Firearms training question

Roughly 60 kids die from accidental gunshot wounds every year in America.

Roughly 600 kids die in accidental swimming pool accidents every year in America

Roughly 1600 kids die in accidental poisonings from household chemicals every year in America.

If parents really cared about conveying an image of a safe household. They would tell you that they don't have a swimming pool and have all the Draino locked up.

Don

p.s. I still have that crisp $100 bill for anyone who can find one case of a child dying or being seriously injured by ammunition absent a firearm. (Other than an infant choking on it or a lucky shot to the eye by a piece of shrapnel.)
 
How is driving not a right? Because the government has convinced us of that. Freedom of travel is certainly a right

Driving a motor vehicle on Government roads is not considered to be a right.
Freedom of movement is a right.

You raise a good point. Is driving not necessary to exercise freedom of movement? I'd hardly consider public transportation or riding a bicycle on Government roads to be adequate freedom of movement.

Don

p.s. To all you big Government conservatives. Here's an exercise. Every time you see the word "public" replace it with "government". It is a much more fitting description.

Government schools.
Government roads.
etc.
 
This happens a lot. Good and decent people see a problem and look for a better way. There's nothing wrong with that. If I could magically make every gun owner a better shooter, a better teacher, and more safe, then that would be great. Yet nothing is free, and the actions of others should not be ours to manipulate. We can teach, preach, post on forums, live by example, or otherwise try to convert others to our line of thinking. But what we should never due is force people to live our way.

Even the most trivial law ultimately is enforced with murder. People who disobey, ignore fines or police actions, refuse to comply with further mandates, and ultimately stand their ground against authority will end up dead. This is why decent men stop short of asking "shouldn't there be a law...?".

We need more decent men. That starts with the well intentioned realizing that even the best of intentions is not enough. You have to accept risks, to tolerate that in others and their property you find offensive, and to advocate force only for acts against life or property -- acts -- not risks, and not imagined fears. That won't solve every problem, but freedom isn't always pretty or safe. The alternatives, however, are always worse.
 
I think I got it. Privileges can be restricted, modified and controlled, rights can not. A Constitutional right is a right whether people like it or not. I can not force others to my standards for a right. Others can observe that right in their own way and I can not force them to act on that right in a way I feel is acceptable.

The hard part about this is that some rights gives people the ability to do harm to others, but that's both the beauty and the curse of a free society. If I think I have a better way to exercise a right, then that's great, but I can not force others to exercise that right the way I do or want them to.

The sad thing about this thread is that I now realize how unbelievably beaten up the 2nd amendment is on a state level. MA has already restricted the 2A to such a level that it is not about freedom anymore, but following the restrictions MA has put on our rights. MA now has control over a right that we all have, and people just follow the leader, the herds don't seem to pay attention or care.

Thanks for sharing opinion and insights, I've got a better grip on this now.
 
Driving a motor vehicle on Government roads is not considered to be a right.
Freedom of movement is a right.

You raise a good point. Is driving not necessary to exercise freedom of movement? I'd hardly consider public transportation or riding a bicycle on Government roads to be adequate freedom of movement.

Don

p.s. To all you big Government conservatives. Here's an exercise. Every time you see the word "public" replace it with "government". It is a much more fitting description.

Government schools.
Government roads.
etc.

Why would using a modern convenience to travel restrict your freedom of movement? Why would any modern convenience restrict any right? Modern guns, computers, cell phones? None of that changes your rights.

We have come to a point were there are no rights, everything is a privilege, everything needs taxes paid, licenses/permits granted, permission received
 
Last edited:
Following this line of discussion . . . should there be mandatory training before one can be ALLOWED to conceive a child? How about 2000 hrs of child psychology and parenting training before the Gov't allows you to conceive a child?

Sounds reasonable, right? After all look at all the harm and damage to society that improperly raised children create???

It's a great point. We just went through the child birth and caring period - you start out knowing nothing, and you ask friends, family, read books, the internet - at no point do you need the government's help to learn. except for the internet (which is as misleading and scaremongering as it is helpful) - this is how humans learned for thousands of years.

But with guns, we're afraid to ask friends, can't ask family (except one brother) - all the fear mongering and government regulation makes it harder for people to learn the old fashioned way.
 
You know - for all of the years I have lived in MA and the hundreds of playgroups, sleepovers, hangouts, etc. that the kids have had, I have never been asked whether I have a gun in the house.
 
I think I got it. Privileges can be restricted, modified and controlled, rights can not. A Constitutional right is a right whether people like it or not.

I don't think the government should be restricting or controlling privileges. Like public highways, let them control you on those, and they'll say you need a license to carry a gun on a government highway. Slippery slope.
 
You know - for all of the years I have lived in MA and the hundreds of playgroups, sleepovers, hangouts, etc. that the kids have had, I have never been asked whether I have a gun in the house.

Neither did we. I had three kids whos friends were mostly in W Boylston which is probably the biggest moon bat town inside of 495, maybe even 128.
 
You know - for all of the years I have lived in MA and the hundreds of playgroups, sleepovers, hangouts, etc. that the kids have had, I have never been asked whether I have a gun in the house.

I think non-gun owning MA residents forget that guns are legal here.
 
It's a great point. We just went through the child birth and caring period - you start out knowing nothing, and you ask friends, family, read books, the internet - at no point do you need the government's help to learn. except for the internet (which is as misleading and scaremongering as it is helpful) - this is how humans learned for thousands of years.

But with guns, we're afraid to ask friends, can't ask family (except one brother) - all the fear mongering and government regulation makes it harder for people to learn the old fashioned way.

All friends/family were totally anti-2A, nobody to ask!

How many here say "I want to go to a club when I'm the only one there, etc?" When I joined my first club, I asked other members for advice. One day I was shooting my OMC (before AMT) Backup .380 and another shooter (bullseye competitive shooter) came over and explained to me what my problem was shooting that beast (15# trigger, 1-7/8" bbl on .380ACP). I listened to others, showed up to help out at a NRA Registered Match, shot for one season in the weekly bullseye matches and learned a lot. Now I sometimes sit with "those old guys" at Braintree R&P and the chit-chat will vary from politics, guns, etc. but I know that if I have a question or a problem the likelihood that one of them can help is very high. A number of times when someone had a problem on the outdoor range, I could offer a tool or advice to help them out.

The younger crowd here has noted their disdain for this sort of thing. If they can't learn everything from playing computer games or Youtube, they just don't want advice from anyone who might have been there and done that before. So they look to gov't to mandate training, rules, regulations, laws to tell them what to do instead. Sorry but that is a sad state of affairs that we are in.


I think non-gun owning MA residents forget that guns are legal here.

I consider that a good thing. Flying under the radar isn't always bad.

The "I'm loud and proud" group cause new laws/regulations banning things or SWAT teams shutting down areas on a regular basis.
 
Its a right, but what if someone is unable to properly keep themselves or others around them safe with that gun. Do you want to be near people who are carrying because its their right, but they have no training at all?

An out yourself comment if there was ever one.

Freedom and Liberty are dangerous things.

Many of my kids' friends and parents know we have firearms, because they've been invited to shoot at our club locally (with me as supervising RSO) or on our land in NH. My kids both have airsoft, recurve bows with target and broadhead arrows, BB guns, air rifles and then 'real' firearms, which are properly secured via MGL. On a sleepover, nothing stronger than a nerf gun comes out without a parental conversation.

Discard your moonbat libtard preconceptions. It's better for you, it's better your kids, and it's better for society.
 
We used to have "requirements" to exercise Constitutional rights, specifically voting. They were called Literacy Tests, and they ran afoul of that whole pesky 14th Amendment. It was decided that making people take tests to exercise their rights was a bad idea because it simply served as a vehicle to limit or eliminate those rights from whole classes of people.

Just exactly how is this different, in your mind?
 
Last edited:
you can own and operate a car on private property without any training or a license

only when you drive on public roads do you need a government permission slip

a lot of states (most?) have the same approach to firearms--you can buy and keep firearms without a license or training but when you conceal carry in public you may need a license.

In all states you need some sort of training for hunting--which is probably the firearm equivalent of driving on a public way.

but regardless, I'll echo what other said already--government mandated training is the WORST form of education. To use your analogy, there are plenty of licensed drivers that can't drive for sheet.
 
Last edited:
Have you seen some of the shitte people do while driving with all that extra training?, lol... then of course there's a lack of SWAT/MIL/"operators" that have an ND in a classroom, or shoot themselves in the leg...

I once ran late bird hunting on a day we were having company for dinner, our guests were already there when I arrived home, and I walked into my own home with an unloaded 12ga 1100, trigger locked and action open, and set it on a side counter away from everyone, pointed the other way, to greet our guests... a short time goes by, we're having good conversation, and then "she" tells me that the gun is making her nervous, could I please put it away...

...to which I replied, "You're leaving before it is..."

... my property in my home, no threat to anyone, and she's scared... they remained for several hours, had dinner, it never came up again. At the end of the night it was locked away... ...and nobody died.

God, this crap is frustrating..
 
Last edited:
Why would using a modern convenience to travel restrict your freedom of movement? Why would any modern convenience restrict any right? Modern guns, computers, cell phones? None of that changes your rights.

We have come to a point were there are no rights, everything is a privilege, everything needs taxes paid, licenses/permits granted, permission received

Psst. I agreed with you. I wasn't very clear. My point was that driving is CONSIDERED to be a privilege. Not that it should be.
I also agreed with you that if you accept that freedom of movement is a natural right, then disallowing modern personal means, like the automobile, abridge that right.

I wasn't clear at all. But we agree and you've enlightened me to question the original premise that driving is a privilege.
 
I think I got it. Privileges can be restricted, modified and controlled, rights can not. A Constitutional right is a right whether people like it or not. I can not force others to my standards for a right. Others can observe that right in their own way and I can not force them to act on that right in a way I feel is acceptable.

The hard part about this is that some rights gives people the ability to do harm to others, but that's both the beauty and the curse of a free society. If I think I have a better way to exercise a right, then that's great, but I can not force others to exercise that right the way I do or want them to.

The sad thing about this thread is that I now realize how unbelievably beaten up the 2nd amendment is on a state level. MA has already restricted the 2A to such a level that it is not about freedom anymore, but following the restrictions MA has put on our rights. MA now has control over a right that we all have, and people just follow the leader, the herds don't seem to pay attention or care.

Thanks for sharing opinion and insights, I've got a better grip on this now.

I bolded your error. You are not describing a Constitutional right. There is no such thing as a constitutional right.

You are describing a NATURAL right.
Our constitution, through the bill of rights ACKNOWLEDGES those natural rights by effectively saying that the Federal Government can not infringe or abridge them.

The 14th Amendment restricted STATE governments from abridging the NATURAL rights recognized in the Bill of Rights.

I hope this makes sense.

It is very exciting to me to be part of the process of enlightening someone to this way of looking at things. Keep it up. We'll make an anarchist out of you soon enough. Ha.
 
Point of order:
West Boylston is outside 495, so it is 100% outside 128.

Neither did we. I had three kids whos friends were mostly in W Boylston which is probably the biggest moon bat town inside of 495, maybe even 128.

On topic, I learned basic firearms rules in school as a young man in rural Oregon. Early instructions were to tell an adult if we found a gun and only handle if we were being supervised by an adult. Later, we moved to the 3 basic rules, and it was left to our families and camp/scouts to teach marksmanship.

In short, the school had a safe handling portion (during physical education) then we moved to practical shooting with our family or other instructors.
 
Point of order:
West Boylston is outside 495, so it is 100% outside 128.



On topic, I learned basic firearms rules in school as a young man in rural Oregon. Early instructions were to tell an adult if we found a gun and only handle if we were being supervised by an adult. Later, we moved to the 3 basic rules, and it was left to our families and camp/scouts to teach marksmanship.

In short, the school had a safe handling portion (during physical education) then we moved to practical shooting with our family or other instructors.

ya my bad but I think you got the meaning
 
Simple answer: gun ownership is a right. Driving a car is not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bullshit.

Look up Massachusetts General Law ch. 90, s. 24 and count for me how many times the phrase "right to operate a motor vehicle" and "right to operate" appear.

Then come back and tell us driving isn't a right.
 
It's mandatory...do I have to?

See if any of these words/phrases resonate a chord...
couch
doghouse
if you ever want to get ... again...



Or my favorite "I don't fcking think so".

That's a classic line in our house. Typically used in response to things like "You cooked, you clean". IE, as a response to the absurd. So, a number of years ago, I'm in court, for the umpteenth gdmn time fighting to get full custody of my daughter. Judge asks me a direct question and my immediate response was "I don't " and I stopped. Then restarted with "No sir". Afterwards, my wife said to me "You were about to say "I don't fcking think so" to the judge, weren't you?". Yup...
 
Back
Top Bottom