Fatso wanted to be president? heat that? its his chances going down the toliet..

[eye95]

What you get with government-mandated "training" is a monopoly of ignoramuses teaching lies.

I had a discussion with a gentleman last night who insisted on sharing the learning he got from his CHL class. OC was illegal and was inducing panic. Also, you had to try to run at least 50 feet before you could use a firearm to defend yourself from someone chasing you. A firearm had to be three steps from use if it was carried unlicensed. You could not shoot an intruder who broke into your home if his back was turned to you.

I told him to stop by the counter, and I'd give him our handout with the links to the actual law (Ohio). As I tell all of my customers, "READ the law. Do not take my word or anyone else's for what it says!"

My instructor stopped trying to explain the law after I corrected him a few times.

Damn these NRA-certified know-it-all ignoramuses!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[OC for ME]

There is a indoor gun range here-abouts my little town where cops "teach" CCW. I took meticulous notes and some of the things they stated are just a wee bit disappointing, to say the least.

571.111.5. A firearms safety instructor shall be considered to be a qualified firearms safety instructor by any sheriff issuing a concealed carry permit pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 if the instructor:
(1) Is a valid firearms safety instructor certified by the National Rifle Association holding a rating as a personal protection instructor or pistol marksmanship instructor; or
(2) Submits a photocopy of a notarized certificate from a firearms safety instructor's course offered by a local, state, or federal governmental agency; or
(3) Submits a photocopy of a notarized certificate from a firearms safety instructor course approved by the department of public safety; or
(4) Has successfully completed a firearms safety instructor course given by or under the supervision of any state, county, municipal, or federal law enforcement agency; or
(5) Is a certified police officer firearms safety instructor.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000111.HTM

Knowing what I know about cops, and their enthusiasm regarding holding the highest levels of training possible, commensurate with their being issued a firearm(s), I'll pick a NRA dude any day of the week.

 

[davidmcbeth]

What you get with government-mandated "training" is a monopoly of ignoramuses teaching lies.

I had a discussion with a gentleman last night who insisted on sharing the learning he got from his CHL class. OC was illegal and was inducing panic. Also, you had to try to run at least 50 feet before you could use a firearm to defend yourself from someone chasing you. A firearm had to be three steps from use if it was carried unlicensed. You could not shoot an intruder who broke into your home if his back was turned to you.

I told him to stop by the counter, and I'd give him our handout with the links to the actual law (Ohio). As I tell all of my customers, "READ the law. Do not take my word or anyone else's for what it says!"

My instructor stopped trying to explain the law after I corrected him a few times.

Damn these NRA-certified know-it-all ignoramuses!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Those rules that the instructor listed are my house rules when relatives visit...

 

[Citizen]

Citizen this is already in affect in multiple states. Its already in affect here in MA. The .gov has a lost of 10 different classes that qualify. LTC-001 through LTC-010. On this lost is NRA BP and NRA HFS. Been this way for a quiet a few years. .gov has nothing to do with the curriculum in any way.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

This is just more sweet-talking evasion by Primus.

Just because governments do not currently set curriculum requirements does not mean guarantee can't or won't.

In fact, those ten states did indeed set the curriculum requirements--they set it at whatever the NRA et al says they are. Whether government delegated figuring out the step-by-step training program is far less significant than the fact that government presumed it had power to require it at all. Once that initial step is taken and accepted by the citizens, the door is open, the nose is already under the tent. Everything after that is just a matter of degree. And, open to disagreement. And, you all know who gets to settle those disagreements. (Hint: It ain't the citizens.)

 

[Citizen]

SNIP Damn these NRA-certified know-it-all ignoramuses!

Many of who are opposed to OC and tell their students not to. Great way to chop off at the knees the actual right. By some of the supposedly pro-gun crowd themselves. No extra infringement by government needed. They're doing the gun-grabbers' and governments' jobs for them.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

OMG what stinks in this thread? Smells like the foul odor of Forced Collectivism, served up by none other than the poster child for logical fallacies.

Training is good. Get all you can. However, Pinus isn't talking about guns. He's talking about control.

"You MAY practice the PRIVILEGE of handling a firearm.....during times and in places we approve..., once you have been approved for that particular single shot .22."

"No point discussing it, the laws are already in place and the best thing you can do is simply accept it and comply".

"For the good of the many, we must let go of selfishness and surrender these old antiquated "rights [whatever THOSE are]."

What's next Primus? Government criteria specified civics tests in order to vote? The Fourth Amendment repealed because, what the hell, cops can lie and get a warrant easier than a half dozen donuts?

How about we use what we have in place? If you are violated by a cop you can get all the justice you can afford to pay for in civil court. The same pursuit for liability is available if I shoot the neighbor while using the Long Tom to knock bug webs out of the trees.

Training has become the biggest con racket on the market right now. Every off duty cop thinks he's Jack Weaver and his sidekick is Eldon Carl when they aren't playing Carlos Hathcock or Batman and Robin. Pay attention to the Carny Barker like spiel they use to lure in people believing that because the barker claims to have a badge, they can transfer by their super power telepathic means, the skills and aptitude it takes to be your very own personal mercenary.

Let's look at what's out there for "approved training".....

Instructor shoots student in gun-safety class

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/2013/08/12/concealed-carry-accidental-shooting.html

Whoops. That one was a former ninja / police trainer!

OH NO!

"Gun Instructor's Accidental Shooting Wasn't His First"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...dentally-shoots-someone-wasn-t-the-first-time

"“Up until he shot me accidentally, it was very informative, very well laid out,” he said of the class. “I learned a lot. Then again, I was accidentally shot.”

Get training, however, remember, Caveat emptor...Let the buyer beware. Badges are no assurance of anything, and may be an indicator to keep looking.

 

[Primus]

OMG what stinks in this thread? Smells like the foul odor of Forced Collectivism, served up by none other than the poster child for logical fallacies.

Training is good. Get all you can. However, Pinus isn't talking about guns. He's talking about control.

"You MAY practice the PRIVILEGE of handling a firearm.....during times and in places we approve..., once you have been approved for that particular single shot .22."

"No point discussing it, the laws are already in place and the best thing you can do is simply accept it and comply".

"For the good of the many, we must let go of selfishness and surrender these old antiquated "rights [whatever THOSE are]."

What's next Primus? Government criteria specified civics tests in order to vote? The Fourth Amendment repealed because, what the hell, cops can lie and get a warrant easier than a half dozen donuts?

How about we use what we have in place? If you are violated by a cop you can get all the justice you can afford to pay for in civil court. The same pursuit for liability is available if I shoot the neighbor while using the Long Tom to knock bug webs out of the trees.

Training has become the biggest con racket on the market right now. Every off duty cop thinks he's Jack Weaver and his sidekick is Eldon Carl when they aren't playing Carlos Hathcock or Batman and Robin. Pay attention to the Carny Barker like spiel they use to lure in people believing that because the barker claims to have a badge, they can transfer by their super power telepathic means, the skills and aptitude it takes to be your very own personal mercenary.

Let's look at what's out there for "approved training".....

Instructor shoots student in gun-safety class

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/2013/08/12/concealed-carry-accidental-shooting.html

Whoops. That one was a former ninja / police trainer!

OH NO!

"Gun Instructor's Accidental Shooting Wasn't His First"

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...dentally-shoots-someone-wasn-t-the-first-time

"“Up until he shot me accidentally, it was very informative, very well laid out,” he said of the class. “I learned a lot. Then again, I was accidentally shot.”

Get training, however, remember, Caveat emptor...Let the buyer beware. Badges are no assurance of anything, and may be an indicator to keep looking.

Some cop somewhere mist have really peed in your cheerios. No one else was talking about police instructors. We were distinctly talking about citizen instructors running private class. You know... free market stuff.

Sure other made good objections based on worrying the government would abuse this. But nothing about police. Then you show up and make it personal.

So what department was it that shut you down and wouldn't hire you? You seem to harbor a personal vendetta against law enforcement. You don't get that deep hatred unless they personally violated your rights or they broke your little heart by saying they were bypassing you.

I've never heard you mention a lawsuit.... so I'm guessing you didn't make the cut so now you just pretend you never wanted to and bash. Kind of like a psycho girl who got denied by her dream guy.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Some cop somewhere mist have really peed in your cheerios. No one else was talking about police instructors. We were distinctly talking about citizen instructors running private class. You know... free market stuff.

Sure other made good objections based on worrying the government would abuse this. But nothing about police. Then you show up and make it personal.

So what department was it that shut you down and wouldn't hire you? You seem to harbor a personal vendetta against law enforcement. You don't get that deep hatred unless they personally violated your rights or they broke your little heart by saying they were bypassing you.

I've never heard you mention a lawsuit.... so I'm guessing you didn't make the cut so now you just pretend you never wanted to and bash. Kind of like a psycho girl who got denied by her dream guy.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

YOU think I wanted to be a cop.......and I think you'll be a lifer in that toll booth. There ain't no chance of you making detective!!!

 

[Primus]

YOU think I wanted to be a cop.......and I think you'll be a lifer in that toll booth. There ain't no chance of you making detective!!!

Lol well no duh not if I'm in a "toll booth". Do they have detectives? To investigate toll skippers and short changers?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Citizen]

Some cop somewhere mist have really peed in your cheerios. No one else was talking about police instructors. We were distinctly talking about citizen instructors running private class. You know... free market stuff.

Sure other made good objections based on worrying the government would abuse this. But nothing about police. Then you show up and make it personal.

So what department was it that shut you down and wouldn't hire you? You seem to harbor a personal vendetta against law enforcement. You don't get that deep hatred unless they personally violated your rights or they broke your little heart by saying they were bypassing you.

I've never heard you mention a lawsuit.... so I'm guessing you didn't make the cut so now you just pretend you never wanted to and bash. Kind of like a psycho girl who got denied by her dream guy.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

More distortion by Primus. Government-required classes are not free-market. Government "creates" (sic for distorts) some portion of the market by coercively requiring training.

Also, the subject was not, as Primus would have readers believe, about private instructors running private classes. The subject was whether government legitimately had the power to require training in the first place.

Slippery, very slippery, Mr. Primus' arguments are.

 

[Primus]

More distortion by Primus. Government-required classes are not free-market. Government "creates" (sic for distorts) the market by coercively requiring training.

Also, the subject was not, as Primus would have readers believe, about private instructors running private classes. The subject was whether government legitimately had the power to require training in the first place.

Slippery, very slippery, Mr. Primus' arguments are.

So when the government requires u to have driving school is it not free market that produces schools? How about health care? How about the numerous certification you need for employment? Hell I was just looking up getting my FFL the other day. Look at ffl123.com. Its a private company selling info on a .gov license. So yes it can and is private market stuff.

And yes the deeper discussion is can/should .gov require classes to get licenses to carry firearms. I say yes. Some guys say no. Oh well we aren't the first guys to talk about this and disagree... not earth shattering.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Citizen]

So when the government requires u to have driving school is it not free market that produces schools? How about health care? How about the numerous certification you need for employment? Hell I was just looking up getting my FFL the other day. Look at ffl123.com. Its a private company selling info on a .gov license. So yes it can and is private market stuff.

And yes the deeper discussion is can/should .gov require classes to get licenses to carry firearms. I say yes. Some guys say no. Oh well we aren't the first guys to talk about this and disagree... not earth shattering.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Readers, notice the slippery change in terms. Free-market and private market. Free market and private market are not the same. Notice the fallacious argument/commentary in between the change in terms.

Then, notice the dismissive tone about we aren't the first guys to disagree. As though he has standing to to coerce other equals, and dissent is merely disagreement rather than the abusive, arrogant over-reach it really is. No, no. Its just a disagreement. He'd really like readers to believe that its just a disagreement--it self-servingly gives his argument a legitimacy it neither deserves nor justifies.

Slippery, very slippery.

One does wonder when/whether he will advance an argument explaining why some equals have the power to coerce other equals into training. Of course, his arguments lead one to wonder whether one of the premises underlying his arguments is, to paraphrase Snowflake, "some equals are more equal than others."

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Readers, notice the slippery change in terms. Free-market and private market. Free market and private market are not the same. Notice the fallacious argument/commentary in between the change in terms.

Then, notice the dismissive tone about we aren't the first guys to disagree. As though he has standing to to coerce other equals, and dissent is merely disagreement rather than the abusive, arrogant over-reach it really is. No, no. Its just a disagreement. He'd really like readers to believe that its just a disagreement--it self-servingly gives his argument a legitimacy it neither deserves nor justifies.

Slippery, very slippery.

One does wonder when/whether he will advance an argument explaining why some equals have the power to coerce other equals into training. Of course, his arguments lead one to wonder whether one of the premises underlying his arguments is, to paraphrase Snowflake, "some equals are more equal than others."

The mention of Snowflake causes me to wonder if Squealer is now sporting a Massachusetts accent and a badge.

Squealer represents a more general allegorical figure for propaganda and completely void of morals.

What is obvious is that Orwell meant Squealer to be hypocrisy embodied. He's so immoral and power-hungry that twisting reality to suit his interests—or the interests of whoever he's trying to please becomes his purpose in life.

""Squealer represents a totalitarian government’s propaganda machine. Eloquent to a fault, he can make the animals believe almost anything. This fact is especially clear in Squealer’s interactions with Clover and Muriel. Each time Clover suspects that the Seven Commandments have been changed, Squealer manages to convince her that she is wrong. After the executions, Napoleon abolishes the singing of “Beasts of England” in favor of a new anthem, the lyrics of which contain a promise never to harm Animal Farm. In this propagandist maneuver, Napoleon replaces the revolutionary spirit of “Beasts of England” with the exact opposite, a promise not to rebel."

...and I think "resistance is futile" is Primus's theme song.

 

[Primus]

Readers, notice the slippery change in terms. Free-market and private market. Free market and private market are not the same. Notice the fallacious argument/commentary in between the change in terms.

Then, notice the dismissive tone about we aren't the first guys to disagree. As though he has standing to to coerce other equals, and dissent is merely disagreement rather than the abusive, arrogant over-reach it really is. No, no. Its just a disagreement. He'd really like readers to believe that its just a disagreement--it self-servingly gives his argument a legitimacy it neither deserves nor justifies.

Slippery, very slippery.

One does wonder when/whether he will advance an argument explaining why some equals have the power to coerce other equals into training. Of course, his arguments lead one to wonder whether one of the premises underlying his arguments is, to paraphrase Snowflake, "some equals are more equal than others."

? Oh my bad I used the word private market when I meant free market. Can you explain the difference because they are same to me. You are FREE to train guys with a PRIVATE company. I noticed you failed to address any of my examples. Just zeroed in on one single word that I was using to mean the same thing. Missing the forest for the trees.....

And no one is coercing anyone. In fact YOUR the guy standing on a soap box talking to a third party trying to coerce them into believing or seeing things that aren't there.

I dismissed ME as well as you. I said WE are not the first to argue this.

And you can call it anything you want, abuse, over reach etc. Those are just labels YOU are using. So basically your dismissing my idea and replacing it with yours as if I'm dismissing your idea as if its a fact and I'm an idiot for dismissing it. We have separate OPINIONS. Difference is your grand standing yours as facts and I said plain out several times its my opinion and that I'm ok with you treating it as such. You feel the need to portray yours as something other then an opinion and feel compelled to get others to feel the same way.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Primus]

Oh and as far as who is qualifies to say what classes qualify? I'm pretty sure it was just a bunch of politicians who got the list together. And don't think for an second that then reason why 2 (used to be 3) classes on our list happens to be NRA is by accident. I'm certain thats no accident. So is the NRA big government now? Doubt it.

Here's the deal most of us agree that training is good. But guys just don't like being told what to do. Period. Its actually a complete benefit to have a training mandate like MA. How does the person lose? They lose 50-75 bucks. Which as stated before is maybe a a couple boxes of bullets. And they gain some training. Where's the down side? Just the principle of it no more no less.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

SNipped How does the person lose? They lose 50-75 bucks. Which as stated before is maybe a a couple boxes of bullets. And they gain some training. Where's the down side? Just the principle of it no more no less.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

The person loses when his right is transformed into a privilege. Jim Crow ring a bell?

 

[Primus]

The person loses when his right is transformed into a privilege. Jim Crow ring a bell?

You already need a ltc class A (not B) to carry a pistol. Its a may issue license that they can and do put restrictions on (hunting/target use only). So needing training that everyone agrees is a good idea isn't the straw that breaks the camels back.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Primus]

And as I said before if anything should change it should change to a SHALL issue state.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

You already need a ltc class A (not B) to carry a pistol. Its a may issue license that they can and do put restrictions on (hunting/target use only). So needing training that everyone agrees is a good idea isn't the straw that breaks the camels back.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

WTF are you talking about? I DO NOT NEED ANYTHING TO OPEN CARRY in my or the neighboring state. I am not a prohibited person, nor am I obligated to prove that. What transpires in your own statist utopia doesn't affect me, and on that note, you seem ignorant, probably willfully so, of the amount of effort being put forth by over half the states to go to Constitutional Carry. Massachusetts is by no means the poster child of what "America Should Be". 27 states have legislation or have legislation in the works recognizing the right to bear arms.

Vermont has had Constitutional Carry since the nation's founding in 1791--
they never enacted any law banning the right to discreetly bear arms.

Montana enacted Constitutional Carry in 1991, for all areas
outside city limits (99.4% of the state), and is working on the rest.

Alaska enacted Constitutional Carry in 2003.

Texas enacted Constitutional Carry "light" in 2007
as the "Motorist Protection Act," freeing people to carry in their vehicles,
and to and from their vehicles and their homes, land or business.

Arizona got full Constitutional Carry in 2010,
and the sky has not fallen, despite desperate fears to the contrary.

Wyoming enacted Constitutional Carry for residents in 2011.

Like the pot situation, about three more states legalize it, we'll see a federal action legalizing it nationwide. I suspect something similar will happen for Constitutional Carry as more and more states get on board with it....it'll become a nationwide constitutional carry.

I hate to pinpoint an old wore out cliche, but I don't really give a f___ how you do it up north.

 

[Citizen]

? Oh my bad I used the word private market when I meant free market. Can you explain the difference because they are same to me. You are FREE to train guys with a PRIVATE company. I noticed you failed to address any of my examples. Just zeroed in on one single word that I was using to mean the same thing. Missing the forest for the trees.....

And no one is coercing anyone. In fact YOUR the guy standing on a soap box talking to a third party trying to coerce them into believing or seeing things that aren't there.

I dismissed ME as well as you. I said WE are not the first to argue this.

And you can call it anything you want, abuse, over reach etc. Those are just labels YOU are using. So basically your dismissing my idea and replacing it with yours as if I'm dismissing your idea as if its a fact and I'm an idiot for dismissing it. We have separate OPINIONS. Difference is your grand standing yours as facts and I said plain out several times its my opinion and that I'm ok with you treating it as such. You feel the need to portray yours as something other then an opinion and feel compelled to get others to feel the same way.

More sophistries from Primus.

1. I am not free to train with a private company. I am required to train with a private company, or worse, the military. And, with ten states, according to Primus, requiring training, he is advocating for more.

2. Notice his comment that no one is coercing anyone. Suuuuure. The coercion arises from the threat of penalty for carrying without having met the training requirement. He knows that. Coercion is coercion. But, some people would characterize coercion as merely "encouraging" certain behavior or action.

3. He dismissed himself? Wrong. Since he couldn't justify or support his own argument in the face of vigorous and penetrating refutation, he dismissed the entire discussion as merely a disagreement. In that his own position reduces to nothing more than force--he thinks others should be forced to train if they want to exercise a right--his characterization as a disagreement operated to elevate his position from the thug-level underlying it. And, he's still doing it. According to him its merely a matter of opinion. Liberty. Human yearning to be free. Being forced to pay before exercising a right. His being unable to explain how he's more equal than others and thereby would have standing to coerce them to train--these are all just opinions. As in, he's trying to say they are both equally valid opinions. Thus, dismissing mine with a false, unstated premise; and, at the same time, elevating his.

Well, it looks to me like he does believe in equality at least a little bit. He seems to believe that a pro-coercion opinion is equal to a pro-freedom opinion. They're both just opinions. According to him.