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

[countryclubjoe]

Do you happen to carry a saw or power drill in a holster as a means to defend yourself? No. Why not? Because its not very effective at killing people. Sure you can. But if you had to choose between a .45 cal pistol and a power drill which would you choose? Well the .45 since its deadlier. Do soldiers get issued dewalt 18v power drills? Negative. They get issued rifles exactly the same as my personal one minus the three round burst capability. So either we are issuing soldiers very safe tools that require no training... or we are issuing them effective weapons designed to kill a person.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Hi Folks
Hi Primus- You did not answer my query, you simply created another topic for discussion.

Again, I will ask you, do you think the G should require a citizen to have "safety training" to own a drill or chain saw?

Regarding your soldier analogy, soldiers are ISSUED weapons via the Government therefore the G should have the power to require the soldier to train and qualify with the ISSUED weapon, however until the G starts ISSUING free weapons to the citizenry of our Country then I purpose that NO safety certificate or qualification should apply...

Clearly reasonable minded folks will use common sense and learn to use a chain saw, drill and or a Weapon... Without the requirement of the G...

Thank you and best regards

CCJ

 

[marshaul]

So either we are issuing soldiers very safe tools that require no training... or we are issuing them effective weapons designed to kill a person.

False dilemma from the king of fallacies.

 

[Primus]

Hi Folks
Hi Primus- You did not answer my query, you simply created another topic for discussion.

Again, I will ask you, do you think the G should require a citizen to have "safety training" to own a drill or chain saw?

Regarding your soldier analogy, soldiers are ISSUED weapons via the Government therefore the G should have the power to require the soldier to train and qualify with the ISSUED weapon, however until the G starts ISSUING free weapons to the citizenry of our Country then I purpose that NO safety certificate or qualification should apply...

Clearly reasonable minded folks will use common sense and learn to use a chain saw, drill and or a Weapon... Without the requirement of the G...

Thank you and best regards

CCJ

I apologize I thought I made it clear. No I do not think we need safety classes for chainsaws or power drills. I don't think we should because its hard to kill OTHERS either intentionally or unintentionally with a power drill.

Whoever issues the weapon is irrelevant. Either it warrants a safety class (whether 10 minutes by your grandpa or a week at the range with a brown round screaming at you) or it doesn't. Its really simple.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Citizen]

Gee, somehow the NRA's safety classes have dramatically reduced negligent death and injury. And, men like Jeff Cooper spread gun safety far and wide (The Four Rules).* So, its completely obvious that only government can improve firearm safety. And, that through mandatory classes. Yep. I see it now. /sarcasm



*Several years ago I saw a photo of a platoon of (Hamas?) marching with AK's at port-arms. Every single one had his finger outside the trigger guard, extended along the receiver. "Keep your finger out of the triggerguard until..." has gone international; even the terrorists are doing it.

 

[Primus]

Gee, somehow the NRA's safety classes have dramatically reduced negligent death and injury. And, men like Jeff Cooper spread gun safety far and wide (The Four Rules).* So, its completely obvious that only government can improve firearm safety. And, that through mandatory classes. Yep. I see it now. /sarcasm



*Several years ago I saw a photo of a platoon of (Hamas?) marching with AK's at port-arms. Every single one had his finger outside the trigger guard, extended along the receiver. "Keep your finger out of the triggerguard until..." has gone international; even the terrorists are doing it.

It shouldn't be government classes. Should be classes like NRA HFS or BP taught by private citizens to other citizens.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[davidmcbeth]

I respect that. Again I wish no one did ever have to force anyone to do anything. I wish that guys like I mentioned just took a class on their own. Instead they just go to the range and "figure it out". That's not a guy want carrying a gun near my family at Walmart.

Also.... if everyone agrees that we should train and that we will train.... the why does it matter someone is telling them to train? If your already going to do it then just a matter of principle. Again I understand and respect that.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

In the strictest sense, the word "should" can be seen as being a mandatory requirement. I would say no, people should not have to be trained to own a gun. You have a right to train (Ezell) but it cannot be required.

The guy at the range? Who hasn't done this once or twice with a AR mag?

And who do you expect to pay for this "training"? Seems like you don't understand the burden it would place on people of lower income.

You seem to be in favor of Jim Crow laws.

I have guns I never have fired ... I therefore have never trained on them; according to Primus, I should not own them.

Your note that the guy with the AR ... seems to indicate that guns specific training is in order, not just "general gun operation" training.

"Ohhh, an untrained person might accidentally shoot someone." Yeah, so what? One can look at federal studies ( http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/ is one source ) and discover the the number of deaths expected by the lack of training actually never comes to a realization.

And even if not, our founding fathers still thought that a high # of deaths would be OK; freedom isn't free.

Training cannot be required to own, purchase, possess, carry, or anything else in respect to guns. Scary? I'd be more scared otherwise.

 

[countryclubjoe]

It shouldn't be government classes. Should be classes like NRA HFS or BP taught by private citizens to other citizens.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

So only folks with the financial means to afford the classes would get qualified.

Primus, you are missing the whole point, reasonable folks will agree that a person should learn how to handle and control a weapon and exercise proper precautions however the G should not be mandating such safety measures on a citizens weapon, just like they should not mandate that a citizen learn how to operate a drill or chain saw before being allowed to purchase one.

Let me suggest my friend that you read the United States Constitution, also I would suggest that you try to be less " Institutionalized" so that you can attempt thinking on your own.

Regards

CCJ

 

[Primus]

So only folks with the financial means to afford the classes would get qualified.

Primus, you are missing the whole point, reasonable folks will agree that a person should learn how to handle and control a weapon and exercise proper precautions however the G should not be mandating such safety measures on a citizens weapon, just like they should not mandate that a citizen learn how to operate a drill or chain saw before being allowed to purchase one.

Let me suggest my friend that you read the United States Constitution, also I would suggest that you try to be less " Institutionalized" so that you can attempt thinking on your own.

Regards

CCJ

Well how much do u spend on ammo and guns themselves? A good pistol is between 300-500 depending on caliber and make. Then its about 20 per box of ammo. Even if you cheaped out and bought a 150 highpoint that's still 3 times the amount of money then a class.

You can't play the "too poor to pay" card. Firearms are not cheap in any sense. Even if you reload. Where so u get presses and dies? Bullets primers powder casing? Everything you have is more then a 50 dollar class or a 75 dollar class.

You put best... "reasonable people agree that person should learn how to handle and control...... " . The issue is someone else telling you have to. Even though your saying you agree with it.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Primus]

In the strictest sense, the word "should" can be seen as being a mandatory requirement. I would say no, people should not have to be trained to own a gun. You have a right to train (Ezell) but it cannot be required.

The guy at the range? Who hasn't done this once or twice with a AR mag?

And who do you expect to pay for this "training"? Seems like you don't understand the burden it would place on people of lower income.

You seem to be in favor of Jim Crow laws.

I have guns I never have fired ... I therefore have never trained on them; according to Primus, I should not own them.

Your note that the guy with the AR ... seems to indicate that guns specific training is in order, not just "general gun operation" training.

"Ohhh, an untrained person might accidentally shoot someone." Yeah, so what? One can look at federal studies ( http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/ is one source ) and discover the the number of deaths expected by the lack of training actually never comes to a realization.

And even if not, our founding fathers still thought that a high # of deaths would be OK; freedom isn't free.

Training cannot be required to own, purchase, possess, carry, or anything else in respect to guns. Scary? I'd be more scared otherwise.

Please don't assign things to me. I never said a word about firearm specific training. I just mentioned the AR to give a visual. No more no less.

NRA HFS that's the kind of class in talking about. 3 rules and then how to load unload basic types of firearms to include shotguns rifles and pistols. Its a 4 hr class. Then add state specific law. Holy crap it would be a great way to advocate open carrying and normalize it.

That's ALL I'm saying. Everything else is just extra stuff to attack since what I'm saying makes sense.

Hell MAC had a good idea that I agree with. Offer that class at a highschool level elective. Highschool pays private instructors to come in and teach it.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[countryclubjoe]

It shouldn't be government classes. Should be classes like NRA HFS or BP taught by private citizens to other citizens.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I see you are trying to create more Government jobs. I dare say, Who/whom would issue licensing or regulate these private classes? Let me guess, the G. Your ideas only expand government and create more intrusion unto individuals lives.

Regards

CCJ

 

[countryclubjoe]

Well how much do u spend on ammo and guns themselves? A good pistol is between 300-500 depending on caliber and make. Then its about 20 per box of ammo. Even if you cheaped out and bought a 150 highpoint that's still 3 times the amount of money then a class.

You can't play the "too poor to pay" card. Firearms are not cheap in any sense. Even if you reload. Where so u get presses and dies? Bullets primers powder casing? Everything you have is more then a 50 dollar class or a 75 dollar class.

You put best... "reasonable people agree that person should learn how to handle and control...... " . The issue is someone else telling you have to. Even though your saying you agree with it.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I am saying quite clearly that the G should not be mandating any such safety issues regarding purchasing and owning a weapon, just like they should not mandate that a citizen have automobile insurance for an automobile that sits in the citizens garage...

To paraphrase eye95-- MOVING ON!

Regards

CCJ

 

[davidmcbeth]

Please don't assign things to me. I never said a word about firearm specific training. I just mentioned the AR to give a visual. No more no less.

NRA HFS that's the kind of class in talking about. 3 rules and then how to load unload basic types of firearms to include shotguns rifles and pistols. Its a 4 hr class. Then add state specific law. Holy crap it would be a great way to advocate open carrying and normalize it.

That's ALL I'm saying. Everything else is just extra stuff to attack since what I'm saying makes sense.

Hell MAC had a good idea that I agree with. Offer that class at a highschool level elective. Highschool pays private instructors to come in and teach it.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

OK, got it on your proposed training MANDATORY requirement although it would not meet your expectations as different manufactures recommend different methods of loading & unloading.

And your proposal makes no sense. You can try to justify it...I'm not worried about newbies accidentally shooting me ... I pay attention at the range...and I understand that freedom isn't free & I just may be shot accidentally...I may also be struck by a car...hide in your basement if you are so afraid.

I would guess if people were polled and asked the below poll what the results would be.
POLL: Which federal or lower branch of government do you think you are more likely to be killed by: a) United States b) Russia c) China d) North Korea e) other
I think the poll would show that most people are more concerned about being killed by a government official within the United States than they are from anywhere else.

Why did they used to teach gun handling in the 50's and 60's in schools? Because people were concerned of Russians. Schools are locally controlled. Now, the perceived threat from Russia is about zero.

And your argument about the cost of gun ownership is without merit as well; adding a $100 fee to own for training is not acceptable; one can buy a gun for $100 so you are proposing a 100% tax/fee on top of that.

You need to critique yourself prior to putting out meritless ideas.

This thread was about fatso NJ Gov .... lets keep it on focus

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Noticed his duplicitous stance first claiming I support those laws, then saying it's just an opinion, then more greasy Napoleonic wordy evasiveness.

As I stated earlier I doubt he would ignore someone who didn't have their "papers" he encountered carrying.

I also keep in mind what agencies lobby for more of these infringements.

 

[eye95]

...To paraphrase eye95-- MOVING ON!

Regards

CCJ

I want my nickel.

 

[Citizen]

It shouldn't be government classes. Should be classes like NRA HFS or BP taught by private citizens to other citizens.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Primus' comment is an evasion. The point isn't who teaches the classes, but whether government should require them at all.

Coerced classes are coerced classes.

Also, regardless of who teaches the classes, the curriculum requirement will be set by government. All it takes is for government to then steepen the curriculum, putting in more and more requirements until, bit by bit, exercising the right is chilled correspondingly bit by bit.

No. No! NO!

 

[eye95]

Primus' comment is an evasion. The point isn't who teaches the classes, but whether government should require them at all.

Coerced classes are coerced classes.

Also, regardless of who teaches the classes, the curriculum requirement will be set by government. All it takes is for government to then steepen the curriculum, putting in more and more requirements until, bit by bit, exercising the right is chilled correspondingly bit by bit.

No. No! NO!

You added some fine points here. I hope some cogitate on them.

 

[Primus]

Primus' comment is an evasion. The point isn't who teaches the classes, but whether government should require them at all.

Coerced classes are coerced classes.

Also, regardless of who teaches the classes, the curriculum requirement will be set by government. All it takes is for government to then steepen the curriculum, putting in more and more requirements until, bit by bit, exercising the right is chilled correspondingly bit by bit.

No. No! NO!

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

 

[marshaul]

Also, regardless of who teaches the classes, the curriculum requirement will be set by government. All it takes is for government to then steepen the curriculum, putting in more and more requirements until, bit by bit, exercising the right is chilled correspondingly bit by bit.

This is undoubtedly an excellent point, but you're neglecting the immediate undesirability of the bolded part. Forgetting steeping slopes, when was the last time government did a good job at selecting curricula? The recent trends in education (charter schools, etc) have made it clear that, whether or not government should subsidize education, it is undeniably counterproductive for government to manage education.

Gun safety is far too serious to be entrusted to government, or to allow government to take its usual camel's-nose-in-the-tent approach in insidiously co-opting responsibility for teaching it to our kids.

I would be OK, however, with assessing a fee on the salaries of our "representatives" (or – here's a good one – how about a mandatory 20% of the local police budget?), to be used to pay for firearms safety and tactics training for those who might wish to avail themselves of such.

 

[OC for ME]

There is gun safety training, then there is training on your gun. A backward mag is simply not reading (training) the owners manual. In that particular situation that gun would be immensely safe. the owner, not so much.

The requirement to participate in 'X' number of hours to receive a "CCW license/permit" is different than mere ownership must beget the state mandating 'X' type of training. Even mandating that the NRA, or others, be the "state certified training provider" is mandating what the training must consist of. Not to mention that the state seems to think, and others, that they and they alone are the final arbiter on what is proper firearms handling/training. The above examples of poorly trained cops proves my point. Those cops need to never have a firearm issued to them, they are too dangerous to be armed cops.

I don't need the NRA telling me how to teach my children how to safely handle any firearm that I may own. Many do desire the state to mandate training, Primus seems to be one of those, to permit mere ownership. Many do desire that the state mandate the training requirements.

 

[MSG Laigaie]

YES!!!!! Everyone should train with all dangerous tools that they will be using. That does not mean that the government should mandate that training--especially if the contract we have with that government requires that they do not infringe on our possession or carriage of that tool!!!

Requiring training is an infringement.

This is Truth! Requirement=infringement

Do you happen to carry a saw or power drill in a holster as a means to defend yourself?

Bad arguement....a dangerous tool is a dangerous tool no matter how it is used.

So then shouldn't firearms safety be mandatory in public school curriculum?....WE HAVE A WINNER!!

Isn't THAT the place to provide this so desperately needing training before a RIGHT can be allowed?
.

A school does not "allow me a Right". It is already mine. Telling me I must "do this" in order to have a Right I already possess is a condition of possession and therefore an infringement.
That said.......If you pick up any tool, and I mean ANY tool that can cause an injury or death, you should make an attempt to understand how it works. I am a big fan of Darwin and I think that if you are dumb enough to use a dangerous tool without knowledge of it you deserve what you get. Instruction books abound, the internet gives you detailed videos of anything. Someone who would carry a weapon without training would use power tools without any understanding of them.
If a new carrier wants to get hands on training it can be found. How many of you take newbies to the range for the first time?

I am old enough to remember firearms training in school, but I received a great deal more of it at home, from my Mother.