Who sets the training standards? Uncle Joe or some other government anti gunner??

Who pays the cost, are we going to make it where only rich people can get a permit?

Which other of the Amendments to the Constitution requires you to train and be tested before you can exercise the rights the Constitution guarantees?

Mandatory training would just be another means for limiting gun ownership and self protection.

It would eliminate low income people the same rights we enjoy.

A while back some ladies in town were looking for some training. The best they could do was $250 for a four hour shooting class, nothing about Self Defense.

So I started a weekly Ladies Firearms Safety and Self Defense Class. Two hours every Wednesday night.

I don't charge a thing. Even provide most of the ammo.

I have single mothers who couldn't afford to attend, they could barely afford to feed and house their children. Not to mention, its on going, no limit on how often they can show up.

I've gotten excellent reviews on my classes. Only problem is I might have to go to two nights a week to be able to keep my class size down.

The government, Fed, State and Local have spent a lot of money making me a firearms instructor. I figured I might as well give something to the tax payers who paid for my training.

I'm all for training, I'm against government mandatory training. Lets not make shooting sports and self defense a rich man's game.

A lot of women, more so then men, are afraid of guns, we can change that. A bunch of good old boys out shooting doesn't do much, getting women involved does. But if it comes to learning to shoot vs. feeding their kids, they choose the latter, and rightfully so, but they also are prevented from the ability to protect those same children.

If you believe people need training, then step up and provide the training. We want to grow our sport, and increase involvement in shooting, then we need to STEP UP.