Adequate training, education in facts rather than opinions?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

imported post

Bingo!

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I don't know, I have seen things... Bad things...

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

When deer go bad...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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%

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I don't know, I have seen things... Bad things...

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

When deer go bad...

Click to expand...

When seconds count, DNR are minutes away!:lol:

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............

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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).

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!

Click to expand...

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.