Carry and ammo fails

45, there you go, reading without getting it.

Without even a shred of training, people will make more mistakes than if they had been trained. You know what? Stupid people will do stupid things no matter how you train them. Smart people with training will be better after training.

It seems like you're saying that being educated in fundamentals and being stupid and untrained are effectively the same thing.

I disagree. Training someone is going to make it less likely that they are going to dry fire with a loaded gun.
 
I don't care about trying to fix the stupid people, unless you are talking about neutering then.

The people who are first time buyers, or those who have never been trained will benefit from basic education. It ma save a life.

It sounds like you guys oppose mandatory training just because it here are some people who won't graduate. Do you feel the same way about high school? Almost every one of those idiots also went to high school, was it a mistake to send them to school?
 
Briandg I've been thinking about Constitutional Carry quite a bit lately. Missouri's legislature just overturned their governor's veto, and Constitutional Carry goes into effect January 1. While I live on the Illinois side of the river, it is a hot topic here.

I have talked to a couple of 2A supporters who feel like you about this. Others think that any restrictions on the right to carry should be removed, and the requirement to pass a test before engaging in something guaranteed by the Constitution is tyranny. It is a complex issue. I don't think passing a basic firearms safety course for anyone carrying a gun is unreasonable. Some states already have this requirement for hunters. The problem is some would make the requirements of that testing prohibitively restrictive and expensive.

Many predicted regular gunfights in the streets between citizens with concealed carry permits. Just the opposite has happened. There is so much pressure being brought to bear by the anti-gun lobby to take away our guns that the impending threat of that happening has many of us reluctant to give at all. That inflexibility may make us vulnerable in some ways, but what choice do we have?
 
Do you feel the same way about high school? Almost every one of those idiots also went to high school, was it a mistake to send them to school?
Click to expand...

I'm going to tell you I am not certain where I stand.

However the argument seems to balance on a premise of this nature: we do not disallow someone the freedom of speech or criminalize it because he or she failed English class in school.
 
A few years back, I got tired of a young "gunshop gunster" who told us all about his fast draw "defense" exploits (in spite of MD's highly restrictive gun carry laws). Finally, I asked for some details. He loudly informed us benighted gun "experts" that he would prove to us all how fast he was as soon as he was old enough to buy a gun. I am waiting, waiting....
Click to expand...

I wish to thank you for helping me pass my coffee through me nose while reading this ^^^^
 
I don't find anything simple about it at either, lohman I don't believe that it is tyranny that people be reasonably expected to meet certain legal criteria and minimal training before they are allowed to carry a gun in these united states. For example, people who have engaged in criminal activity or otherwise been exposed to the courts as being unsuited for gun ownership. I don't see a whole lot of people here disagreeing with that.

I simply think that some mandatory training and a license are an important part of allowing a person to carry a weapon out in public. For the first part, there's no point in arguing about what the bad guys are going to do, I'm talking about what a law abiding american would do. It's completely obvious that even minimal training that exposes the ten commandments, even if nothing else, tells people "don't shoot at other people, point the gun down range, finger off of the trigger, etc"

There are people out there who have never even heard this. they don't understand it. Never learned how to behave with one. A woman I met told me that her boyfriend had loaded her gun for her and she had never opened it since. knowing her as I did, it's not entirely unlikely that she later had a restraining order out on that same boyfriend, and carried that very same gun because she was afraid of him.

Will having a training session help make people safer, even if it's only one in a hundred that learn to keep their fingers off of the trigger? sure it will, and even if it saves only a few people annually from serious accidents, it's worth it.

There's no need to drag the constitution into this. The freedom to bear arms comes second. The part that comes first is "regulated." That doesn't mean leaving all control in the hands of the individual, it means that the government has the right and power to do whatever it has to to maintain the safety of the country, while not abridging the rights of the citizens to carry a gun.

The craziest argument that I ever heard was that the constitution itself was "unconstitutional." There are "natural rights" and constitutional rights, and in the constitution it refers to the bill of rights as only limitations and not as absolutes.

Some people believe that the will of "god" is important, and that their "god" would never make them get a permit or obey man's laws in any way, so the constitution is just a bunch of noise.

The old saying "people kill people" fits. so let's stop the people who have guns from being psychotic, drunks, sadists, serial killers... The first step is telling them that they can't have one.
 
I wish to thank you for helping me pass my coffee through me nose while reading this
Click to expand...

A routine happening at other places where I post. I've been told to write books or work for letterman.
 
anyone who votes for mandatory training class has never honestly forgot their CHL at home the one day officer Murphy pulled them over for some random traffic stop. CHLs themselves are an infringement on the right and now we have gun owners wanting more gun control... brilliant. The idea that mandatory training will reduce stupidity is not founded on anything, just look at drivers on the road who actually had to pass a comprehensive exam.

have we not clearly seen what anti gun politicians do with "common sense" gun laws.... we should be talking about repealing all gun free zones if we want to reduce stupidity.
 
/sarcasm/

Greetings from your friendly State of Denial Government!

As you may be aware, we previously implemented a CCW permit process requiring bare minimal training and education to get your CCW. I am the newly elected governor who believes inherently that only the police and military should carry firearms. This belief is based on my “feelings” which are of utmost importance!

The new process for carrying a firearm will require training on par with the military. It will require 6 months of boot camp to ensure you are physically fit enough to carry that heavy gun and properly trained in its use, maintenance and storage. We will also run extensive background checks to ensure that you have the highest level of responsibility and character. No expense is too much for the added safety we are providing!

We will also require at least one year of law school for each CCW permit holder, to ensure that you truly understand the laws related to self-defense, tort liability and criminal law. True, this is an especially burdensome requirement because of the time and cost, but we think that will keep certain deplorable people from even applying for CCW permits, thus making our streets safer!

Now, I know that we previously promised not to expand the requirements for CCW permits. However, due to some highly unlikely, but highly visible recent events, we need to clamp down on who is allowed to exercise their constitutional rights! If it saves just one life…think of the children!

/sarcasm/

My issue is how to determine where to draw the lines. You might like the amount of training required now…but wait and see what happens to it down the road. 8 hours becomes 80 hours, 50 rounds becomes 500 rounds.

I have just never seen any proof that you can train the stupid out of some people. People who are already smart will take in upon themselves to seek appropriate training.
 
There's no need to drag the constitution into this. The freedom to bear arms comes second. The part that comes first is "regulated."
Click to expand...

I don't think you can help "drag the constitution" into this. As far as the meaning of "regulated" goes, Constitutional scholars, judges, politicians, lawyers, and nearly everyone else has argued about what that means. Most would agree that the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is of primary importance.

Koda94 the government does not have the right to tell me I must allow you to carry a gun in my home or place of business. That is another topic though.:D
 
Koda94 the government does not have the right to tell me I must allow you to carry a gun in my home or place of business. That is another topic though.
Click to expand...

i agree, we already have trespassing laws that cover that, so we dont need any "gun free"zone laws.
 
Chamber empty around the house / ranch.
Loaded chamber, out and about, in town.

I don't have any fantasies that 16 Boko Haram bomb vest wearing ninjas are going to pop out of my woods while I'm riding my lawnmower.
 
Chamber empty around the house / ranch.
Loaded chamber, out and about, in town.

I don't have any fantasies that 16 Boko Haram bomb vest wearing ninjas are going to pop out of my woods while I'm riding my lawnmower.
Click to expand...

Fear of bomb vest wearing terrorists notwithstanding, why would you carry condition 3 around the house or ranch, and then chamber a round when you head to town?
 
Briandg, I have had a carry license continuously for most of the last 21 years, but I have gone without the ability to legally carry concealed twice (once for almost a year), because I have a special-needs kid with a lot of medical bills and could not at the time afford the very steep permit fee. That means I also couldn't keep a gun secured in the glove compartment or the console in my car; it had to be either laying out in plain sight, or inaccessible in the trunk.

Before that experience, I was neutral on permitless carry, but now I'm in favor of allowing that option, because I understand that a lot of responsible people would like to carry but can't afford the licensure fees and/or renewal fees. The biggest barrier to getting a carry license isn't being able to pass a rudimentary safety exam or demonstrate basic competence; it's the means-testing inherent in a system that charges hundreds of dollars and often many hours of missed work in order to exercise a basic constitutional right.

In states that have long had permitless concealed carry (e.g. Vermont), as well as the states that have adopted Vermont-style carry since, carriers have been no less responsible than in states that require permits.

If you want to see the end result of the "regulations are more important than rights" mindset, look at the disasters that are California, New Jersey, New York, and Massachusetts.

FWIW, if you read the Second Amendment, it is the militia, not the right of the people to keep and bear arms, that is described as "well regulated"...which in the 18th century, had the common meaning of "well trained" or "properly functioning", rather than "subjected to bureaucratic rules". The right of the *people* (not the militia) "shall not be infringed", and is recognized as belonging to the whole of the people (the same "people" as in the other Bill of Rights), not merely the subset that is active in a trained/organized militia.
 
Last edited:
what benEzra said is true. I used to believe in the permit system too but over the years I realized just how much of an infringement it is. The idea that we are only "legal" to exercise a constitutional right over a govt issued piece of paper is really an infringement on everyone especially who have not yet or cannot afford the time or money to go thru the process... and most of all it does nothing to prevent criminals from carrying guns. I don't know of any other constitutional right, that requires permission from the govt to exercise. It bothers me that I'm "legal" in one state but then instantly become a criminal the second I cross an imaginary state line if I wanted to exercise my right... over a piece of paper that criminals do not apply for. It bothers me that I have to lie to my boss about the reason for leaving work for an appt at the sheriffs office to renew every few years... to exercise my constitutional right, over a piece of paper that criminals do not use. It bothers me that if I forget my drivers license or accidentally lose my wallet, maybe it gets stolen, it doesn't matter... and officer Murphy pulls me over that day I might get a warning or worst case just show my drivers license to the court later pay a citation fee and walk, but if the same happened with my CHL... I would be arrested and become a criminal and depending on the state, lose my constitutional right.... for exercising my right, over a piece of paper that criminals do not use.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...fter-legally-owned-gun-makes-him-convict.html
 
Koda94, I respect your passion. There are plenty of Constitutional rights that have limits. I have the right to gather with like minded folks and protest most anything, but doing so in some places without a permit will get me arrested. We have many God given rights but we live under the rule of law. It is an imperfect system.
 
K_Mac said:
Koda94, I respect your passion. There are plenty of Constitutional rights that have limits. I have the right to gather with like minded folks and protest most anything, but doing so in some places without a permit will get me arrested. We have many God given rights but we live under the rule of law. It is an imperfect system.
Click to expand...

I understand all that, but no other constitutional right has such an impassioned movement to remove it. Completely, 100%... and from our own government no less who is supposed to uphold the constitution. You can pick any other constitutional right as a comparison and it doesn't even come close nobody is taking away your right to free speech with or without a permit if they were this country would come unglued and the permit violation would be the govts least concern. If the govt would approach guns, crime and "gun violence" with respect to the Second Amendment we could easily have a system of appropriate limits (like training) that would not infringe on the right that would not only work but allow lawful citizens to exercise that right. Lets start with making California a shall issue state that reciprocates then we cant complain about training... How about we make all of America permit-less carry with training certification that you don't need to carry on your person... so yeah, I'm all for appropriate limits like training and education (I think its foolish to carry a gun without) and would consider such a topic if we didn't have any other infringements of exercising our constitutional right and all of us are free to own and bear arms anywhere in America, until then we are only compromising whats left of our rights away.


mic drop... :D
 
While I do believe that training is good I don’t believe there’s any lasting value in forcing people who have no interest in training to train. I base that on my experiences in the Army and at the CHP class I took with my wife.

In the Army they didn’t teach us firearms safety they taught us rules, Always keep your weapon up and down range, never touch your weapon while anyone is forward of the firing line, Never take your weapon into the latrine ( I think that was a suicide thing) and never leave your weapon unattended.

When you came onto the firing line someone else lubed your weapon so it wouldn’t jam and when you came off the line someone else inspected your breach and bore. And in my entire career I don’t remember a single block of instruction that actually dealt with safety or why we followed “the Rules”.

At my CHP class there were 15 people (we were promised a class of 9 people tops) in a 400 square foot room and the instructor simply read various laws to us for 6 hours then took us all to the range. My wife was having problems with her sight picture and when I asked an instructor to help her out He told her “I can’t do anything with you” and left her literally crying on the line while he went to help a much younger woman in much tighter jeans.(on second thought I'm glad he left my wife alone)

Luckily there was an instructor there who was an EPCSO Deputy and female who I asked to help my wife and she stayed with her for the rest of the class. Most of the folks in the class paid no attention and passed.

Long story short a “certificate” from that worthless class was enough to meet the training requirement from El Paso County.
 
A person is either ready to fight or they arnt.. condition this, condition that.. its all classroom terms which generally aid in a understanding the subject matter. Once I understand.. I have no use for the terms, color codes, conditions or decision tree's outside a classroom and will simply consider myself ready to fight or unready to fight. Its not really any deeper than that.

Violence can be a very sudden and fluid thing. If a person wants to carry on an empty chamber, I wont try and talk them out of it.. but they aint ready.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top