not get involved.... In many cases they vote against us... Sheep
Many training courses do not even require range time anyway... Some instructors are (politically slanted which causes them to spew bullshit) more fucked up on the laws then their students (not all of them)..
Just imagine how much more fucked up it could be with the government being even more involved in it. It’s just about CONTROL and there is no significant problem to fix...
Please do not ask or wish for the government to force me to spend more money on shit I do not want...
I'm a NRA Pistol Instructor and Reloading Instructor, this bill if pass to law "help me for more classe$$$" but My conscience tell me :
1- a right is FREE
2- I don't want another law writed in the book
SIMPLE, I'm opposed to any single anti-gun bill.
dodgefreak8
03-10-2013, 10:50
so we can get college degrees online but are incapable of learning what is necessary to be safe while carrying a firearm concealed?? If you ask me there shouldn't even be a requirement for the course.. You don't need a course to open carry.
Sharpienads
03-10-2013, 11:08
FFS. We've beaten this topic to death in this forum. Here's the bottom line as I see it:
No one is arguing against permit holders obtaining voluntary training to improve their knowledge and skills. The argument is between those who want the training to be voluntary and those who want mandated training standards set by bureaucrats like Evie Hudak and John Morse and Rhonda Fields.
If you are in favor of gov't mandated training standards for people who want to defend themselves then, in my opinion, you are part of the problem we're facing here in Colorado and in the nation with gov't infringing more and more on our personal liberties. I'd suggest the democrat party is looking for folks like you.
Permit holders are not the problem regardless of the anecdotal stories of "I saw someone at the range handling a gun and they were really scary. I wish the gov't would save me from them". If you want the gov't to take care of you because personal freedom is dangerous and scary, the democrat party is looking for you.
What are you going to do when you can't pass the gov't standards? Oh, that's right. You'll have the gov't to protect you. If that's what you want, the democrat party is looking for you.
If you can't grasp the simple concept that personal freedom and liberty carries a price, if you aren't willing to pay the price, if you don't think others are worthy of the freedoms and liberties laid out in our Constitution, the democrat party is looking for you.
Goddamn, some of you people piss me off the way you talk outta both sides of your mouth about gun rights and freedom.
Whoa, somebody is grumpy this morning. [Coffee]
George Zimmerman
I must have missed the conviction. Or do you also disagree with the position of "Innocent until proven guilty?"
O2
Whoa, somebody is grumpy this morning. [Coffee]
He was spot on. I get the feeling that most of these "training is a good thing" folks are wet behind the ears, either being young or new to guns.
Once you've been in the game for a couple of decades, you get a real clear picture of what's happening.
And if you've been in the game for a awhile and still think this way, you're either lining your pockets at the expense of a right or you're just ignorant. The good news is ignorance can be cured, stupidity is forever.
O2
Goddamn, some of you people piss me off the way you talk outta both sides of your mouth about gun rights and freedom.
I'd suggest that the anger management course "is looking for you!" [Eek3]
I must have missed the conviction. Or do you also disagree with the position of "Innocent until proven guilty?"
Nope, you didn't miss the verdict but you did miss the original question. No conviction is needed to make the headlines.
Once you've been in the game for a couple of decades, you get a real clear picture of what's happening.
Yet many of the people whom I see at the range being careless around guns are precisely those who claim they have been shooting all their lives.
Yeah... a lot of people getting their panties in a wad while getting off topic. The topic wasn't whether or not you think you should have to take a class to carry a firearm. The topic was whether or not if the class you have to take should be in person or if you should be able to take it online. When it comes to taking a firearms course... I'm on the side of I think you should or would desire to take it in person. Cost, laziness, stubbornness aside... I don't understand why people wouldn't want to get hands on when it comes to firearms. It doesn't make much sense to me. I liken it to wanting to become a race car driver but not wanting to actually drive the car on the track... a pamphlet or a video game would appease you. I just find it odd... that's all.
The topic wasn't whether or not you think you should have to take a class to carry a firearm. The topic was whether or not if the class you have to take should be in person or if you should be able to take it online.
^^ FINALLY!! The voice of reason has spoken. ^^
THANK YOU brobar!!
Bailey Guns
03-10-2013, 12:15
Voice of reason my ass. More likely the voice of someone who really can't put a lot of thought into the issue.
I'm not going to go into detail here because I've outlined my position and reasoning in every one of the numerous threads on the mandatory training issue.
Eventually you guys will get what you want from big government. I hope you're happy then.
Bailey Guns
03-10-2013, 12:16
Whoa, somebody is grumpy this morning. [Coffee]
Yep. I tend to get that way when people start talking about how infringement upon the rights of others is a good thing.
Eventually you guys will get what you want from big government. I hope you're happy then.
I'm not exactly sure what it is you think "us guys" want. My position is... if you are going to be doing firearms training... I'm not sure why anyone would really want to not get hands on and up-close and personal in that training. It has nothing to do with the government, big government or anything else for that matter. All I've said is I find it out that people would rather sit in front of a computer than get out and get hands on with the training they have to take. I guess with today's video-game generation... it somewhat makes sense. But I find range time MUCH more enjoyable than Call of Duty on the XBOX. Maybe that is just me.
Bailey Guns
03-10-2013, 12:32
Did you ever stop to think about the people who might be excluded with mandatory, state-mandated, "up close and personal" training? What about the guy in a wheelchair who physically can't do it? What about the low-income person who only has a Jennings or Bryco budget and can't afford the increased costs that will come with state-mandated in-house training? Not everybody has the budget you and I might have and not everyone has the physical capabilities you and I might have. Everyone is entitled to have the means to protect themselves.
Goodburbon
03-10-2013, 12:41
If I understand your questions correctly, you are implying that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to carry concealed weapons; is that right?
I responded to a question put forth by the OP, apparently this is wrong to do?
I'm not exactly sure what it is you think "us guys" want. My position is... if you are going to be doing firearms training... I'm not sure why anyone would really want to not get hands on and up-close and personal in that training. It has nothing to do with the government, big government or anything else for that matter. All I've said is I find it out that people would rather sit in front of a computer than get out and get hands on with the training they have to take. I guess with today's video-game generation... it somewhat makes sense. But I find range time MUCH more enjoyable than Call of Duty on the XBOX. Maybe that is just me.
For my wife. 2 kids at home, 60 miles from the nearest training courses. It is time and cost prohibitive for her to pay a sitter all day and pay for the fuel plus the cost of the course, ad nauseum. She's had her CCW in LA, mistakenly sent in her certificate instead of a copy of the cert, There's no reason for any course at this point, but an online course is more than sufficient and much more accessible.
two shoes
03-10-2013, 12:44
COAT-TAX...
matters not if they take the class in person or not.... class is required... Next they will mandate training to be 20 hours or so stupid shit like that....
Sharpienads
03-10-2013, 12:54
Yeah... a lot of people getting their panties in a wad while getting off topic. The topic wasn't whether or not you think you should have to take a class to carry a firearm. The topic was whether or not if the class you have to take should be in person or if you should be able to take it online. When it comes to taking a firearms course... I'm on the side of I think you should or would desire to take it in person. Cost, laziness, stubbornness aside... I don't understand why people wouldn't want to get hands on when it comes to firearms. It doesn't make much sense to me. I liken it to wanting to become a race car driver but not wanting to actually drive the car on the track... a pamphlet or a video game would appease you. I just find it odd... that's all.
Actually, that wasn't the question. The question is if you oppose the bill, and if so, why. Yes I oppose it because there should not be a permit process to exercise a natural, Constitutionally protected right. If the training should be online or in person is moot, since there should be no mandated training.
flan7211
03-10-2013, 13:09
Actually, that wasn't the question. The question is if you oppose the bill, and if so, why. Yes I oppose it because there should not be a permit process to exercise a natural, Constitutionally protected right. If the training should be online or in person is moot, since there should be no mandated training.
+1.
Boadie30
03-10-2013, 13:28
Actually, that wasn't the question. The question is if you oppose the bill, and if so, why. Yes I oppose it because there should not be a permit process to exercise a natural, Constitutionally protected right. If the training should be online or in person is moot, since there should be no mandated training.
+2
Just like every other discussion in every other state concerning this issue, it will end to where we agree to disagree.
However, while on-line classes and classes that offer zero range training may be a joke for the average rookie Joe, these force reasonable prices for the full blown CCW courses.
Furthermore, for what the full blown CCW classes actually offer within current reasonable rates, they are a joke for the veteran...
As long as there are "Leaders" in this state that speak of getting rid of guns as "Cleansing a sickness from our souls........", even if I did believe in SB 13-195, I would oppose it.....
It wasn't all that long ago that I was preparing to apply for my CCW. I looked at a number of options to meet the requirement to present a training certificate. My background is that I've been around firearms most of my life - though with long lapses of not having them while living overseas. Still, I felt confident of my basic gun handling skills and safety awareness. The only thing I really wanted from the class was; (a) a refresher on the current laws, and (b) the physical certificate to present with my application. Other than those two things, the rest was a waste of time. To accomplish those two things, an online class would have been more than sufficient. When I checked around, it turned out there was a more convenient local class offered for a lower price than the online classes I found, so that it what I did. Nonetheless, I liked the option of having an online class option that 'fit' for me and my circumstances.
Having said that, I get real damn nervous when I go to the range - and especially on public lands - when I see some of the newbies who are fumbling around with their firearms. Can't count the times me, or my kids, have had some knumbnut swing the muzzle around in a downright dangerous manner. I often think to myself that I *wish* there were some form of mandated safety training requirement for people who are new to guns.
So that is the rub. I count myself as experienced enough, and safe enough, that I no longer need mandated training - YET - I find myself wanting exactly that for others.
I have to remind myself that I have no right to impose my wishes/demands on others - particularly when it intrudes on their rights. Admittedly, I struggle with this at times because it seems to me those newbies are intruding on my rights, and my kids rights, to be kept safe from their ignorance and/or negligence. Nonetheless, the conclusion I draw is that if I feel others are being unsafe, I leave - to insure my safety and especially that of my kids. That is the choice I make, and it provides for safety while not imposing on others.
Same concept with the ban of online class options. Without addressing whether concealed carry should be by permit or not - without challenging the training requirement for CCW - looking only at the question of whether online classes should be allowed or not - the clear answer is that they should be allowed and available. Choice of training venue ought to be left to each person. Period.
muddywings
03-10-2013, 14:40
I understand the opposition to most of the Bills being debated in the Senate but there is one which I thought that people on both sides of the gun debate would embrace. This is Senate Bill 13-195 which would put an end to online training for concealed-carry permits.
Over the years I have taken (and given) several CCW courses and, though I have learned a lot from every instructor, there are some courses that have focused a lot of attention on "the gun fight" but have completely ignored topics such as legal ramifications and Criminal/Civil Liabilities. Personally, I would like to see concealed-carry classes in Colorado standardized (like they are in states like Utah) where every instructor is teaching the same material and which requires the student to demonstrate not just proficiency in the use of a firearm, but also a course that thoroughly discuses topics such as situational awareness and conflict avoidance.
Most of the on-line courses that I have seen are nothing more than a regurgitation of the NRA First Steps course which, at best, offers only basic marksmanship skill. The other great limitation that I see with on-line courses is that the student's questions can go unanswered.
So, back on topic, do you oppose Senate Bill 13-195? If so, why?
I'm going to quote the OP and jump into the mix and say that I disagree with it out of principle too. The OC vs CCW and government intrusion into basic rights is where I feel that extra training, while good, is burdensome.
Also, I'm sure you provide a great service at www.ShooterReady.US but likewise, it seems there could be a tad bit of bias with your point of view as you would benefit financially from the passage of this law. Would you by chance offer free classes for those who make less than....oh say $40K a year or full time college student as a community service? I have seen quite a few instructors give out free classes to school teachers recently. I think it would be great if you could donate 1 Saturday a month to those people who are not finically well off yet upstanding members of our society.
Just spitballing here....
This is completely off the topic, but I am still not certain how the concept of concealed carry became a legislated form of carry. Historically, people concealed their firearms as a tactical consideration (no point in showing others that you are armed) and out of politeness for those around us who may be apprehensive at the sight of a firearm.
Whether a handgun is open or concealed does not change the fact that a firearm is present. I personally disagree with the idea of any legislatively constructed "gun free" zones. I personally cannot think of any place that good intentioned, honest, law abiding citizens should be prohibited from having a firearm.
Criminals do not obey the law, by definition. So which guns are prevented from being in a "gun free" zone?
As to training, our society has no training requirements for procreation. Some people who procreate, probably shouldn't. I do not want the government deciding who can and who can't procreate. I do not believe the government is qualified to provide training guidelines for those who do choose to procreate. I do believe most people should conceal their procreation, however there seems to be plenty of freely available simulated acts of procreation available on the Internet. Apparently on-line training is available for almost anything today [Flower]
Be safe.
George Zimmerman
True, we still have yet to see what will happen to him. I believe he will get off due to the laws and the pictures of his injuries.
I believe he will get off due to the laws and the pictures of his injuries.
I agree! Sadly he has already been found guilty in "the court of public opinion."
Sharpienads
03-10-2013, 16:14
I agree! Sadly he has already been found guilty in "the court of public opinion."
No kidding.
Well I know my line of thinking is too extreme for a lot of the people here. I think EVERYONE should have firearms training... proof of that training if they are going to carry... and I think that training should start in the schools from a very young age starting with the Eddie the Eagle program. Math, science, history, firearms... it should be standard coursework. Why do you guys know that 2+2=4? Because you learned it in school. Why can't people learn that all guns are loaded, keep the finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot, how to properly handle, shoot, manipulate, store, work on, fix, troubleshoot, marksmanship fundamentals, advanced marksmanship, etc... in our schools and universities? If you make firearms training part of the curriculum, you won't have people whining about distance, price, vacation days, no Internet, etc...
Yes I think ALL people should be trained with firearms. Yes I think it should start when they are young and remain a part of the offered curriculum all the way through college. Extreme? Yea... so what!
If you have people learning about and getting trained with firearms at a young age... then maybe there wouldn't be so much fear and ignorance surrounding firearms when people get older. I was listening to a professor on the radio the other day talking about a safety course that he had to take at the university and when they were passing around ammo... some of the other faculty didn't want to even touch it without a tissue!!! Ignorance! Ignorance and irrational fear come from a lack of training and familiarity. Lets get that out of people at a young age before they are too far down the rabbit hole!
Bailey Guns
03-10-2013, 17:02
Well that's a far cry from what you posted earlier. And as long as we're dreaming, we might as well all get gov't issued M4 rifles with a lifetime supply of free ammo.
Well that's a far cry from what you posted earlier. And as long as we're dreaming, we might as well all get gov't issued M4 rifles with a lifetime supply of free ammo.
How so? I said I feel everyone should get in-classroom hands on training. I didn't go so far as to elaborate when, where or how. I said I couldn't understand why some would prefer to do it in a digital format if hands-on, live-fire training was available. I said it didn't make much sense (to me). However... the more I think about generations today... I guess I could see why some people would prefer it.
And what is with the issuing of M4's and ammo comment? When you take shop class... do you get issued a car and tools to take home with you to keep? When you take home ec... do you get issued sewing machines with a lifetime supply of thread and a gas range oven with a lifetime supply of self-rising flour?
JM Ver. 2.0
03-10-2013, 17:19
I do not support this bill. In fact, I do not support the CCW laws, as they Un-Constitionally infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms. I also do not agree with background checks, as they violate my 4th Amendment right to privacy.
Some times you say things that just totally Fuck my mind....
How so? I said I feel everyone should get in-classroom hands on training. I didn't go so far as to elaborate when, where or how. I said I couldn't understand why some would prefer to do it in a digital format if hands-on, live-fire training was available. I said it didn't make much sense (to me). However... the more I think about generations today... I guess I could see why some people would prefer it.
And what is with the issuing of M4's and ammo comment? When you take shop class... do you get issued a car and tools to take home with you to keep? When you take home ec... do you get issued sewing machines with a lifetime supply of thread and a gas range oven with a lifetime supply of self-rising flour?
Your responses seem to cast things in a very narrow frame of reference. Ex. your explanation of a generational difference to explain the POV's different from your own seems, well, a bit simplistic - IMO, of course.
As I read BG's response to your post, he was (I believe) merely carrying your argument to a further point in your own logic path. For there to be a mandate for universal gun training, there would need to be universal acceptance of gun exposure. i.e. using cstone's procreation reference - the very reason there is now a universal mandate for sex education (under the euphemism of 'health' education) is due to the universal acceptance that our youth are going to be exposed to sex. Your argument follows that example as a direct parallel - EXCEPT - there is no universal acceptance of gun exposure. If there were such universal acceptance - then your suggestion of mandated training in school makes sense - as does BG's comment about M4 issuance.
Make sense now?
JM Ver. 2.0
03-10-2013, 17:27
Your responses seem to cast things in a very narrow frame of reference. Ex. your explanation of a generational difference to explain the POV's different from your own seems, well, a bit simplistic - IMO, of course.
As I read BG's response to your post, he was (I believe) merely carrying your argument to a further point in your own logic path. For there to be a mandate for universal gun training, there would need to be universal acceptance of gun exposure. i.e. using cstone's procreation reference - the very reason there is now a universal mandate for sex education (under the euphemism of 'health' education) is due to the universal acceptance that our youth are going to be exposed to sex. Your argument follows that example as a direct parallel - EXCEPT - there is no universal acceptance of gun exposure. If there were such universal acceptance - then your suggestion of mandated training in school makes sense - as does BG's comment about M4 issuance.
Make sense now?
I would just like to say.... Teen pregnancy is a much bigger problem than gun control right now.... We need more sex ed in schools.
I would just like to say.... Teen pregnancy is a much bigger problem than gun control right now.... We need more sex ed in schools.
LOL. . .
A perfect example of thread drift.
JM Ver. 2.0
03-10-2013, 17:30
LOL. . .
A perfect example of thread drift.
Hey... You pointed it that way, I just pushed it along.
I understand the opposition to most of the Bills being debated in the Senate but there is one which I thought that people on both sides of the gun debate would embrace.
How can a person connected to a business that offers firearms training be the least bit objective about this?
It reminds me of a gun shop owner who told me he thought the universal background check law was good as it would benefit his business...
Your responses seem to cast things in a very narrow frame of reference. Ex. your explanation of a generational difference to explain the POV's different from your own seems, well, a bit simplistic - IMO, of course.
As I read BG's response to your post, he was (I believe) merely carrying your argument to a further point in your own logic path. For there to be a mandate for universal gun training, there would need to be universal acceptance of gun exposure. i.e. using cstone's procreation reference - the very reason there is now a universal mandate for sex education (under the euphemism of 'health' education) is due to the universal acceptance that our youth are going to be exposed to sex. Your argument follows that example as a direct parallel - EXCEPT - there is no universal acceptance of gun exposure. If there were such universal acceptance - then your suggestion of mandated training in school makes sense - as does BG's comment about M4 issuance.
Make sense now?
I don't get the issuing point... no. While it would be awesome... I don't see it necessary or plausible. There are lots of classes we take in school, like the two I mentioned (shop and home ec) that require a physical hands on presence with the items without schools having to issue you those items for you to keep afterwards. You don't get a car to keep in shop, you don't get a stove to keep in home ec, you don't keep your Bunsen burners and beakers in chemistry, you don't keep your M4 from firearms class. You have to have them in the classroom for class... but they don't pay for and give you these things to take home with you to keep. That is your own responsibility. Not everyone who takes home ec may want a stove... don't force one on 'em. Not everyone who takes firearms classes in school may want an M4 (though I sure would) so don't force it on 'em. It doesn't make economic sense to issue them. The whole lifetime supply of ammo? BG was just being a smart ass... not furthering my argument. I'm sure you can see that. I was trying to make a serious point and have a serious discussion. That is tough for some people to do, apparently.
Homeschooling for the win! Math, Reading, History, Firearms, Science [Flower]
Bailey Guns
03-10-2013, 17:36
How can a person connected to a business that offers firearms training be the least bit objective about this?
I own a firearms training company and I'm a strong proponent of Constitutional carry. I think that's pretty objective.
Homeschooling for the win! Math, Reading, History, Firearms, Science [Flower]
I'd be on board with that! Make it part of the curriculum!
JM Ver. 2.0
03-10-2013, 17:37
I'm very torn on this bill. For many reasons. Too much to type, really.
How can a person connected to a business that offers firearms training be the least bit objective about this?
It reminds me of a gun shop owner who told me he thought the universal background check law was good as it would benefit his business...
Acknowledging the power of profit motive, I submit it is disrespectful to accuse others of acting out of self-interest in these matters - UNLESS AND UNTIL those motives are demonstrated in their actions.
I've known an awful lot of business owners who actively lobby in a direction based on principle while knowing full-well it will negatively impact their bottom lines and result in them taking a different direction with their businesses.
Just my POV. FWIW
Bailey Guns
03-10-2013, 17:39
I don't get the issuing point... no. While it would be awesome... I don't see it necessary or plausible. There are lots of classes we take in school, like the two I mentioned (shop and home ec) that require a physical hands on presence with the items without schools having to issue you those items for you to keep afterwards. You don't get a car to keep in shop, you don't get a stove to keep in home ec, you don't keep your Bunsen burners and beakers in chemistry, you don't keep your M4 from firearms class. You have to have them in the classroom for class... but they don't pay for and give you these things to take home with you to keep. That is your own responsibility. Not everyone who takes home ec may want a stove... don't force one on 'em. Not everyone who takes firearms classes in school may want an M4 (though I sure would) so don't force it on 'em. It doesn't make economic sense to issue them. The whole lifetime supply of ammo? BG was just being a smart ass... not furthering my argument. I'm sure you can see that. I was trying to make a serious point and have a serious discussion. That is tough for some people to do, apparently.
I wasn't "just" being a smartass. I was pointing out that, as long as we're dreaming about a perfect world (in terms of training our children in schools as you suggested...which ain't gonna happen) we might as well carry it a little further. When I'm "just" being a smartass, you'll know.
I wasn't "just" being a smartass. I was pointing out that, as long as we're dreaming about a perfect world (in terms of training our children in schools as you suggested...which ain't gonna happen) we might as well carry it a little further. When I'm "just" being a smartass, you'll know.
I think it is pretty apparent what you were doing. It comes across just like those who say "oh the 2A says you can have an AR... why don't you just get a tank while you are at it!"
I said the point was extreme. And I was right... so extreme, people can't even discuss it without getting all silly.
I think it is pretty apparent what you were doing. It comes across just like those who say "oh the 2A says you can have an AR... why don't you just get a tank while you are at it!"
I said the point was extreme. And I was right... so extreme, people can't even discuss it without getting all silly.
Right at this time, with a critical Senate vote coming TOMORROW - there is a serious question about dedicating energy to a hypothetical with almost ZERO chance of ever happening.
For your suggestion of mandated firearm training in school to be considered, there would need to first be widespread acceptance of the need for such training. That is the reason I referenced cstone's post about procreation - and procreation leading to mandated sex education.
Do you really think the prerequisite of UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE that our youth need firearm training has a glimpse of a chance of happening?
With homeschooling, my wife and I chose our children's curriculum.
Because I know of no public school system anywhere in this country that would accept it, I would never try to get them to accept credit for firearms instruction. Let's face it. In today's public school system, children are suspended for nibbling a pop tart gun and pointing at other children.
I would tell anyone I chose to that I was giving my kids an advanced education in physics with practical applications in ballistics, meteorology, and gravitational influence on bodies in motion. [Flower]
Bailey Guns
03-10-2013, 17:52
This was your first post:
I understand where all of those who say "it is our right... you don't need to train for a right" are coming from. And on principal... I agree. However, I have seen tons of people handle and operate a firearm at the range and the thought of them concealed carrying scares the bejeezus out of me. Sweeping everyone in the range, finger on the trigger, just bad, awful, pisspoor discipline. I know, I know... they have just as much and every right to carry as you and I do. But good lord, I am not opposed to them getting some training and learning how to properly handle and operate a firearm. I also know a lot of people who don't have the proper mindeset and temperament for carrying a firearm. Myself... I had a much different mindset before I took my concealed carry class. So I stand on the side that there is LOTS of value in taking a good CCW course. If we don't care about people getting some good, proper training before hand... I guess we can always discipline them AFTER they make a fatal mistake. But I see where people on both sides of the fence are coming from.
Then this:
Yeah... a lot of people getting their panties in a wad while getting off topic. The topic wasn't whether or not you think you should have to take a class to carry a firearm. The topic was whether or not if the class you have to take should be in person or if you should be able to take it online. When it comes to taking a firearms course... I'm on the side of I think you should or would desire to take it in person. Cost, laziness, stubbornness aside... I don't understand why people wouldn't want to get hands on when it comes to firearms. It doesn't make much sense to me. I liken it to wanting to become a race car driver but not wanting to actually drive the car on the track... a pamphlet or a video game would appease you. I just find it odd... that's all.
Then this:
I'm not exactly sure what it is you think "us guys" want. My position is... if you are going to be doing firearms training... I'm not sure why anyone would really want to not get hands on and up-close and personal in that training. It has nothing to do with the government, big government or anything else for that matter. All I've said is I find it out that people would rather sit in front of a computer than get out and get hands on with the training they have to take. I guess with today's video-game generation... it somewhat makes sense. But I find range time MUCH more enjoyable than Call of Duty on the XBOX. Maybe that is just me.
Then this. How the fuck is anyone supposed to get that what you wrote below is what you meant from your earlier posts? Your earlier posts never mentioned anything remotely resembling starting firearms training in schools...I guess everyone was just supposed to figure that out.
Well I know my line of thinking is too extreme for a lot of the people here. I think EVERYONE should have firearms training... proof of that training if they are going to carry... and I think that training should start in the schools from a very young age starting with the Eddie the Eagle program. Math, science, history, firearms... it should be standard coursework. Why do you guys know that 2+2=4? Because you learned it in school. Why can't people learn that all guns are loaded, keep the finger off the trigger until you are ready to shoot, how to properly handle, shoot, manipulate, store, work on, fix, troubleshoot, marksmanship fundamentals, advanced marksmanship, etc... in our schools and universities? If you make firearms training part of the curriculum, you won't have people whining about distance, price, vacation days, no Internet, etc...
Yes I think ALL people should be trained with firearms. Yes I think it should start when they are young and remain a part of the offered curriculum all the way through college. Extreme? Yea... so what!
If you have people learning about and getting trained with firearms at a young age... then maybe there wouldn't be so much fear and ignorance surrounding firearms when people get older. I was listening to a professor on the radio the other day talking about a safety course that he had to take at the university and when they were passing around ammo... some of the other faculty didn't want to even touch it without a tissue!!! Ignorance! Ignorance and irrational fear come from a lack of training and familiarity. Lets get that out of people at a young age before they are too far down the rabbit hole!
I'd suggest that the anger management course "is looking for you!" [Eek3]
Now who's being the smartass?
I think it is pretty apparent what you were doing. It comes across just like those who say "oh the 2A says you can have an AR... why don't you just get a tank while you are at it!"
I said the point was extreme. And I was right... so extreme, people can't even discuss it without getting all silly
I get it now. Your kinda like one of those "pro-gun liberals" I hear about. You're all for the 2A and individual freedoms as long as they don't make you all uncomfortable.
Right at this time, with a critical Senate vote coming TOMORROW - there is a serious question about dedicating energy to a hypothetical with almost ZERO chance of ever happening.
For your suggestion of mandated firearm training in school to be considered, there would need to first be widespread acceptance of the need for such training. That is the reason I referenced cstone's post about procreation - and procreation leading to mandated sex education.
Do you really think the prerequisite of UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE that our youth need firearm training has a glimpse of a chance of happening?
Not with the attitude that I see some people approaching it with... no... not a chance in hell. That is why I said it is TOO EXTREME for people on here. I'm of the mindset that rights are not without responsibilities and actions are not without consequences... crazy talk... right? So I think people should be taught, about those responsibilities and the consequences that come along with being irresponsible, at a young age! People don't like that kind of thinking. Let's stop talking about it and change the subject by acting all silly. I know exactly where we stand today and yes, you are right, with people's mindset today... there is not a glimpse of that happening. We should probably just shut up about it and not even discuss it.
how about that snow (or lack thereof) we got yesterday?
How can a person connected to a business that offers firearms training be the least bit objective about this?
If making money was my motivation, I would strongly oppose Senate Bill 13-195. Having people watch a 30 minute on-line video and answer a handful of questions requires zero effort on my part. Even if I was $10 per person, I would make a lot more money than holding an in-person class.
In the end, this is not a matter of "how much money a business owner can make"; it's a matter of whether or not a person looking to apply for a CCW can learn anything from an on-line course or not.
DavieD55
03-10-2013, 18:24
Yes, this is a stupid piece of legislation that does nothing to stop or prevent crime... How does WY, AZ, AK, and VT handle this...
If making money was my motivation, I would strongly oppose Senate Bill 13-195. Having people watch a 30 minute on-line video and answer a handful of questions requires zero effort on my part. Even if I was $10 per person, I would make a lot more money than holding an in-person class.
In the end, this is not a matter of "how much money a business owner can make"; it's a matter of whether or not a person looking to apply for a CCW can learn anything from an on-line course or not.
Not all people absorb materials from training in the same way. Some people learn better with experiential training. Some people learn better with a traditional classroom setting. Some people learn better by self-study. Some people learn better with having a 'talking head' in the classroom. There simply is not a 'one-size-fits-all' when it comes to training. Other factors in determining an optimal training venue include things like a full-time job, along with family considerations. There are so many variations that it only makes sense to me that the person taking the course should be able to make whatever selection works best FOR THEM.
As always - just my POV.
dwalker460
03-10-2013, 19:12
Not with the attitude that I see some people approaching it with... no... not a chance in hell. That is why I said it is TOO EXTREME for people on here. I'm of the mindset that rights are not without responsibilities and actions are not without consequences... crazy talk... right? So I think people should be taught, about those responsibilities and the consequences that come along with being irresponsible, at a young age! People don't like that kind of thinking. Let's stop talking about it and change the subject by acting all silly. I know exactly where we stand today and yes, you are right, with people's mindset today... there is not a glimpse of that happening. We should probably just shut up about it and not even discuss it.
how about that snow (or lack thereof) we got yesterday?
Your a complete idiot.
Do I agree that firearms training should happen? Sure. I think every parent should teach thier kids to shoot. IN FACT, I believe that we should pass a LAW requiring every single parent- including gay, lesbian, tranny, or undecided- to teach any children in their care how to properly use firearms. Further, we should test and grade these skills on a pass/fail system. Fail, and the kid gets taken away and placed with a parent that CAN teach children the proper use and respect of firearms.
Your a complete idiot.
Irony! [ROFL1]
dwalker460
03-10-2013, 19:22
Nope, sarcasm. get used to it.
Shall not be infringed MEANS shall not be infringed.
Go read those pesky Amendments and Preamble again, maybe the truth will finally sink in.
DavieD55
03-10-2013, 19:30
I am gonna to go back on my answer a little bit. It is very important for people to understand the responsibilities that come along with carrying a firearm. I just dont like the part where some politician decides what is best for all. It is kind of the one size fits all mentality.
What works for one person might not work for the next.
Did you know that if you are applying for a CO driver's license and you are 21 years of age or older, you need not have any driver's training at all? Just show up and take the test. If you pass, you get a DL.
Driving is a privilege and not a Constitutionally protected right that every citizen is born with.
Since my two adult children were both homeschooled, we did not have access to driver's ed through the public schools. Does anyone think that their high school driver's ed class made them a good driver? I used this program: http://driveredinabox.com/state-information/colorado/ It was good for documenting what the state required for applicants under the age of 18. There was some nice information included, however, the time spent with my kids in the car was 1000 times more important than what the state required. I also had both of the drive with several other adults, who I believe are safe and responsible. Sometimes variety in instruction can have multiple benefits.
For the record, IMO, the CO driver's test is a joke. My kids could have passed it after the second time I took them on the road. I would not let them take the test until they met my standard. The only down side to teaching them how to drive is the constant nagging fear that if someday in the future they are involved in an accident fatality (theirs or someone else), I will have to live with the responsibility, real or perceived. I chalk it up to being an adult.
I don't know why firearms training would be any different?
Good parenting is something that no legislature will ever be able to define. That doesn't seem to stop them from trying.
Be safe.
Goodburbon
03-10-2013, 20:33
I think it is pretty apparent what you were doing. It comes across just like those who say "oh the 2A says you can have an AR... why don't you just get a tank while you are at it!"
I said the point was extreme. And I was right... so extreme, people can't even discuss it without getting all silly.
The 2A does say that you can have a tank.
Rucker61
03-10-2013, 21:20
The 2A does say that you can have a tank.
It's the Mrs. and the HOA parking restrictions that say "No".
It's the Mrs. and the HOA parking restrictions that say "No".
I can't afford the ammunition or the JP5 the tank runs on. Don't they get 2 gallons to the mile?
I feel the same way about automatic weapons. I don't want one, because I can't afford the ammunition. If the GOV did away with the dumb full auto restrictions, I still would only shoot one round at a time.
Here is another oddity or idiosyncrasy in government regulation. With all of the other noise abatement requirements for motorcycles, cars, airplanes, etc... Why doesn't the government want us all to have suppressors on our rifles? How many ranges have to deal with never ending neighborhood complaints about the noise. If it was easier to obtain and utilize suppressors, some manufacturers might even begin including them as part of a package deal or making models with integrated barrel/suppressors. Think of all the health issues related to hearing loss that would benefit from the voluntary use of easily obtained suppressors.
Maybe we can convince some progressive legislator that suppressors be taken off the NFA, for the good of the children [Flower]
I can't afford the ammunition or the JP5 the tank runs on. Don't they get 2 gallons to the mile?
I feel the same way about automatic weapons. I don't want one, because I can't afford the ammunition. If the GOV did away with the dumb full auto restrictions, I still would only shoot one round at a time.
Here is another oddity or idiosyncrasy in government regulation. With all of the other noise abatement requirements for motorcycles, cars, airplanes, etc... Why doesn't the government want us all to have suppressors on our rifles? How many ranges have to deal with never ending neighborhood complaints about the noise. If it was easier to obtain and utilize suppressors, some manufacturers might even begin including them as part of a package deal or making models with integrated barrel/suppressors. Think of all the health issues related to hearing loss that would benefit from the voluntary use of easily obtained suppressors.
Maybe we can convince some progressive legislator that suppressors be taken off the NFA, for the good of the children [Flower]
I think your suggestion has significant merit. Repeal of the restriction on suppressors *is* a health issue, and one that is recognized in some European countries where suppressors may be purchased OTC. It also has merit as a counterweight to many of the new restrictions now being pursued.
It was not too long ago that I posted a question about suppressor legislation in GD that was later moved to NFA. In it, I bared my ignorance of the origins of the restrictions on suppressors and learned a LOT about the legislative history. That thread may be found here --> http://www.ar-15.co/threads/84059-Question-About-Suppressor-Legislation. Perhaps others will learn something as I did. For example:
* Whereas I thought the restriction of suppressors was due to anticipated use as an assassin's weapon, it was also because of their use by poachers.
* Teufelhund made the following suggestion:
Instead of holding our ground and not letting them take anything else, we should start the conversation at the repeal of all past infringement.
* asmatao was a fount of information with references to the context surrounding some of the passage of past gun control laws.
* It motivated me to research a summary of the major federal gun legislation that's been passed since 1900 and posting it in post # 25 of that thread.
Returning to your point about suppressors, it seems to me those restrictions need to be seriously re-evaluated. Now is as good a time as any. I'll be looking into what I, and others, can do to get this on the radar screen of those who can advance the idea.
losttrail
03-11-2013, 10:05
I oppose it due to incrementalism. Today this measure. The next incident then leads the Marxists to say "That didn't work, we need to restrict rights even more."
Aloha_Shooter
03-11-2013, 11:35
In general, I don't trust Internet-only training. I've taken too much of it to place that kind of faith in training that should be important. I probably wouldn't have objected had this proposal been voiced while Owens was governor and the GOP held both houses but I don't trust Hickenlooper or Morse any further than I can see them in my telescope (a Celestron 8 not spotting scope or rifle scope -- clarified for anyone who might think it was a veiled threat of some kind).
Having said that, I oppose it because of what everyone else has said -- this is just the first piece of incrementalism. We've already given several inches and it's clear they want several miles so why give them yet another inch?
losttrail
03-11-2013, 12:53
I can't afford the ammunition or the JP5 the tank runs on. Don't they get 2 gallons to the mile?
I feel the same way about automatic weapons. I don't want one, because I can't afford the ammunition. If the GOV did away with the dumb full auto restrictions, I still would only shoot one round at a time.
Here is another oddity or idiosyncrasy in government regulation. With all of the other noise abatement requirements for motorcycles, cars, airplanes, etc... Why doesn't the government want us all to have suppressors on our rifles? How many ranges have to deal with never ending neighborhood complaints about the noise. If it was easier to obtain and utilize suppressors, some manufacturers might even begin including them as part of a package deal or making models with integrated barrel/suppressors. Think of all the health issues related to hearing loss that would benefit from the voluntary use of easily obtained suppressors.
Maybe we can convince some progressive legislator that suppressors be taken off the NFA, for the good of the children [Flower]
JP5? What the heck tank are you talking about?
Having been a gunner & tank commander on M48A5, M60, M60A1, M60A3 and M1 Abrams, the only one that would run on JP5 is the M1 Abrams. But it is a multi-fuel turbine so it will run on diesel, JP5, kerosene, Jack Daniels, Yukon Jack (actually had a prototype running on YJ back in the '70's), tequila, Everclear, etc.
All the others were 750HP, v12 Continental diesels.
JP5? What the heck tank are you talking about?
Having been a gunner & tank commander on M48A5, M60, M60A1, M60A3 and M1 Abrams, the only one that would run on JP5 is the M1 Abrams. But it is a multi-fuel turbine so it will run on diesel, JP5, kerosene, Jack Daniels, Yukon Jack (actually had a prototype running on YJ back in the '70's), tequila, Everclear, etc.
All the others were 750HP, v12 Continental diesels.
I was thinking of the Abrams. If you are dreaming big, why not go all the way? Do you recall what the estimated city/highway mileage was for any of the main battle tanks or even a Bradley?
If you buy it, you have to feed it.
A tank in a stationary position is just a grid coordinate for air and artilery. [LOL]
Dalendenver
03-11-2013, 21:53
The 1939 Miller case that went to the supreme court said that the second amendment covered any gun that was used by the military. By that decision we should be able to all use full auto, tanks, etc.
Rust_shackleford
03-12-2013, 09:33
I oppose having to be licensed period
losttrail
03-12-2013, 10:28
I was thinking of the Abrams. If you are dreaming big, why not go all the way? Do you recall what the estimated city/highway mileage was for any of the main battle tanks or even a Bradley?
If you buy it, you have to feed it.
A tank in a stationary position is just a grid coordinate for air and artilery. [LOL]
About 3-4 gallons per mile. Depending on terrain and speed. 65+ tons takes a lot of juice to move even with a 1,500hp turbine.
BTW - When you hear the media talking about the Abrams having a top speed of 45mph, just smile & wave. Had mine up to 60mph governed, running crap #2 diesel. Take the governor off and fill it with JP5 or alcohol and get ready for triple digits. Oh yeah, you can still shoot accurately at over 2 miles at those speeds.
Sweetest ride I've ever been in.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.