MANDATORY classes for ccw?

[ladder13]

If you can't understand the question, r e a d s l o w l y .

A fairly simple question or so I thought. What do drivers licenses, bank accounts, food on the table, what size shoe you wear, what subdivision you live in, etc etc have to do with it? I have to say the results are an eye opener. Now I understand the fight that 2nd A proponents face.

 

[jlrhiner]

It's amazing how perspective changes. Simply put, a requirement for mandatory training will be used to deny someone who really needs it the chance to defend themselves. If any one believes in mandatory training to exercise what is considered an inalienable right, it should be taught as part of a primary education program.

Nothing else would be acceptable. (to me at least)

 

[Rintimtin]

I voted yes because yes. Because In my state you have to take a class before they will sign off on your permit and that's before you pass a background check. In the class you learn gun safety, and gun basics, some shooting fundamentals. You also learn the different laws and the instructor goes over alot of scenarios of when you may be able to use deadly force and when you absolutely shouldn't. Then you take a written test if you pass the written test you can qualify with your pistol. 50 rounds from different distances in a few different positions. But I simplified the question that the OP was asking, I think its a good idea in theory but in reality it would lead to more red tape and trouble then its worth, if you carry a gun and you want to train and practice good for you. Lets just hope most people feel the same way.

 

[Ogandydancer]

Yes Yes and emphatically yes. I have seen some morons handeling guns that I wouldn't trust with a pea shooter.

 

[Alnamvet68]

Say what??

"I speak plainly, that bothers some, but at least I'm honest."

Oh, and the poll results are not surprising in the least.

 

[MrJT]

I have a question for those who voted "yes".

Would you feel your rights were being infringed on if you failed the test?

What if there was a point system and, either by one missed shot or an incorrect answer on an exam, you failed by just one point?

You're now unable to carry. You have to pay for the course and exam again, which isn't held until next month.

So, would you be OK with just hanging up your firearm until then? Or would you drive home mumbling about the government taking away your rights over one stupid point?

STILL no replies.



The best arguments for mandated training so far have been...

-Well my state does it
-Drivers need training
-Well I've seen people handling guns who I feel don't meet MY standards
-I walked into walmart and looked at people

And I won't even touch on Alnamvet68 again....

Great arguments folks

 

[kisportolt]

I have a question for those who voted "yes".

Would you feel your rights were being infringed on if you failed the test?

What if there was a point system and, either by one missed shot or an incorrect answer on an exam, you failed by just one point?

You're now unable to carry. You have to pay for the course and exam again, which isn't held until next month.

So, would you be OK with just hanging up your firearm until then? Or would you drive home mumbling about the government taking away your rights over one stupid point?

To please MrJT, I'll reply to this statement.

No.

 

[Poodle Soup]

Would I feel my rights were being infringed if I failed a test and was not allowed to carry a loaded firearm in public?

Depends on the test.. As long as it was firearms/firearms law related to concealed carry... No I would not feel my rights were being infringed.
If they slipped a "What time of day is it not acceptable to ride a horse backwards down main street" then yes... I would be less than pleased.

Do I think training should be required to own a firearm? No. Carry one in public? There should be SOMETHING (which my state already has) to keep just anyone from walking into a store and walking back out with a gun tucked in their waist band.

 

[baldeagle8888]

And lurking somewhere, a politician, ready to use the results as justification for another law. AND WE (plural) are our own worst ememies.

baldeagle8888

 

[Lost Lake]

Would I feel my rights were being infringed if I failed a test and was not allowed to carry a loaded firearm in public?

Depends on the test.. As long as it was firearms/firearms law related to concealed carry... No I would not feel my rights were being infringed.
If they slipped a "What time of day is it not acceptable to ride a horse backwards down main street" then yes... I would be less than pleased.

Do I think training should be required to own a firearm? No. Carry one in public? There should be SOMETHING (which my state already has) to keep just anyone from walking into a store and walking back out with a gun tucked in their waist band.

No no no no no!!!

YOU don't get to decide what's on the test. This would be a government test, not a NRA test or a Girl Scout test, this would be LAW mandated by the government.

And if they don't want you to have a gun, they wouldn't need to pass a bill or take a vote, they'd just change the standards a bit.

Can't hit 6" steel targets tossed in the air at 50 yards? YOU DON'T PASS - NO GUN FOR YOU.

Can't hit center mass at a running target? No gun for you.

Can't determine if a person 25 feet away in the dark is holding a cell phone or a gun? No gun for you.

I am amazed at the yes-voter thoughts that more restrictions by the government would be a GOOD thing.

Let's not stop there. Let's have biometric locked actions, single shot capacities, rubber bullets, 100 ft/lb maximum energy rounds, registered bullets, and make everyone wear a video camera on their head so we can debate if what you do is punishable or not!

Lord help me. I'm losing it.

.

 

[gregintenn]

There should be SOMETHING (which my state already has) to keep just anyone from walking into a store and walking back out with a gun tucked in their waist band.

Why?

I've about decided there should be an IQ test required before anyone posts on an internet forum.

 

[MrJT]

To please MrJT, I'll reply to this statement.

No.

A well thought out argument.

So, you're telling me that if the government said you may not own or carry a gun, you wouldn't feel like you're rights were being infringed upon?

OK. Sure. I believe you.

You're saying you'd be ok with that decision and just try again next month after an paying another $100 or so for the exam? And be OK with it?

OK. Gotcha.



I'm sure if one of these in favor of mandatory government infringement didn't pass the test and wasn't allowed to possess a gun they'd be raising Caine.

 

[DeathGrip]

Why?

I've about decided there should be an IQ test required before anyone posts on an internet forum.

IQ isn't the problem, Common Sense is.

 

[SW_shooter]

Sometimes you people frustrate me and sometimes you make me laugh.

After reading the OP s l o w l y I came away with a several observations: (not meant to be critical to ladder13, just what this poor soul sees)

The questions says nothing about who will administer or oversee the class.

The question says nothing about having to pass a test. (written or proficiency)

The question says nothing about infringing your right to carry a weapon, it just asks about taking a class.

The question says nothing about having to pay for the class or how long the class would be.

The question says nothing about exceptions (military or LEOs) to taking the class or alternatives.

The question says nothing about differentiating between murders and law abiding citizens.

I think everyone has biases or reads into the question things that weren't there. If there had been anything that pointed to government interference or control I would have voted differently. I tried to take it at face value. And to those who keep saying that people who voted YES must want more government control of guns, I think that's a very unfair characterization. I'd be willing to bet no one on the forum wants more gun control. What I see is people saying they want safe use of guns.

_________________________________
mama said - play nice

 

[gregintenn]

Sometimes you people frustrate me and sometimes you make me laugh.

After reading the OP s l o w l y I came away with a several observations: (not meant to be critical to ladder13, just what this poor soul sees)

The questions says nothing about who will administer or oversee the class.

The question says nothing about having to pass a test. (written or proficiency)

The question says nothing about infringing your right to carry a weapon, it just asks about taking a class.

The question says nothing about having to pay for the class or how long the class would be.

The question says nothing about exceptions (military or LEOs) to taking the class or alternatives.

The question says nothing about differentiating between murders and law abiding citizens.

I think everyone has biases or reads into the question things that weren't there. If there had been anything that pointed to government interference or control I would have voted differently. I tried to take it at face value. And to those who keep saying that people who voted YES must want more government control of guns, I think that's a very unfair characterization. I'd be willing to bet no one on the forum wants more gun control. What I see is people saying they want safe use of guns.

_________________________________
mama said - play nice

Well, here's all I needed to see to know I unconditionally disagree with it:

MANDATORY

 

[baldeagle8888]

Would I feel my rights were being infringed if I failed a test and was not allowed to carry a loaded firearm in public?

Depends on the test.. As long as it was firearms/firearms law related to concealed carry... No I would not feel my rights were being infringed.
If they slipped a "What time of day is it not acceptable to ride a horse backwards down main street" then yes... I would be less than pleased.

Do I think training should be required to own a firearm? No. Carry one in public? There should be SOMETHING (which my state already has) to keep just anyone from walking into a store and walking back out with a gun tucked in their waist band.

The 2nd amendment reads "to KEEP and BEAR arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

If you would look up BEAR in the dictionary, one definition reads " to hold and take along; carry; transport"

In reading your post, it seems that you have appled several different requirements.
YOU state, "Do I think that training should be required to own a firearm, NO". Well, my question to you is, what then would be REQUIRED "to keep just anyone from walking into a store and walking back out with a gun tucked in their waist band". A PURCHASE PERMIT ?? and by the way, that doesn't prevent the above from occurring, just that it could be illegal. It would seem like you'll requiring something to purchase a gun and then assuming that prevents the latter. Me thinks, faulty logic.

baldeagle8888

 

[DeathGrip]

Well, here's all I needed to see to know I unconditionally disagree with it:

M A N D A T O R Y

Who mandates?

Who the heck is gonna over see it if it ain't the government?

Do you really trust the current administration to not take the next step?

 

[Poodle Soup]

I have yet to say some government agency should be the one doing the training/test. Why would easily accessible informative training be a bad thing if done by a private party and had reasonable standards? When carrying you should know the laws. You should know when you should draw/aim/fire in a situation. Practice for the situations.

(and all this is before political BS is involved.)

Why?

I've about decided there should be an IQ test required before anyone posts on an internet forum.

Why? I know people who shouldn't be trusted to tie their own shoe laces with out hanging them selves THATS why. Where I live every inbred idiot and wanna be gang banger would be walking down the street with a gun if they didn't have to go pay 50$ for a class and another 50$ for the permit.

And some should not stoop to personal attacks (which this forum is horrible with) when someone disagrees with them. Very few things are black and white.... refusing to look at another side is the reason we have all this **** to begin with.

The 2nd amendment reads "to KEEP and BEAR arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

If you would look up BEAR in the dictionary, one definition reads " to hold and take along; carry; transport"

In reading your post, it seems that you have appled several different requirements.
YOU state, "Do I think that training should be required to own a firearm, NO". Well, my question to you is, what then would be REQUIRED "to keep just anyone from walking into a store and walking back out with a gun tucked in their waist band". A PURCHASE PERMIT ?? and by the way, that doesn't prevent the above from occurring, just that it could be illegal. It would seem like you'll requiring something to purchase a gun and then assuming that prevents the latter. Me thinks, faulty logic.

baldeagle8888

Please pick apart what I say a little more.
No laws affect those who have no intention of following them. They do on the other hand curb some of the "on the fence" people who are afraid of breaking the law. I don't think it should be legal for Jim to walk into a gun store and walk back out with a gun tucked in the front of his pants without SOME sort of process. Does Jim know he cant walk into a school with that gun? Does he even know how to load/unload work the safety or aim it?

Ill go the rout others are taking. So lets make it legal for Jim to do just that.

Jim is walking through the park and Bob comes over and pushes him. Jim doesnt want to be hurt so he pulls out a gun and shoots at Bob. Jim has never even pointed a gun at a target before and sprays bullets into a park striking several innocent people and killing Bob. When police show up Jim has no idea what he did wrong and is more than likely gunned down by police. And now we have another story on the news... this time a true one... about how easy it is for anyone to LEGALLY carry a gun without any sort of training or instruction period.


Tools are dangerous. I don't want someone next to me fumbling around with a knife, hedge clippers, and most definitely not a gun if they have no idea what they are doing.

 

[SW_shooter]

M A N D A T O R Y

Who mandates?

Who the heck is gonna over see it if it ain't the government?

Do you really trust the current administration to not take the next step?

None of that was part of the OP's question.

But to answer,

not the government


a private company maybe, hopefully?


I don't trust the current admin any further than I can kick their collective sorry ****es!!!


man I love this!

 

[pace40]

I, for one, would like to thank ladder13 for a comprehensive listing of folks to add to my ignore list.