Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Freethinker |
And I believe he made his position clear in his first post:
I’m not trying to beat him up by exaggerating his position, but he did say “require,” and that’s what I responded to. When preconditions are required to exercise our basic rights, and there is none more basic than the right of self-defense, then they cease being rights and become privileges that are subject to the whims of those who establish and enforce those conditions. The failure to recognize that all-too-common fact is why so many of our basic rights are threatened—if not totally abrogated. ► 6.4/93.6 | |||
|
| Member |
I had to have 3 weeks of training to be certified to teach firearms, so I don't think that mandating a certain number of hours of training to carry a gun is unreasonable. Self defense is a fundamental right, but the costs of ignorance when it comes to firearms is so high as to make it unrealistic to think that a firearm can be safely and effectively used without some training. | |||
|
| Member |
In my class about 14 years ago there was this arrogant as hell Vietnam vet that did nothing but talk shit about how experienced he was. Had a pretty nice 1911 too. We were lined up single file between 4 lanes and when it was his turn he had a hot piece of brass get stuck between his ear muffs and head and of coarse he muzzle swept everyone while his finger was inside the trigger guard trying to fix it. We all hit the deck and the instructor practically tackled him against the stall wall to disarm him. | |||
|
אַרְיֵה |
I, much like many many other people, would never have had firearm training at home. Guns were never even discussed. There were certainly never any guns in the house. I truly believe that the households that have guns and have a parent / older sibling who is qualified to do even basic training for firearm safety, these households represent a small percentage of households with school age kids. Teaching firearm safety at home is certainly A Good Thing, but that should not rule out instruction at school. הרחפת שלי מלאה בצלופחים | |||
|
| Member |
A little to the right of Reagan, sounds kinda like a line I use. I'm a little to the right of Rush Limbaugh. But, yeah. I did my first CHL class way back when Ohio first made it a law. I was in the first class in our county. We had 150 in the book part and it last something like 10hrs. The shooting part was like 4 hours and we had most experienced gun owners. I retook the class(for free) from 2 of the same instructors about 5 years ago. Most inexperienced gun owners. Not sure there is much you can do in a short time to do all that is needed for lack of experience. It is unnerving to think that a lot of those people may carry. The truth may be that a lot of those people will never carry. I advise people who buy a gun, to take the course even if they never intend to carry. Then if I see them again, I advise them to take some more advanced classes. NRA Life Endowment member Tri-State Gun collectors Life Member | |||
|
| Member |
Teaching humans ,dogs, horses is a skill. Talking about stuff in front of people does not qualify as teaching.. ( I.m.o.) I learned this in " college" After taking the Illinois c.w.permit class, I am in no way very confidant about almost any aspect of shooting, legal aspects of self defense, firearms, or Post shooting circumstances. Safety, Situational Awareness and proficiency. Neck Ties, Hats and ammo brass, Never ,ever touch'em w/o asking first | |||
|
| Member |
From another perspective , I just took what was supposed to be a 16 hour, two day c.w.p. course , with three other Illinois residents. They charge ,$ 180.00 per person. Or $11.25 per hour. Makes me wonder what the instructors at the big name defense training compounds get per hour. I am guessing it's considerably more. Maybe , at the state mandated " Courses" You get what you paid for. Safety, Situational Awareness and proficiency. Neck Ties, Hats and ammo brass, Never ,ever touch'em w/o asking first | |||
|
| אַרְיֵה |
Yes and no. Yes: Training is a good idea. More than just a good idea, it borders on essential. No: The Second Amendment affirms that we already have a right. A right, not a privilege. Nowhere is it specified that training should be mandated in order to exercise that right. We should do everything in our power to encourage new gun owners to obtain training, and all gun owners to participate in ongoing training. "Encourage," not "mandate." הרחפת שלי מלאה בצלופחים | |||
|
| Member |
Given all of the evidence in the press and on the street, I strongly believe that many people need more instruction before using their First Amendment right to free speech, and probably some need training which would clarify to them the term “peaceful” as included in the term “peaceful assembly”. I am also certain that many people own guns, and some carry those guns, who would not meet an objective standard for proficiency in the use of dangerous weapons. The key here is objective standard and who gets to determine it. Therefore, I join with many opponents of the idea that training should be mandatory before you can enjoy your rights, be they those outlined in the First, or Second Amendment. The devil is certainly in the details of mandatory training especially if government mandated. I think most of us could design a course which either none of us could pass, or another course which anyone could pass. Certainly, the NYC or Chicago governments could and would design an anyone fails class. The key then is as always; “Who Decides” and I for one would trust no one to decide. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024