Printable View
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.
Yep. I tend to get that way when people start talking about how infringement upon the rights of others is a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
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.
I responded to a question put forth by the OP, apparently this is wrong to do?Quote:
Originally Posted by cysoto
Quote:
Originally Posted by brobar
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.
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....
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by brobar
+1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
+2Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharpienads
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.