Do you oppose Senate Bill 13-195? If so, why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHC

LOL. . .

A perfect example of thread drift.

---

Hey... You pointed it that way, I just pushed it along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cysoto

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHC

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]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hatidua

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

Homeschooling for the win! Math, Reading, History, Firearms, Science [Flower]

---

I'd be on board with that! Make it part of the curriculum!

I'm very torn on this bill. For many reasons. Too much to type, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hatidua

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brobar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bailey Guns

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brobar

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]

This was your first post:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brobar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brobar

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brobar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brobar

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!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brobar

I'd suggest that the anger management course "is looking for you!" [Eek3]

---

Now who's being the smartass?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brobar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHC

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hatidua

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cysoto

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brobar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dwalker460

Your a complete idiot.

---

Irony! [ROFL1]

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brobar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goodburbon

The 2A does say that you can have a tank.

---

It's the Mrs. and the HOA parking restrictions that say "No".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rucker61

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]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

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-Qu...or-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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teufelhund

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.

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."

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by losttrail

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]

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.

I oppose having to be licensed period

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

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.