Nice to see the mall's "no weapons" policy is working!

imported post

Training cannot induce reasonableness. Self-esteem is not injected.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Training cannot induce reasonableness. Self-esteem is not injected.

Click to expand...

Maybe you will be so kind as to take a break from repeatedly reminding us how much you dislike firearms training, and tell us what value, if any, you see in firearms-related instruction.

I'm pretty sure I can provide instruction that will improve most peoples' ability to shoot effectively in a combat situation, e.g., shooting while moving, handling malfunctions, gun retention, shooting from barricaded positions, low light shooting, shooting under stress, and so on. Do you think there's any value in enhancing those skills through instruction? Or do you not believe that instruction is likely to improve one's gun fighting skills and odds of prevailing in a fight?

I may even be able to instruct a novice regarding elementary gun handing; for example-- how to unload a firearm without the chambered round falling to the ground like it does-- twice-- in your video.

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Training cannot induce reasonableness. Self-esteem is not injected.

Click to expand...

Maybe you will be so kind as to take a break from repeatedly reminding us how much you dislike firearms training, and tell us what value, if any, you see in firearms-related instruction.

I'm pretty sure I can provide instruction that will improve most peoples' ability to shoot effectively in a combat situation, e.g., shooting while moving, handling malfunctions, gun retention, shooting from barricaded positions, low light shooting, shooting under stress, and so on. Do you think there's any value in enhancing those skills through instruction? Or do you not believe that instruction is likely to improve one's gun fighting skills and odds of prevailing in a fight?

I may even be able to instruct a novice regarding elementary gun handing; for example-- how to unload a firearm without the chambered round falling to the ground like it does-- twice-- in your video.

Click to expand...

I have taken 4 gun related classes, Action pistol, Advanced action pistol , a carbine class & a Concealed Carry Class all very informative.

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

Training cannot induce reasonableness. Self-esteem is not injected.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I can provide instruction that will improve most peoples' ability to shoot effectively in a combat situation,

Click to expand...

I may shoot in a self-defense situation and even possibly in a hunting situation but I pay the government for combat shooters, cops and soldiers.

The Second Amendment enumerates our right to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. Our State Constitution states that the people have the right to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes. I wonder if armed combat is a lawful purpose?

Because it seems acceptable to divide citizen gallus-snappers from merely legally armed citizens, I'll mention a conversation I had with some legally influential neighbors. They agreed with each other that a hunter would probably not be charged for an accidental shooting of a non-hunter not wearing blaze-orange. This after I related cutting my Christmas tree, after paying my neighbor for cutting it from his tree lot, and seeing blaze-orange clad strangers in the same lot.

You are welcome and free to make any video you wish and with as archly focused content as you deem appropriate. It may be a bit like grammar that some eschew as I do niceties of gun handling beyond LOADED, MUZZLE, TRIGGER & TARGET. It's been a while since Phil told me how many have viewed the video but you are the first to comment on my failings.

imported post

Master Doug Huffman wrote:

I wonder if armed combat is a lawful purpose?

Click to expand...

Combat shooting per se is neither lawful or unlawful. It depends entirely upon the circumstances. One can certainly hunt unlawfully too. If you don't believe me, see what happens if you take a shot at a bald eagle.

When you shoot in self-defense, you are not shooting for recreation or sport-- it is a combat engagement. Self-defense is a lawful purpose. In a military context, combat shooting is a lawful purpose whether done offensively or defensively.

I'm curious, in what manner do you "pay the government" for combat shooters?

Again, the question: Do you or do you not see any potential benefit in instruction and training? It's a question about training in general, not mandatory training. I also oppose mandatory training, although there is a little part of me inside that would love to see firearms training required in public schools, just as they are required to provide certain amounts of instruction in mathematics, English, history...

An ignoramus with nothing intelligent to say has the same right to speech as the finest well-educated orator, but to whom would you rather listen?

And what sort of person carrying a gun would you rather be around?

imported post

Well put Shotgun.

Also remember this "Master", with his "legally influential neighbors" is an elected official. So, I guess his neighbors must be the rest of theTown Board...?


http://www.washingtonisland-wi.gov/agendas_and_minutes.htm

imported post

Wrong.

I hope that you'll watch that site as carefully for the 9 December 2009 Regular Town Board Meeting Agenda.

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

When you shoot in self-defense, you are not shooting for recreation or sport-- it is a combat engagement.

Click to expand...

+1

imported post

McX wrote:

I guess I'll go with retreat, retreat, retreat. Equipment- no draw, beating- no draw, Others-no draw/ no "phone booth principle. Point something at me? Draw. Within 25 ft. point something at me?-Draw. Draw and evaluate. I think this will keep me out of jail, and from spending extended time with the Police, or DA.

Click to expand...

There is nothing saying that you can't have 10% OC on your belt & a baseball bat close by. one of them big 1.5 inch wrenches would do damage.

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Again, the question: Do you or do you not see any potential benefit in instruction and training? It's a question about training in general, not mandatory training. I also oppose mandatory training, although there is a little part of me inside that would love to see firearms training required in public schools, just as they are required to provide certain amounts of instruction in mathematics, English, history...

Click to expand...

Now with this I can agree. There would be nothing wrong with teaching fire arms safety in schools. Hell they teach bowling, golf, swimming among others. Why not fire arms?

As far as training? Yes, one can benefit from training. However, as I said before, mandatory training we can do with out.

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

Shotgun wrote:

Again, the question: Do you or do you not see any potential benefit in instruction and training? It's a question about training in general, not mandatory training. I also oppose mandatory training, although there is a little part of me inside that would love to see firearms training required in public schools, just as they are required to provide certain amounts of instruction in mathematics, English, history...

Click to expand...

Now with this I can agree. There would be nothing wrong with teaching fire arms safety in schools. Hell they teach bowling, golf, swimming among others. Why not fire arms?

As far as training? Yes, one can benefit from training. However, as I said before, mandatory training we can do with out.

Click to expand...

I agree J, this could save a kids life. I do not know if it is still open, but when I was at Whitefish Bay High, we had an indoor.22 range. I guess that was a long time ago...

imported post

J.Gleason wrote:

There would be nothing wrong with teaching fire arms safety in schools. Hell they teach bowling, golf, swimming among others. Why not fire arms?

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the success of government mandated sex-education? I think that is a fine analogy for all government education. The only ones benefiting from government mandated education are the teachers' unions. Surprise, surprise, it is union members and officers touting mandatory training in arms.

Please be familiar with The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt. It contains little editorial material, being instead a compendium of data and references supporting her thesis - and mine.

The first programs to be dropped from public-government schools under financial pressure are 'sports'. Look to the current Title IX controversies, featuring cheerleading as a Title IX sport.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed whee they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KMA$$