Asked a funny Question...

[Bill Nance]

Drew, you're just reiterating what you've said on this thread without answering the basic questions. No one with an ounce of sense thinks you're anti 2A based on what you've said.

I certainly don't. It's the internet, so people say stupid shit and make ad homs...whatever.

But you still have not even begun to address why it is that you think the government has a right to regulate via prior restraint, a fundamental right of all human beings, to wit: Self defense and the means of that defense.

Again I ask you how you would feel about mandatory training, paid for out of pocket, before being allowed to vote, or to write a letter to the editor of a newspaper, or to be free from unreasonable search and seizure?

ALL rights can be abused. If you're a cop, then you know from bitter personal experience how a decent lawyer can get people off when they are guilty as sin.

Before you say the same thing you've said several times on this thread again, please address these questions. you seem to think that owning a firearm is a privilege instead of a fundamental right. Rights cannot be licensed or restricted through prior restraint. That's the whole meaning of a RIGHT.

I would absolutely love to see free firearms training available from the government, or make it deductible from your taxes, or whatever. I would love to see huge incentives placed for people to voluntarily get it.

But I will not EVER consent to it being coerced, or more importantly, required before one can exercise a fundamental human right. I wouldn't put up with that restraint being placed on any other human right, and I certainly won't put up with it being applied to the most fundamental human right of them all.

So far you've taken a completely statist point of view on the subject and shown you're perfectly willing to cede a right to the government's discretion to allow or deny.

An example of why these things are bad ideas: When your daughter is off at college and has a dangerous stalker after her, your plan would make her wait a few days or weeks until she can get her mandatory training before obtaining the means of protecting herself. Firearms classes, even here in Mass where they are all over the place, can take weeks before you can get into them. More if you aren't well to do and have to struggle to come up with the tuition. that's a practical reason it's a bad idea.

Basic firearm safety, that is enough knowledge to not be a danger to yourself or others can be had with 15 minutes of reading and watching a couple of videos on the internet. It's not as good as formal class, but it's more than adequate. A person unwilling to do that is an idiot and they will not use the training your mandated classes teaches even if they have to take it.

Stupid people do stupid shit. I know someone I've grabbed a gun from on more than one occasion for sweeping me with the muzzle. He has been through a mandatory class. Carelessness cannot be taken away with mandatory hoops. Rights however, can be taken away easily once you cede to the government, regulatory authority.

 

[drew]

The job of the Govt. is to make sure their citizens are safe from foreign and domestic enemies alike... (my personal opinion by the way, I know) and to make sure individual rights of the citizens are not infringed upon by State and Fed govt. Also to keep in check with foreign diplomacies(trade industry, foreign aid etc. etc.) in all aspects.... If it were mandated to have to take a safety class, it is not infringing on your right, it is simply having someone who would normally not seek the education, compel them to take the training... There fore it would make said citizen, a safer and more proficient gun owner. Along with the mandating, there should be free training to the citizens who want to own firearms for what ever reason they choose. The money paid out for the License, would go towards the back ground check, the labor involve in printing out the license and the training info/equipment and the Instructors time... If you cant pass the back ground check(criminal), you shouldnt have a gun to begin with... The class would consist of range time and small classes of maybe ten people, so there is one on one attension... The classes should be held on a daily bassis to keep up with supply and demand, and the LTC's would be good in all 50 states... All instructors would be certified NRA or equivalent, and would be monitered to make sure they are teaching the proper way... If they mandate safety, it keeps the general public a little safer from ignorance/pride/greed for money teaching half ass classes... I hope this answer, has satisfied your questions!!!

 

[Bill Nance]

Ok, you answered the question. You apparently think it's perfectly ok for the government to restrict our fundamental human right of self defense by requiring us to go through hoops before exercising a fundamental right.

Yes, that is exactly one of the positions of the Brady Bunch, Pelosi, Feinstein, et al.

I don't think you're an anti-gunner, but I do think you are woefully misinformed about the nature of fundamental rights and the inevitable infringement of rights once you cede authority to the government to "allow" those rights to be exercised.

I hope you are as equally willing to have said training required for members of the press, people who write blogs and all voters. There is no difference whatever between requiring training for firearms and training for those rights.

 

[Lamina]

drew, it does not.

first, you need to understand this, and really take it to heart: the 2nd amendment is ONLY about enumerating a human being's natural born right to keep and bear weapons for the purpose of keeping the government in check. hunting and self defense were such fundementally basic things they didn't even need mention.

how the hell do we keep the government in check with our right to keep and bear arms if we let body we're supposed to keep in check define how we excersize the right?

I'm against keeping weapons from felons, as well. for two reasons. first, the state defines what a felon is. it's kinda funny that one of the reasons they can use to restrict gun ownership on the basis of making you a felon is if you have a gun that does not meet the states criteria for "legal" or if you did not jump through the state's established criteria for owning said arms.

thats funny... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does not sound like "the right of the people to keep and bear only the arms the government see's fit, after complying with whatever rules and regulations as the government sees fit, shall not be infringed".

the second reason I'm against restricting arms from felons is that if they are so dangerous they can never again be trusted with owning the tools which to protect themselves, they shouldn't ever leave prison. in which case, because prison is supposed to "rehabilitate" prisoners, if it can't do that with certain cases, those cases shouldn't be wasting our tax dollars.

here's another direct question for you, drew... do you believe that machine guns, suppresors, SBR's, AOW's and DD's should be regulated as they currently are, more regulated, less regulated, or not regulated at all?

 

[Mikey]

I didn't read this thread till today and now I guess I know why...more people trying to tell others how they should live their lives.

How about we all worry about ourselves, the only time you (drew) need to worry about someone else's life is when it inter-fears with yours and you seem to have the training to deal with it.

 

[Jose]

Am I the only one who cued in on drew's fundamental reason for wanting EVERYONE to undergo mandatory training before using or even owning a firearm?

HE'S AN INSTRUCTOR. He makes money off this shit. To him, it is nothing but a way to use the strong arm of government to bolster his bottom line.

Now, understand that I am NOT lumping all firearms instructors in with him. I know full well that the overwhelming majority of instructors DO NOT share his point of view.

But the fact of the matter is that drew's stance is not only an affront to man's inalienable rights, it is also pathetically self-serving.

Drew, I have zero respect for you. I strongly suggest you peddle your shit elsewhere.

 

[Bill Nance]

Am I the only one who cued in on drew's fundamental reason for wanting EVERYONE to undergo mandatory training before using or even owning a firearm?

HE'S AN INSTRUCTOR. He makes money off this shit. To him, it is nothing but a way to use the strong arm of government to bolster his bottom line.

Now, understand that I am NOT lumping all firearms instructors in with him. I know full well that the overwhelming majority of instructors DO NOT share his point of view.

But the fact of the matter is that drew's stance is not only an affront to man's inalienable rights, it is also pathetically self-serving.

Drew, I have zero respect for you. I strongly suggest you peddle your shit elsewhere.

Jose, I'm an NRA certified instructor as well and I don't think that's his point.

I think his point is that he thinks the government has a right to protect us from ourselves. I object to that viewpoint in almost any case, but especially when it involves infringing on basic human rights.

Any time you give government the authority to restrict rights you'd better be able to make one Hell of a case for catastrophic levels of damage if they don't act. Prior restraint on a newspaper about to publish troop deployments on a battlefield would be such a case IMO, but that's about the level of damage you'd have to prove, and even that would have to be done on a case by case basis.

The numbers of accidents prevented by the training he's suggested would be so small compared to the risk to our rights it doesn't even remotely begin to rise to that level. And to give over a right on a wholesale basis as he suggests is naivete on a level I find amazing from someone who claims to support gun rights.

 

[dwarven1]

Alot of you are misunderstanding what I am saying... So let me clearify, I am not anti-gun or anti 2nd Amend. I am for people learning basic safety of firearms, which includes handling and shooting fundamentals as well as the laws for each locality or State for which they reside in... Further more, I cannot comprehend for the life of me, why some of you think that mandated training impedes the 2nd Amendment...

Drew, are you really that stupid?

Let me give you an example: If Deval Patrick has his way, training classes where you supply handguns to students (to teach them how to shoot them) will be REQUIRED to have a cop there on a detail - at YOUR expense. Now, you just had to jack up the price of your class to cover something like $320 for the cop's time... IF a cop is available. Some COPs have already said that they won't supply detail cops for things like that. You don't think that that will mean that fewer people will be able to get that precious State-mandated training you're in love with? You don't think that that impedes the Second Amendment - when the State can control the classes, how they're offered, how much they cost?

Other folks have already pointed out the delay such mandated training puts in a person getting an LTC and then a gun. I will point out that people have been known to defend themselves - SUCCESSFULLY - with guns that they've just purchased a within a day or two previous to the incident. Folks with no training. How is that possible???

Yes. You are anti-Second Amendment, and you don't have a clue as to what the Second Amendment really means. Please stop posting until you take a State-run training class on the English language - it's obvious that you do NOT have the training necessary to exercise your First Amendment rights.

Am I the only one who cued in on drew's fundamental reason for wanting EVERYONE to undergo mandatory training before using or even owning a firearm?

HE'S AN INSTRUCTOR. He makes money off this shit. To him, it is nothing but a way to use the strong arm of government to bolster his bottom line.

I'm starting to wonder if you're not right on this, Jose. Either that, or it's a straw poster from the Brady Campaign [STRIKE]to Ban Handguns[/STRIKE].

 

[Mass-diver]

A

But the fact of the matter is that drew's stance is not only an affront to man's inalienable rights, it is also pathetically self-serving.

Drew, I have zero respect for you. .

+1 for you Jose.

Mandatory training - that makes my stomach churn, disgusting.

 

[Ish]

No I dont think that, only Asians know martial arts and only Spaniards know how to play the Guitar... For one, I have a background in three different martial arts... Two, my old guitar instructor was a Caucasian, and very very good at his his job... And as for the Sensei, he also was Caucasian, with a 3rd degree Black Belt in four different forms... So before you continue to talk out your ass, think before you type!!!! I do realize that there are alot of LEOs out there that dont know how to shoot, Thats why I became an Instructor... I also became an Instructor, so people that cant afford the expensive schools, can get further firearms training at an affordable price... I like I said in one of the posts, most people don't think they need any further training, outside of the Basic Safety class....

Do I know you or something? First of all, if you are so smart you will know that I wasn’t talking to you at all. I was just answering the question asked in the post. But know that you attacked me for no reason, I will tell you that I hope you know more about weapons than general knowledge because if not, I am sorry for the people you teach as an instructor. Let me explain why; Spaniards = Caucasians. I am one of them so I know that for a fact, Spaniards = People from Spain = Europeans and once again = Caucasians. The second fact will be that unless a Caucasian or any other person had their title as a Martial Arts instructor in Asia, he/she will be called Instructor of Martial Arts and not a Sensei. Guess what? I know that for a fact as well. If your Martial Arts instructor is a Sensei, he will be a Black Belt 3rd Dan and not a 3rd degree Black Belt.

I don’t have to give you any explanations, but just for the heck of make you look even more stupid about your comments towards me, I will let you know that I am sick and tired of playing guitar (more than 30 years) and my Black Belt 5th Dan was giving to me in Thailand. So did you already guess who was talking out of his ass? Exactly, it was you.

Ish.

PS. - Next time before talking garbage, make sure that the person to who you are talking, mention your name on his/her post.

 

[Lynne]

Now, understand that I am NOT lumping all firearms instructors in with him. I know full well that the overwhelming majority of instructors DO NOT share his point of view.

Thank you for that. I almost started to get a bit miffed at you.

drew...as soon as ANY control is given to ANY level of governement, you've lost the battle. Do you understand that? If not, then you really need to.

 

[drew]

Quote:
You know what people like that guy thinks, right? They are the kind of people that think that only Asians knows martial arts and only Spaniards play the guitar, so only LEOs have training with guns. Stupid, it is just stupid.
This is what led me to believe, that you were jumping on the ban waggon.... Because you didnt post a name to this posting... I can admit when I'm wrong, sorry for accusing you of addressing this to me... Oh and by the way, there are more nationalities in the Caucasian description than just Spaniards... Think about it, and you will see that my teachers were maybe from another European Descent... No, I did not post this for personal gain... Nor did I post this to strip you of your rights... I get what most of you are saying, if the training were free, and you had to pay the 100.00 for the LTC,which would be nationally recognized and good for life or until revoked do to criminal reasons... The fee would cover all the other costs associated with this idea... My classes I provide lunch and coffe and donuts... So obveously I'm not in it for the money, since I only charge $100.00 for the class and I also give hand outs on the material covered in class... Range time, and helping find a gun thats right for the student, how many instructors offer that at no extra cost to the student? I have been getting a general sensus from alot military personnel siding with me on this subject, simply because it does not stop you from owning firearms... It simply means that you would have to have some education before you practice your right... So I dont give a rats ass if you or any one else respects me on this discussion or any other for that matter...

 

[Kalahari]

Drew, should a person who cannot afford a firearms training course be denied their right to own a firearm?

 

[cekim]

It simply means that you would have to have some education before you practice your right...

Read what you wrote again...

If you are anyone gets to stand in my way before I "practice my rights", then its not a "right"... It's just that simple...

Neither you nor the government are my parents and I am not a child...

As an adult, neither you nor the government have any say in when I "exercise" my rights... That's why they are called "rights"...

They are not "granted" by the Constitution, but rather you and government are prohibited from infringing upon them by the Constitution... The Constitution, not only limits government, but also limits citizens from infringing upon the rights of other citizens which is why this line we are drawing in the sand is critically important... It is intended to prevent the "Tyranny of the Majority" by stripping government of the power to offer oppression as an option in an election...

It's not about "respecting you", its about understanding that your idea is hostile to liberty and the people that believe in what you suggest are the enemy of liberty... Your suggestion that you can use the force of the state to infringe on my rights is an act of oppression...

You and others who espouse such thinking don't seem to be able grasp the implications, historical or otherwise, of your "reasonable compromise" of liberty.

We can agree to disagree, only so long as you and those who agree with you are precluded from using the force of government from imposing your will. The force of government is a violent one. It can take your freedom and it can take your life and as such it should be used with all the care due any deadly weapon...

You need a refresher course on the trigger discipline of freedom...

 

[Bob P]

With rights come responsibilities. You cannot require someone be 'trained' before practicing a right. That makes it a privledge, not a right.

If someone fails to excercise their rights responsibly - i.e. hurts another through their own negligence because of carelessness and/or lack of training - then they are responsible for their actions both criminally as well as civilly.

I see the point you're trying to get to drew, but I disagree with the route you're taking to get there. Make firearms training an affirmative defense in the event of an ND or accident and you'll get much of what you want. Make it an insurance requirement as well if you want to go there. You can't make it a requirement for ownership though and not violate both the 2nd and the individual's natural right to self defense.

 

[Lynne]

I'm an instructor drew. I don't teach someone and then walk away. There have been a number of students I have spent a lot of time with, AFTER the course, to help them with their marksmanship skills. I have gone with students to help them buy a gun. I have spent time going over tactical shooting with them - even tho I'm a PP instructor and have not charged them. In fact, there's a large number of them over the years that I have NOT charged. I don't feed them, but that's about the only thing I don't do. And, I sure as hell won't get rich from teaching.

All that being said, while I do believe that people SHOULD learn to handle a firearm safely, it should NOT be mandated by the government.

 

[Jose]

I have been getting a general sensus from alot military personnel siding with me on this subject,So I dont give a rats ass if you or any one else respects me on this discussion or any other for that matter...

Nobody gives a crap how many military personnel are siding with you on this issue. Their opinion, if it matches yours, makes them enemies of freedom.

simply because it does not stop you from owning firearms... It simply means that you would have to have some education before you practice your right...

You must be terminally dumb or painfully disingenious if you really think that.

 

[blitzpackage]

Back to the original question...

My question is, Why do so many people think, that just because you know how to shoot with basic fundamentals, that basic fundamentals is all that is required to survive a gun fight?

Maybe they don't anticipate or plan on being involved in a gun fight. You said he was some guy plinking. There are plenty of people who don't CCW and just enjoy shooting and basic fundamentals are all they need to enjoy their sport.

 

[cekim]

Maybe they don't anticipate or plan on being involved in a gun fight. You said he was some guy plinking. There are plenty of people who don't CCW and just enjoy shooting and basic fundamentals are all they need to enjoy their sport.

And, let's be honest...

John Q Public has never demonstrated himself to be overly prepared for the worst...

This is demonstrated all the time by responses to natural disasters, the myth of "police protection", unprotected sex, drug use, alcohol use, reckless driving, etc...

I think its fair to say that many/most people have an inflated view of their capabilities and an unrealistic view of the actual threat they really face until its too late...

The expectation for "what is possible" you get from a victim of a violent crime and the one you get from someone who has never experienced any assault worse than filing his/her taxes is completely different...

That's life... Has no bearing on who gets to decide what "enough training" is though...

 

[dwarven1]

I think its fair to say that many/most people have an inflated view of their capabilities.

Heinlein had one of his characters make an observation along this line.

"The typical American female is sure that she has genius as a couturiere, as an interior decorator, as a gourmet cook and, always, as a courtesan. usually she is wrong on four counts... But don't misunderstand me; it evens out. The American male is convinced that he is a great warrior, a great statesman and a great lover. Spot checks prove that he is as deluded as she is. Or worse."
Rufo - in Robert Heinlein's "Glory Road"

Interestingly enough, this was published in 1963...

I do not think, however, that I'm a great statesman.

 

[cekim]

Interestingly enough, this was published in 1963...

Insightful observations of human nature go back as far as the written record, yet somehow their wisdom rarely if ever makes it into popular culture...

You name the social ill and I can almost guarantee there's a Greek philosopher who spoke insightfully on its nature, cause and solution...

 

[drew]

Quote:
Nobody gives a crap how many military personnel are siding with you on this issue. Their opinion, if it matches yours, makes them enemies of freedom.

This statement, makes you the biggest ignoramus ive seen in a long time... And you call me an idiot, thank god your not a cop anywhere near where I live....

Why wait til something happens? When we can be pro-active, and stop accidents and injuries before they happen... The other way of thinking would be like telling a PO, of a crime, and the PO waits to act after the fact....

 

[Marcus5aurelius]

Quote:
Nobody gives a crap how many military personnel are siding with you on this issue. Their opinion, if it matches yours, makes them enemies of freedom.

This statement, makes you the biggest ignoramus ive seen in a long time... And you call me an idiot, thank god your not a cop anywhere near where I live....

Why wait til something happens? When we can be pro-active, and stop accidents and injuries before they happen... The other way of thinking would be like telling a PO, of a crime, and the PO waits to act after the fact....

There are many different reasons for owning a firearm. If you feel you need a firearm for self defense, feel free to take self defense courses to improve your skills. If you want a gun to hunt, feel free to take a hunters course to understand better how to hunt. If you want a gun to make holes in paper, you are free to learn basic safety, handling, and improve your stance to help in that aspect. In short, you should be free to do as you choose and learn according to what will best suit you. The problem with mandatory requirements is the fact that first, you will have all ready lost your freedom to choose and second, if you give a mouse a cookie he will want a glass of milk. In other words, if you want a mandatory required class for all firearm owners, then they want mandatory records of everything you own. Then they create a list of what you can and cannot own, which is mandatory to obey by law. Through ever changing laws, they will determine you to be a criminal or not, based on whether you have a mag that holds 11 rounds instead of 10. It grows exponentially from the first initial loss of freedom and once that occurs, plan to fight for every ounce of freedom that you used to take for granted.

"the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance"

 

[06LemansC6]

Drew,

I think you're wrong. What should we restrict next? You know before injuries and accidents happen. Amazing that so many states don't have the requirements that you feel are necessary, yet swimming pools take more victims per year. Should you need to be a certified lifeguard before you buy a pool? Wait, I forgot, first you need to apply for your LTS (license to swim) first.

If you can't see the point I and most everyone else here is trying to make you never will. May as well lock up this thread and be done with it.

Nothing worse than someone that wants to regulate a RIGHT of the people.

 

[cekim]

Why wait til something happens? When we can be pro-active, and stop accidents and injuries before they happen... The other way of thinking would be like telling a PO, of a crime, and the PO waits to act after the fact....

You're right, we should arrest people before they commit crimes... We'll profile them and statistically determine their likelihood of committing a crime... If it goes over 50%... Throw the book at them...

Why wait? Let's be "proactive"...

I'm being sarcastic, though we do have a systemic problem of "pre-crime" not only in MA, but nationally where we have created a web of "proactive" laws that are sending people to jail for "regulatory infractions" that cannot show any actual harm to society.

Drew, you are wrong and dangerously so. I'd love to say we should "agree to disagree", but you are proposing using violent force of the state to enforce your opinion, so we can't... [sad2]

So, are you willing to trade your 4th amendment rights for a little security? Because, if we could just do regular searches of everyone's house and finances, I am sure we could find some more criminals...

 

[TomH]

Why wait til something happens? When we can be pro-active, and stop accidents and injuries before they happen... The other way of thinking would be like telling a PO, of a crime, and the PO waits to act after the fact....

Neither you or anybody else has the right to be "pro-active" in this matter. Nothing you say will change this fact. If you enjoy overbearing and "protective" government, why don't you move to the UK? They even have special knives that can't stab. I'm sure your views would be appreciated over there.

 

[drew]

Some one had stated, if you give a mouse a cookie, he will want the glass of milk too...
That is the second time I heard something to that effect... I understand alot of you think I'm some kind of anti 2nd Amend, some of you think I'm an Idiot... Regardless to what you or any one else thinks of me, too many people have firearms,that do not receive training even though they should, (because that have too much pride and ignorance to go get training) even if it was afforadble... Common sense, is not that common, and alot things around firearms isnt just common knowledge.... If we just relied on what family members and friends taught us, which for the most part is a lot of bad habbits or leave something out that is vital... Not all cases I know, not all people or gun owners obviously... I'm talking about the dumbasses that bring beer bottles to the range to shoot, the types of dumbasses that shoot porta potties etc. etc... I know it also comes down to respecting other peoples property and all other kinds of other issues, the most important thing about safety classes is the knowledge that isnt very common... Ex: Why shouldnt you bend over to pick up dropped Items while on the firing line? Never chew gum or food or smoke while shooting.... Never shoot into large bodies of water etc. etc. All common sense to most, but you would not believe how many people never would have thought about theese things.... And its things like this, that get innocent by standers seriuosly injured or killed, just wait til it happens to you or a loved one too see my point... As far as the govt. wanting the milk after they get the cookie, thats a given, but thats we have the Supreme court to help things in check....

 

[Kalahari]

Unfortunately, Drew, the Supreme Court doesn't do too good of a job of that anymore. We can't rely on them.

 

[Marcus5aurelius]

As far as the govt. wanting the milk after they get the cookie, thats a given, but thats we have the Supreme court to help things in check....

It seems that you haven't been following current events...

 

[Supermoto]

Ex: Why shouldn't you bend over to pick up dropped Items while on the firing line? ....

I understand why you wouldn't at PTown, but what's your reasoning while on a firing range?