Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 99

Thread: Adequate training, education in facts rather than opinions?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Four precepts of gun-safety.

    Four elements of common law self-defense.

    Wisconsin legally prohibited practices and places.

    Makes, models, calibers, capabilities - all Barbara Streisand.

    'Would', 'could' and 'should' characterize unfalsifiable statements not worth the sweat of a lawyer's mount.


  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    What meets the definition of adequate training?

    Hunters safety? It satisfys the general public's opinion of a ten year old carrying a high powered rifle!

    Since there is an age limit (18 Years old) for carrying a hand gun, wouldn't this then satisfy training requirements as well?

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Not 'hunter safety'!

    The Second Amendment has nothing to do with 'hunting'. Indeed, the Wisconsin Constitution needed a separate section to legitimize hunting.

    The conspiracy of ignorance - 'General Public's opinion' - masquerades only as common sense. Gen. Public is an elite-wannabe that has done no time in the trenches or in an academic library.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    How about this for qualifications:

    You must bea natural born/naturalized citizen of the United States.

    We have criminals that are disqualified from owning or possessing firearms walking around killing people almost daily in this state.
    Why should we not be able to defend ourselves against said criminals? Why must we jump throught the hoops to prove ourselves?

    if you can legally own a firearm, you should be able to carry it any way you want for any legal purpose.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    I don't believe that we are looking for qualifications, that's beyond our purview. We are all qualified until the state decides otherwise.

    What would you want a citizen to know before he goes out in public wearing a gun?

    Apropos; Romans 3:19 "Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For "no human being will be justified in His sight" by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin."

    Some hold themselves above the law or out beyond the law, they will never be accountable to the law, they are outlaws. Statutes proscribe while the Law prescribes.

    See, I pay attention to sermons. My pastor may not approve what I take from his sermons, but I attend closely. Like his use of the word "indulgences", today, rather than the 'dispensations' that I think of.

    ETA much, and I will use my religion as I see fit, thank you.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member protias's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SE, WI
    Posts
    7,318

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Apropos; Romans 3:19 "Now we know that whatever the law says, it speaks to those who are under the law,..." Some hold themselves above the law or out beyond the law, they will never be accountable to the law, they are outlaws.
    Doug, please don't take Bible verses out of context. That is not talking about the law of the land, but God's Divine Law.
    No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Thomas Jefferson (1776)

    If you go into a store, with a gun, and rob it, you have forfeited your right to not get shot - Joe Deters, Hamilton County (Cincinnati) Prosecutor

    I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians. - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Not 'hunter safety'!

    The Second Amendment has nothing to do with 'hunting'. Indeed, the Wisconsin Constitution needed a separate section to legitimize hunting.

    The conspiracy of ignorance - 'General Public's opinion' - masquerades only as common sense. Gen. Public is an elite-wannabe that has done no time in the trenches or in an academic library.
    You miss my point Doug. In comparison, if a 10 year old can carry and use a high powered rifle during a time when there are many hunters in the woods, simply because he passed a hunters safety class, then how could any required training to carry a hand gun for self defense be any more stringent than a hunters safety class?

    I realize the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting, I was comparing the circumstances.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    If you are at least 18 years of age, have not been convicted of a felony, have not been convicted of domestic abuse and have resided in the state for 60 days you are qualified to own and carry a firearm in the state of Wisconsin. There are no other qualifications. The actions of which you speak, such as hunter's safety, are those of proficiency. A hunter's safety certificate does notqualify you to own and carry a firearm while hunting it onlymeans that you are qualified to hunt with a firearm. There is a difference. Likewise being qualified to use a firearm for personal protection would only mean you have the proficeincy to do so. It would have nothing to do with firearm ownership or rights.

  9. #9
    Regular Member comp45acp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Watertown, WI, ,
    Posts
    383

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Not 'hunter safety'!*

    The Second Amendment has nothing to do with 'hunting'.* Indeed, the Wisconsin Constitution needed a separate section to legitimize hunting.

    The conspiracy of ignorance - 'General Public's opinion' - masquerades only as common sense.* Gen. Public is an elite-wannabe that has done no time in the trenches or in an academic library.
    You miss my point Doug. In comparison, if a 10 year old can carry and use a high powered rifle during a time when there are many hunters in the woods, simply because he passed a hunters safety class, then how could any required training to carry a hand gun for self defense be any more stringent than a hunters safety class?

    I realize the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting, I was comparing the circumstances.
    There is nothing remotely similar between carrying a firearm for the purpose of hunting and carrying one for potential self defense. Please get some training as it is critical that you be able to comprehend this crucial difference. At this point you do not.
    Jim Burgess
    NRA Lifetime

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Perhaps you could illuminate the differences clearly and concisely.

    LOADED, MUZZLE, TRIGGER, TARGET seem fundamental to all gun carry, long or short, open or concealed.

    Instigation, fear, sufficiency and withdrawal would seem to have little to do with sport hunting.

    The root of the problem is that those demanding training are often not honest brokers but touts.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    , Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    908

    Post imported post

    Bingo!

  12. #12
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    comp45acp wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Not 'hunter safety'!

    The Second Amendment has nothing to do with 'hunting'. Indeed, the Wisconsin Constitution needed a separate section to legitimize hunting.

    The conspiracy of ignorance - 'General Public's opinion' - masquerades only as common sense. Gen. Public is an elite-wannabe that has done no time in the trenches or in an academic library.
    You miss my point Doug. In comparison, if a 10 year old can carry and use a high powered rifle during a time when there are many hunters in the woods, simply because he passed a hunters safety class, then how could any required training to carry a hand gun for self defense be any more stringent than a hunters safety class?

    I realize the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting, I was comparing the circumstances.
    There is nothing remotely similar between carrying a firearm for the purpose of hunting and carrying one for potential self defense. Please get some training as it is critical that you be able to comprehend this crucial difference. At this point you do not.
    I don't know, I have seen things... Bad things...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD5zjUbWpXY

    When deer go bad...

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    comp45acp wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Not 'hunter safety'!

    The Second Amendment has nothing to do with 'hunting'. Indeed, the Wisconsin Constitution needed a separate section to legitimize hunting.

    The conspiracy of ignorance - 'General Public's opinion' - masquerades only as common sense. Gen. Public is an elite-wannabe that has done no time in the trenches or in an academic library.
    You miss my point Doug. In comparison, if a 10 year old can carry and use a high powered rifle during a time when there are many hunters in the woods, simply because he passed a hunters safety class, then how could any required training to carry a hand gun for self defense be any more stringent than a hunters safety class?

    I realize the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting, I was comparing the circumstances.
    There is nothing remotely similar between carrying a firearm for the purpose of hunting and carrying one for potential self defense. Please get some training as it is critical that you be able to comprehend this crucial difference. At this point you do not.
    You need training in reading comprehension.

    I was making a comparison to what some legislators may think is reasonable training to carry a fire arm for self defense.
    I was using hunters safety as an example in that a 10 year old may carry a high powered rifle to hunt or use as self defense in the event of an animal attack, merely on the pretense that the 10 year old has taken a hunters safety course.

    If that is all that is needed for a 10 year old to utilize a high powered rifle how can anything more stringent be asked for to allow an adult (18 or older) to carry a hand gun for self defense?

    Before you criticize learn how to read.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Perhaps you could illuminate the differences clearly and concisely.

    LOADED, MUZZLE, TRIGGER, TARGET seem fundamental to all gun carry, long or short, open or concealed.

    Instigation, fear, sufficiency and withdrawal would seem to have little to do with sport hunting.

    The root of the problem is that those demanding training are often not honest brokers but touts.
    Even during an animal or Human attack?(There have been hunters attacked by both)
    Should a 10 year old not be trained in what they should do if their hunting party is attacked by either animal or human if an adult who carrys a handgun is required to train before carrying?


    Otherwise I agree with you 100%

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    AaronS wrote:
    comp45acp wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Not 'hunter safety'!

    The Second Amendment has nothing to do with 'hunting'. Indeed, the Wisconsin Constitution needed a separate section to legitimize hunting.

    The conspiracy of ignorance - 'General Public's opinion' - masquerades only as common sense. Gen. Public is an elite-wannabe that has done no time in the trenches or in an academic library.
    You miss my point Doug. In comparison, if a 10 year old can carry and use a high powered rifle during a time when there are many hunters in the woods, simply because he passed a hunters safety class, then how could any required training to carry a hand gun for self defense be any more stringent than a hunters safety class?

    I realize the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting, I was comparing the circumstances.
    There is nothing remotely similar between carrying a firearm for the purpose of hunting and carrying one for potential self defense. Please get some training as it is critical that you be able to comprehend this crucial difference. At this point you do not.
    I don't know, I have seen things... Bad things...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nD5zjUbWpXY

    When deer go bad...
    When seconds count, DNR are minutes away!

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Fond du Lac, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason

    It is a real pain when you have to explain yourself over and over every time you make a statement.Use the simple words and someone will try to make it sound wrong.Use other than common words and the same things seem to happen.

    I understand and agree with your thoughts on this subject.Some,in madison it seems,[not you Shotgun] feel that when you turn 21.You now need to learn how to use a firearm all over again.Self defense has alot to do with commonsense .Most have enough.Some could use more and others.Well others............

  17. #17
    Regular Member comp45acp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Watertown, WI, ,
    Posts
    383

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    comp45acp wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Not 'hunter safety'!*

    The Second Amendment has nothing to do with 'hunting'.* Indeed, the Wisconsin Constitution needed a separate section to legitimize hunting.

    The conspiracy of ignorance - 'General Public's opinion' - masquerades only as common sense.* Gen. Public is an elite-wannabe that has done no time in the trenches or in an academic library.
    You miss my point Doug. In comparison, if a 10 year old can carry and use a high powered rifle during a time when there are many hunters in the woods, simply because he passed a hunters safety class, then how could any required training to carry a hand gun for self defense be any more stringent than a hunters safety class?

    I realize the 2nd has nothing to do with hunting, I was comparing the circumstances.
    There is nothing remotely similar between carrying a firearm for the purpose of hunting and carrying one for potential self defense. Please get some training as it is critical that you be able to comprehend this crucial difference. At this point you do not.
    You need training in reading comprehension.

    I was making a comparison to what some legislators may think is reasonable training to carry a fire arm for self defense.
    I was using hunters safety as an example in that a 10 year old may carry a high powered rifle to hunt or use as self defense in the event of an animal attack, merely on the pretense that the 10 year old has taken a hunters safety course.

    If that is all that is needed for a 10 year old to utilize a high powered rifle how can anything more stringent be asked for to allow an adult (18 or older) to carry a hand gun for self defense?

    Before you criticize learn how to read.
    J.Gleason-My reading comprehension is actually quite good. Somewhere along the line you have convinced yourself that carrying a firearm into the woods in search of game is the equivalent of carrying a sidearm for the possible defense of life in terms of what one needs to know to engage in either activity. You keep referring to basic firearm safety as if that were the underlying issue. While safe firearm handling is always important and must be practiced without compromise, you have completely missed the difference and your lack of training on the issue is very apparent. When we go into the field J.Gleason with our hunting arm of choice, our hunting license and our copy of the king's game laws, we do so with the full expectation that we are going to shoot something. That is the reason we are carrying a gun-we want to shoot something and will likely be disappointed if we don't. Now, when we go to the local grocery store to buy the weeks food supply carrying our favorite self defense weapon on our hips it is an entirely different ballgame. If we follow the law and wish to stay out of prison we will make every effort to NOT shoot anything. We hope we still remember everything we learned about conflict avoidance and that we are successful in avoiding the potential gunfight all together. If the worst happens we will make sure that the elements that must be in place for us to be legal to use deadly force are all there. Do you know what those elements are J.Gleason? Do they have any relationship with hunter safety? Other than the teaching of the 4 basic and golden rules of handling firearms, I can't think of one thing that links hunter safety training to the training one receives to carry a sidearm in public for self defense.

    I do know several very good permit to carry instructors. I can't speak for them but I don't believe one of them would pass you through their class for the simple reason you have made your mind up that you already know everything. They wouldn't want to feel responsible for your getting a permit while maintaining that a hunter safety certificate is the equivalent of a permit to carry lethal force in public for self defense. My hope is that the newer and inexperienced members coming on line here looking for guidance and help as they venture out to open carry will not look to your posts as a source of knowledge because you are steering people in the wrong and potentially life changing direction.
    Jim Burgess
    NRA Lifetime

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    The Northwoods, lakeland area, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,170

    Post imported post

    Hey comp,

    Where could I get the formaltraining that you feel everyone needs to exercise their other protected rights? Can I get some 'free Speech Training and a permit to speek freely" How about my "Voter training" What about my mandatory training to refuse an illegal search? Shal I go on?? or do you get the point yet?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Winneconne, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    62

    Post imported post

    Nutczak wrote:
    Hey comp,

    Where could I get the formaltraining that you feel everyone needs to exercise their other protected rights? Can I get some 'free Speech Training and a permit to speek freely" How about my "Voter training" What about my mandatory training to refuse an illegal search? Shal I go on?? or do you get the point yet?
    Hmm, to be quite honest, I wish they would have offered your suggested "training" in school. Certainly not mandatory, and certainly not to obtain a "permit," but some real life education on these subjects would have been great.

    I'd like to say the same about firearm safety. You don't NEED it to legally exercise your rights, but you're an idiot if you've ever handled/carried a firearm and never gotten any kind of training (formal or informal).

  20. #20
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    J.Gleason wrote:
    What meets the definition of adequate training?

    Hunters safety? It satisfys the general public's opinion of a ten year old carrying a high powered rifle!
    Actually in acordance with the mentoring program, 10 year olds are exempt from any training including hunters safety and are free to kill a deer without it..... They are however required to have a mentor hovering over them and only a single firearm between the two.

  21. #21
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    All I can say about this topic is that we all could gain from self protection classes (gun). None of us should ever be forced to take any, but we would all be better off if we did take a few. Superman, he might be left out of this one. I have yet to see him... If you do not understand that, you are a fool, and missed a check box on your Fed. background check.

    Rights do not look to need any schooling to have, or to have taken away. Look at our jails... Education looks to have nothing to do with schooling as well, lookat our Government.

    As for me, I will take the classes of my choice, and let thelaw sort it out... I have full insurance now...

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    comp45acp wrote:
    My hope is that the newer and inexperienced members coming on line here looking for guidance and help as they venture out to open carry will not look to your posts as a source of knowledge because you are steering people in the wrong and potentially life changing direction.
    Well, I am glad to hear that. I am not here to train anyone anyways. However, if you would like to speak on my experience, a former Army Ranger, three LEO Academies, 10 years as an armed Bail Enforcement Agent, Corrections Academy, 20 years experience open carrying a hand gun for personal protection. And Yours?

    Oh that is right you are a Concealed Carry Weapons Training Advocate.
    Now it is clear to all of us, it is all about the money.

    To be fair I will say this one more time and I will try to type slow so you understand.
    I...was...looking...to ..compare...the ...way ...the ...anti's....look....at....what....they....conside r....adequate....training.
    The...Tyrannical...Government (And the DNR)....believe....that....Hunters... Safety...is...adequate....training....for...a...10 year...old...to...carry....a...high...power...
    rifle...for....hunting...and...personal....protect ion...in...the...woods....whether...it...be...
    from...attack...from...animals...or...humans.

    Why...would...training...for...an...adult...to...c arry...a...hand...gun...for...personal...protectio n
    ...require...training....which...would...be...more ...stringent?

    Get it?

    Probably not.

    If you think that you may never need to use your hunting rifle or shotgun in the woods for self defense, then you really are naive.
    People get attacked by animals and hunters while in the woods. So don't tell me that while hunting you may never have to defend yourself. I think it is you who wouldn't pass a class. Like I said you need to comprehend what you read before you jump to criticize.
    All you care about is getting the training issue passed in any Bill that comes to the table.
    The only posts that any new members need to steer clear of are yours. You want them to believe that training is a necessity and it is not. You would rather mislead them then tell them the truth. You are nothing more than a troll.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Chilton, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    3,481

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    J.Gleason wrote:
    What meets the definition of adequate training?

    Hunters safety? It satisfys the general public's opinion of a ten year old carrying a high powered rifle!
    Actually in acordance with the mentoring program, 10 year olds are exempt from any training including hunters safety and are free to kill a deer without it..... They are however required to have a mentor hovering over them and only a single firearm between the two.
    Well there you go, They are exempt from training. And tell me this, do you think that every parent out there that may take their 10 year old hunting is a pillar of society?

    Out of all of the parents out there that will take their kid hunting, do you think that any of them are the type that don't really give 2 5hits about what their kids do?

    There are plenty of people out there that fit this Bill, that is for sure, so don't think that just because a parent is standing over the kid that they will never do something they are not supposed to do. That is ridiculous. I am not saying that all of them are that way, but there are some that is for sure.

    So then if training is not required as you say for a 10 year old to carry a fire arm in a circumstance where some one could be injured or killed, then why should an responsible law abiding adult have to be trained to carry a hand gun?

    The only reason is because it is all about the money and nothing more.

  24. #24
    Regular Member AaronS's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    1,497

    Post imported post

    J, I think you are going to scare more away again. I thought we both understood, we will not all agree 100% with you. It is not the end of the world...

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    It may not be the end of the world but it is a principled point that, evidently, Lammie, J. Gleason, Nutz and I seem to agree upon. Train, free and for entertainment purposes only, as you will. Kind'a like prostitution without the cost.

    When I took my state mandated CWP training, I complimented my instructor, saying "it was the best adult entertainment possible with your clothes on!"



Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •