My rant part 2, AKA the CCW training debate.
- Thread starter Dave AA
- Start date
Steve Smith
New member
Colorado has a training requirement ...kinda. They want "Proof of Training" ie: DD314 from military, hunter safety course, or an NRA Personal Protection course certificate. I don't agree with it either.
Only 15 or so days 'till I get my CCW!
Only 15 or so days 'till I get my CCW!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Frontsight!:
They want "Proof of Training" ie: DD314 from military[/quote]
You mean, I'm sure, DD214. My though on that....
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Being a Firearms Enthusiast, CCW Instructor, Military Range Officer and Insturctor I wouldn't trust 95%+ of Military members with a gun... let alone CCW.
This is not a flame, just the facts as I have seen and interpeted them.
------------------
Schmit
GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
They want "Proof of Training" ie: DD314 from military[/quote]
You mean, I'm sure, DD214. My though on that....
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Being a Firearms Enthusiast, CCW Instructor, Military Range Officer and Insturctor I wouldn't trust 95%+ of Military members with a gun... let alone CCW.
This is not a flame, just the facts as I have seen and interpeted them.
------------------
Schmit
GySgt, USMC(Ret)
NRA Life, Lodge 1201-UOSSS
"Si vis Pacem Para Bellum"
to be the devils advocate. what is wrong with requiring some form of "training" for a ccw.
i feel we should take bill clinton and all the anti-gun folks to task. he says that there should be a brady type bk/ground check and some form of safety class before owning a handgun. well i as well as thousands of other people already have gone thru what it is they are calling for and the end result is a ccw! if we were to be required to do this on the federal level doesn't that mean the end result would be a nationally recognized concealed weapons permit. that is what it sounds like to me.
i feel we should take bill clinton and all the anti-gun folks to task. he says that there should be a brady type bk/ground check and some form of safety class before owning a handgun. well i as well as thousands of other people already have gone thru what it is they are calling for and the end result is a ccw! if we were to be required to do this on the federal level doesn't that mean the end result would be a nationally recognized concealed weapons permit. that is what it sounds like to me.
take them to task by bending over and grabbing the soap? a novel idea 
!
let's also undergoe 10 hours of training in grammar and sensitivity training before expressing an opinion in writing or outloud.
it's a right not a privilidge!
[This message has been edited by needanak (edited February 11, 2000).]
!let's also undergoe 10 hours of training in grammar and sensitivity training before expressing an opinion in writing or outloud.
it's a right not a privilidge!
[This message has been edited by needanak (edited February 11, 2000).]
Dave,
It just seems like more leverage that the Antis could eventually use against us, this time using the NRA. We're already having to deal with enough 'redtape' in our lives.
Leave it up to individual States or local communities to regulate if they must.
Don't we have enough to fear from the Feds as it is?
------------------
...defend the 2nd., it protects us all.
No fate but what we make...
It just seems like more leverage that the Antis could eventually use against us, this time using the NRA. We're already having to deal with enough 'redtape' in our lives.
Leave it up to individual States or local communities to regulate if they must.
Don't we have enough to fear from the Feds as it is?
------------------
...defend the 2nd., it protects us all.
No fate but what we make...
KY-Midnight
New member
I still say, if you want them to be trained, train everyone, but it is our right to carry a weapon. Period. They don't have the right to force any kind of training on you. Don't think that they do. It's a good idea to be trained, but requiring it of people, is not the way it should be.
I think Vermont has the right idea, personally.
I think Vermont has the right idea, personally.
VictorLouis
New member
I was dismayed at the training requirement for my AZ CCW. The only LEO training they would accept was AZ certification, IF you had at least 10 YEARS EXPERIENCE. I was a FL certified LEO/instructor before moving here, but my "experience" didn't count. Guess that shows the true intent is that they generate
REVENUE from the application process.
REVENUE from the application process.
I agree with the idea of requiring training, but I also agree with those who say that requiring training for a CCW license is wrong, since being armed is a right, and not a privilege.
The mandatory training should take place in our schools, starting with mandatory firearms safety training; (1) the Eddie Eagle program for elementary schoolers, (2) mandatory basic safe firearms handling for jr high/middle school, and (3) optional firearms proficiency training (with at least rifles and/or shotguns, but ideally also for handguns)
(1) should be mandatory because far too many children come into contact with guns which have been carelessly left unattended, or were stored where parents THOUGHT their kids couldn't find them. Small children do not have the judgement to be trusted to handle guns safely withough an adult present. Gun restrictions won't work, neither will attempts to 'childproof' a gun. 'Gunproofing' the child is more effective.
(2) should be mandatory, because at this age, kids are starting to develope judgement skills, and some kids may be trusted to safely handle guns. Kids of this age are also often trusted to watch younger children, and may have to take charge when a younger child finds an unattended firearm.
(3) Actually, I feel this should also be mandatory, since I believe that every one should take part in safeguarding our country. At the same time, though, the neat thing about this country is that the rights of the individual are considered sacred, and many people believe that they should have the right to be UNarmed, if they so choose. I would have to agree with this, as long as those who choose not to be armed understand that it does not automatically make someone else responsible for their safety.
After high school, firearms safety and/or proficiency training should be available to anyone who wants it, from the government.
I don't agree with licensing; one does not need a license to exercise their rights, and being armed is a right, not a privilege.
It'll never happen, but that's the way it oughta be.
------------------
Roger Shambaugh
Ottawa, Kansas
"No man who's in the
wrong can stand against
a man who knows he's
right and keeps on
a-comin'."
Capt. Bill McDonald
Texas Rangers
The mandatory training should take place in our schools, starting with mandatory firearms safety training; (1) the Eddie Eagle program for elementary schoolers, (2) mandatory basic safe firearms handling for jr high/middle school, and (3) optional firearms proficiency training (with at least rifles and/or shotguns, but ideally also for handguns)
(1) should be mandatory because far too many children come into contact with guns which have been carelessly left unattended, or were stored where parents THOUGHT their kids couldn't find them. Small children do not have the judgement to be trusted to handle guns safely withough an adult present. Gun restrictions won't work, neither will attempts to 'childproof' a gun. 'Gunproofing' the child is more effective.
(2) should be mandatory, because at this age, kids are starting to develope judgement skills, and some kids may be trusted to safely handle guns. Kids of this age are also often trusted to watch younger children, and may have to take charge when a younger child finds an unattended firearm.
(3) Actually, I feel this should also be mandatory, since I believe that every one should take part in safeguarding our country. At the same time, though, the neat thing about this country is that the rights of the individual are considered sacred, and many people believe that they should have the right to be UNarmed, if they so choose. I would have to agree with this, as long as those who choose not to be armed understand that it does not automatically make someone else responsible for their safety.
After high school, firearms safety and/or proficiency training should be available to anyone who wants it, from the government.
I don't agree with licensing; one does not need a license to exercise their rights, and being armed is a right, not a privilege.
It'll never happen, but that's the way it oughta be.
------------------
Roger Shambaugh
Ottawa, Kansas
"No man who's in the
wrong can stand against
a man who knows he's
right and keeps on
a-comin'."
Capt. Bill McDonald
Texas Rangers