Woman accidentally shoots self during handgun class

[dng]

imported post

The government screws up everything it puts its hands in.ie: Welfare, DMV, Border security, retirement in the form of Social Security, and of course, bridge construction. The point is, yes, training is great and smart. GET IT FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR! Have someone who knows guns teach you about them, take a NRA class, do something, do anything but create another government program that will horribly mismanage and micromanage our lives. If the government was an ordinary business, it would have been bankrupt and closed 100 years ago. People must be responsible for themselves; go learn about guns before you decide to carry one, and use common sense while you are learning. It's not rocket science. What has happened to the America I love, the country where we got things done on our own? Quit waiting for "big brother" to take care of you and tell you what to do. We are headed for communism quicker than I want to admit.

 

[UTOC-45-44]

imported post

daniel.call wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
”
No authorization is granted to any government to require you to jump through hoops for your rights.

I think firearm training isa great idea. I think the government should ensure we get regular firearm training. That is the way our founding fathers handled firearms. Every male was required to own a gun and report for at least annual "firearm training." As a bonus they also had a pretty complete roster of who were gun owners. Everyone enrolled in the militia was recorded. I think if something is going to be done it should be done right. I am 100% in favor of regular firearm training by the government as long as it is tied to military service. My hunter's education firearm training was a joke. It doesn't take 12 hours to tell me not to point guns at people. I am all for gun registration as long as every individual is required to own a gun.

The second amendment ties the God given right to self defense to the responsibility to help and protect your neighbors. You can pay people to do your job but you can't pay them to take the responsibility.

"As a bonus they also had a pretty complete roster of who were gun owners. Everyone enrolled in the militia was recorded"

"I am all for gun registration as long as every individual is required to own a gun. "


This is the kind of Gun CONTROL that we DO NOT want.:cuss:



Sorry Just my .45

 

[daniel.call]

imported post

UTOC-45-44 wrote:

"As a bonus they also had a pretty complete roster of who were gun owners. Everyone enrolled in the militia was recorded"

"I am all for gun registration as long as every individual is required to own a gun. "


This is the kind of Gun CONTROL that we DO NOT want.:cuss:



Sorry Just my .45

Don't have to be sorry for your .45. All I am saying is that if a country can't trust its voting citizens for defense and public service we would be better off without a democratic republic. This kind of government only works when it is dominated by good people. If we think a huge portion of the population is too irresponsible to handle weapons then we havea serious problem. It won't help them become more responsible if we just say it is easier to relieve them of their duty. Why would it matter if everyone was enrolled in the militia (that actually had musters) was on the state books? I think it is in everyone's good interest to know who is prepared for service. I don't see any constitutional protection from registration of certain weapons. I could very easily make that fall under the Well-regulated part. It also wouldn't be an infringement if the purpose of the regulation was to help organize the militia.

 

[gregma]

imported post

daniel.call wrote:

UTOC-45-44 wrote:

"As a bonus they also had a pretty complete roster of who were gun owners. Everyone enrolled in the militia was recorded"

"I am all for gun registration as long as every individual is required to own a gun. "


This is the kind of Gun CONTROL that we DO NOT want.:cuss:



Sorry Just my .45

I don't see any constitutional protection from registration of certain weapons.

It's when you finish that thought where you get the constitutional protection...

"require registration of certain weapons."...finishing by sayng "Or else you can't have them". That second part violates "shall not be infringed."

 

[sccrref]

imported post

openryan wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

ijusam wrote:

Once you let them mandate training and qualification and you can kiss 2A goodbye!

Right on.

All gun control must die.

Even if that means accepting an increase in some risk. I'll take risk + freedom over safety + control any damn day.

Certainly everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

But you would be pleased if all laws pertaining to firearms, registration of them, and background checks be repealed?

Even violent felons who have commited homicide in cold blood should be allowed a firearm? Taser -- I could see that being allowed as everyone should have a means to protect themselves. But I think if all of these statutes were to be repealed there would be some serious problems.

Don't get me wrong, I am not happy where we are with control right now, a lot fo the laws pertaining to it are out of date, unreasonable and some just a big waste of money and time, but some of them are not bad ideas.

So Tomahawk, you honestly believe there should be no regulation of firearms whatsoever under any conditions at all?

It appears that the criminals (felons, murderers and such) hve no problem getting guns and other weapons with all of the checks and screenings currently in place. So, yea, make it simple for everyone to get the weapons they need for self defense vice just letting the criminals have the guns.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Safety like a lot of other things is not something that can be legislated. It is a mindset. No amount of training will stop inappropriate weapons handling without the proper mindset to go with it.

You are quite correct that more and more people are buying guns every day. In fact firearms ownership is growing at an alarming pace and we really do need to curb crazy idea that this is somehow a god given right.

So I guess your program would also include waiting periods. After all if you don't have the training yet, you could not buy the gun and take it home. Lets see, we might have to set aside that pesky second amendment thing, because unless you have your government recognized training certificate you clearly do not have the right to own a firearm. In fact it might be a very good idea to include a 200 meter shooting requirement. Say 100 rounds in the 10 ring with a government approved handgun to qualify. That way we would be sure that only people who could hit what they are aiming at could own a gun.

I really like the idea that we could certify individual people to only own a gun they have actually qualified with. Your ownership papers could have a space for each make model and caliber you are authorized to possess or carry. That way we would not have people possessing a gun with a thumb safety, when they only trained on something without an external safety. Heck they might have an accidental discharge due to the diversion of their attention while moving their thumb to flick the safety off before they shoot.

This could be a real revenue maker too. There is no way the government would look the other way at making a buck from this. Based on existing permitting programs, they should be able to charge anywhere between $50-$200 for each certification. And don't forget, rifles and shotguns would each require a separate program. This could all be administered by the BATFE. That way we could eliminate the costs of a lot of the records searching these guys have to do to find all the people with guns.

"If this program saves just one life ...."

Hey I know. Why don't you propose this as the basis for the MMM meeting you are planning to set up. I am CERTAIN they would love the program. By the way how is that going? Got the meeting scheduled yet?

I got to give credit where credit is due. Hank has finally hit on a program that would even make Hillary happy.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

Hawkflyer,

I'm suspicious. Its Friday night, and that last post prompts me to ask, "Have you started into the Caol Isla or Glennfiddich without the rest of us?"

 

[openryan]

imported post

Pa. Patriot wrote:

openryan wrote:

....But, I am not going to argue the opinion any more, I respect your viewpoint, and if you are going strictly on what the constitution was based on 200 some years ago, your view is more correct than mine, but as we adapt, adaptations to these words may prove needed.

Your missing the point.
Your rights, my rights, are NO different than they were 200 years ago.

Your foisting the public school version of the BOR on us and it doesn't stick because rights don't evolve or change over time.

No, I actually fully understand the point, and nothing I propose would take away anyones right. You could still keep and bear arms, it would just cause you to have to be a bit more responsible about it up front, could some people see this as a slight infringement of their right, possibly, and I am sure you will.

However if a few extra precautions were taken I think it would reduce the number of accidents on the whole, as well as incompetent owners before they go out and get themselves into unwanted trouble.

And you know the right to keep and bear arms in the second ammendment, does it specifically state an age where you can posess a firearm? I really don't know, I am just curious if it says anything about that. And since I am not a cat, its not dangerous.

 

[Lthrnck]

imported post

Okay guys how about this....

The federal government says the following....

Any person who wants to own a firearm of any type needs to take a Firearms safety course... This course is NOT offered by the government and you must find your own place to take your course.

If you want to carry your firearm on your person, concealed or openly. You must first meet requirement # 1 above, and also you must take a refresher/ requalification course every 5 years on the weapons you want to carry.

You can still own and buy firearms after you have meet requirement #1 at any time. But if you want to carry you need to keep your training up.

If you keep your training up you can carry openly or concealed anywhere in the United States and no one can restrict your carry in any manner anywhere.



Just remember one thing guys.. Times have changed... and sometimes we do need to reevaluate the past laws..

When our founding fathers were living their day to day lives... they took their sons with them out into the woods and taught them how to use firearms.. some where good trainers and some were not. But over all, young men recieved firearms training out of necessity. Today the number of fathers who train their sons on the use of firearms is very small compared to the 1700's.

I don't think it's to much to accept the fact that there's a lot of people today who need the training. I have no problemsrequirig some type of Safety education in firearms before someone purchases a firearm.

How can we call ourself responsible, law abiding citizens.... We on a regular basis on these forums admit this all the time.


We still need to have the ability to defend ourselves. But we also need to realize it is not the 1700's.

 

[openryan]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Safety like a lot of other things is not something that can be legislated. It is a mindset. No amount of training will stop inappropriate weapons handling without the proper mindset to go with it.

You are quite correct that more and more people are buying guns every day. In fact firearms ownership is growing at an alarming pace and we really do need to curb crazy idea that this is somehow a god given right.

So I guess your program would also include waiting periods. After all if you don't have the training yet, you could not buy the gun and take it home. Lets see, we might have to set aside that pesky second amendment thing, because unless you have your government recognized training certificate you clearly do not have the right to own a firearm. In fact it might be a very good idea to include a 200 meter shooting requirement. Say 100 rounds in the 10 ring with a government approved handgun to qualify. That way we would be sure that only people who could hit what they are aiming at could own a gun.

I really like the idea that we could certify individual people to only own a gun they have actually qualified with. Your ownership papers could have a space for each make model and caliber you are authorized to possess or carry. That way we would not have people possessing a gun with a thumb safety, when they only trained on something without an external safety. Heck they might have an accidental discharge due to the diversion of their attention while moving their thumb to flick the safety off before they shoot.

This could be a real revenue maker too. There is no way the government would look the other way at making a buck from this. Based on existing permitting programs, they should be able to charge anywhere between $50-$200 for each certification. And don't forget, rifles and shotguns would each require a separate program. This could all be administered by the BATFE. That way we could eliminate the costs of a lot of the records searching these guys have to do to find all the people with guns.

"If this program saves just one life ...."

Hey I know. Why don't you propose this as the basis for the MMM meeting you are planning to set up. I am CERTAIN they would love the program. By the way how is that going? Got the meeting scheduled yet?

I got to give credit where credit is due. Hank has finally hit on a program that would even make Hillary happy.

You are making assumptions based on what he said, the underlying principles of the plan are not as horrible as you are making them out to be.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Hawkflyer,

I'm suspicious.  Its Friday night, and that last post prompts me to ask, "Have you started into the Caol Isla or Glennfiddich without the rest of us?"

No not tonight. Tonight is all about sarcasm. This might help clarify.

This is not the first time Hank has brought this crap to the forum. The entire idea as pitched by him is clearly both anti Constitution and anti firearms rights. He is also (again) taking things said by others out of context to try to support his positions. He "Claims" that I said that this whole training idea of his is Constitutional. BS!

What I said was that the Militia part of the second amendment could be used to institute a training program, SO LONG AS IT DID NOT PROHIBIT OWNERSHIP, CARRY, OR USE OF FIREARMS. But I also added that most firearms owners would never accept this kind of program even if it did not infringe ownership. I still hold that opinion.

Hanks idea is to only allow ownership IF you take the training and IF you pass it. It is clearly unconstitutional, and it is the most anti-rights idea ever posted on this forum. Hank makes the MMM look reasonable. At least they are not trying to HIDE their methods of outlawing firearms ownership behind some massive government program, cloaked in the guise of safety.

From my point if view the only thing Hank has ever attributed to me that was accurate is that I think he is an Anti Firearms rights troll, and through his misquotes and mischaracterizations of the posts of others he is a lier. Add to that his posting of PM's without consent of the other party, and I conclude he is morally bankrupt as well. (in case someone is wondering, PM's are just that, PRIVATE MESSAGES, not intended for posting on the forum). To date he has not done anything to change my opinion, but he has done a lot to show that my opinion is correct.

Does that help?

Regards

 

[HankT]

imported post

Citizen wrote:

Hawkflyer,

I'm suspicious. Its Friday night, and that last post prompts me to ask, "Have you started into the Caol Isla or Glennfiddich without the rest of us?"

Citizen, I think he started with the Glenfiddich.

But thenhe kept going...

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

openryan wrote:

...SNIP

You are making assumptions based on what he said, the underlying principles of the plan are not as horrible as you are making them out to be.

Actually no I am not. If you take this crap to it's logical conclusions as an implemented program, it would include everything I said it would and more.

You say you must have the training BEFORE you Buy the gun. That is a de-facto waiting period while you get the training. If you do not have the training YOU CANNOT OWN THE GUN.

If the qualifications are set to high, people cannot pass the test and they cannot own a gun. The logical place for such a program to be administered is the EXISTING government agency that deals with guns. Hank himself called for training for the specific gun you want to own and carry, and you supported that.

You are also wrong about the changes is society obsolescing the constitution and its principals.

Do I think training is a good idea? Yes. Do I think it should be mandated? NO. Do I think it should be required before owing a gun? NO.

THink about what you are saying. There are far more people killed in this country every year by cars. Driving is a PRIVILEGE not a right. But you can own a car weather you have training and a license to operate it or not. You are saying that where people have a RIGHT to something we will not even allow ownership before they get training and are AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT to do so.

 

[compmanio365]

imported post

It's as simple as this guys, and it's been said again and again:

Anytime you have to get PERMISSION from ANYONE to do something, it is no longer a right, it is a PRIVILEGE.

What is being proposed is the elimination of our RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and turn it into the PRIVILEGE to keep and bear arms......so long as you pay the government off and be a good boy and take your test.....use a government issued No. 2 pencil now, and no cheating.

No thanks.......I can't believe we are even having this argument on this forum.......

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[HankT]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Citizen wrote:

Hawkflyer,

I'm suspicious. Its Friday night, and that last post prompts me to ask, "Have you started into the Caol Isla or Glennfiddich without the rest of us?"

Hanks idea is to only allow ownership IF you take the training and IF you pass it. It is clearly unconstitutional, and it is the most anti-rights idea ever posted on this forum. Hank makes the MMM look reasonable. At least they are not trying to HIDE their methods of outlawing firearms ownership behind some massive government program, cloaked in the guise of safety.

From my point if view the only thing Hank has ever attributed to me that was accurate is that I think he is an Anti Firearms rights troll, and through his misquotes and mischaracterizations of the posts of others he is a lier. Add to that his posting of PM's without consent of the other party, and I conclude he is morally bankrupt as well. (in case someone is wondering, PM's are just that, PRIVATE MESSAGES, not intended for posting on the forum). To date he has not done anything to change my opinion, but he has done a lot to show that my opinion is correct.

Does that help?

Regards

Nah, let's correct that. No prohibition of ownership. Never. Your use of straw man arguments is persistent, Hawk.

But training is a good idea. And you agree. You once told me:

In principal I think the training concept is very good. The problem that I see is that TSA is iconic in recognizing, without precondition, the RTKABA. Because there is no training requirement that is so obvious that anyone can see it, everyone simply rejects the idea out of hand. While convoluted, I do see a way that a creative person could contend, and therefore legislate, a training requirement, that might stand a court review.

The problem is that very few people will listen to the argument long enough to discuss it. There was a poster who came in at the end who seemed to be creative enough to help analyze the concept.


Hawkflyer wrote:

From my point if view the only thing Hank has ever attributed to me that was accurate is that I think he is an Anti Firearms rights troll, and through his misquotes and mischaracterizations of the posts of others he is a lier.

Aha! You call me a lier? Well, I never!

Hawkflyer wrote:

Add to that his posting of PM's without consent of the other party, and I conclude he is morally bankrupt as well. (in case someone is wondering, PM's are just that, PRIVATE MESSAGES, not intended for posting on the forum).

There is no logic nor any rule against posting a PM on this forum. BobCav posted my PM to him a couple of months ago when it served his purposes. The wispiness of your objection to doing so is laid bare by your never saying anything about it when BobCav did it.

Men should stand by their actions and words. You should stand by yours. That's the problem, really. You don't like being held accountable for your utterances. Your selective objections to whatpeople do are quite apparant, Hawk. I'm sure it all makes sense to you insome rather convoluted way.

 

[openryan]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

openryan wrote:

...SNIP

You are making assumptions based on what he said, the underlying principles of the plan are not as horrible as you are making them out to be.

Actually no I am not. If you take this crap to it's logical conclusions as an implemented program, it would include everything I said it would and more.

You say you must have the training BEFORE you Buy the gun. That is a de-facto waiting period while you get the training. If you do not have the training YOU CANNOT OWN THE GUN.

If the qualifications are set to high, people cannot pass the test and they cannot own a gun. The logical place for such a program to be administered is the EXISTING government agency that deals with guns. Hank himself called for training for the specific gun you want to own and carry, and you supported that.

You are also wrong about the changes is society obsolescing the constitution and its principals.

Do I think training is a good idea? Yes. Do I think it should be mandated? NO. Do I think it should be required before owing a gun? NO.

THink about what you are saying. There are far more people killed in this country every year by cars. Driving is a PRIVILEGE not a right. But you can own a car weather you have training and a license to operate it or not. You are saying that where people have a RIGHT to something we will not even allow ownership before they get training and are AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT to do so.

Before you start sticking words in my mouth, please point out to me where I said anything relating to having to qualify with a specific firearm, anywhere.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

openryan wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

openryan wrote:

...SNIP

You are making assumptions based on what he said, the underlying principles of the plan are not as horrible as you are making them out to be.

Actually no I am not. If you take this crap to it's logical conclusions as an implemented program, it would include everything I said it would and more.

You say you must have the training BEFORE you Buy the gun. That is a de-facto waiting period while you get the training. If you do not have the training YOU CANNOT OWN THE GUN.

If the qualifications are set to high, people cannot pass the test and they cannot own a gun. The logical place for such a program to be administered is the EXISTING government agency that deals with guns. Hank himself called for training for the specific gun you want to own and carry, and you supported that.

You are also wrong about the changes is society obsolescing the constitution and its principals.

Do I think training is a good idea? Yes. Do I think it should be mandated? NO. Do I think it should be required before owing a gun? NO.

THink about what you are saying. There are far more people killed in this country every year by cars. Driving is a PRIVILEGE not a right. But you can own a car weather you have training and a license to operate it or not. You are saying that where people have a RIGHT to something we will not even allow ownership before they get training and are AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT to do so.

Before you start sticking words in my mouth, please point out to me where I said anything relating to having to qualify with a specific firearm, anywhere.

Well I would say that when he proposes the idea that includes the specification and you claim to support it. That pretty well qualifies.

Regards

 

[openryan]

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

openryan wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

openryan wrote:

...SNIP

You are making assumptions based on what he said, the underlying principles of the plan are not as horrible as you are making them out to be.

Actually no I am not. If you take this crap to it's logical conclusions as an implemented program, it would include everything I said it would and more.

You say you must have the training BEFORE you Buy the gun. That is a de-facto waiting period while you get the training. If you do not have the training YOU CANNOT OWN THE GUN.

If the qualifications are set to high, people cannot pass the test and they cannot own a gun. The logical place for such a program to be administered is the EXISTING government agency that deals with guns. Hank himself called for training for the specific gun you want to own and carry, and you supported that.

You are also wrong about the changes is society obsolescing the constitution and its principals.

Do I think training is a good idea? Yes. Do I think it should be mandated? NO. Do I think it should be required before owing a gun? NO.

THink about what you are saying. There are far more people killed in this country every year by cars. Driving is a PRIVILEGE not a right. But you can own a car weather you have training and a license to operate it or not. You are saying that where people have a RIGHT to something we will not even allow ownership before they get training and are AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT to do so.

Before you start sticking words in my mouth, please point out to me where I said anything relating to having to qualify with a specific firearm, anywhere.

Well I would say that when he proposes the idea that includes the specification and you claim to support it. That pretty well qualifies.

Regards

I cannot find where I supported qualifying with a particular handgun in this post, or even hinted at supporting it! In fact, after a quick examination of the thread, I cannot find anywhere where I said this stuff NEEDS to be implemented.

I said it might not be a bad idea for some type of very, very basic quiz of firearms at their most elementary level.

Obviously there would have to be close scruitiny as to what would be permissible and what not to be. I didn't say it had to go either way.

 

[Citizen]

imported post

openryan wrote:

SNIP

Certainly things in this country have changed since those words were first written, thus I feel that certain measures pertaining to many aspects of our county need to grow with the county.

Not totally sure what you mean by this. If I've got it sideways, let me know. I'm thinkingperhaps you mean the Constitution needs tochange to keep up with changes in ourcountry. Please permit me to contribute some ideas.

Human nature hasn't changed in 5000 yrs of recorded history in theWest. The things the Constitution was written to protect againstwere happening long before it was written and are still happening today.

There were someinterestingLTEs recentlyin theWashington Times. They were responding tocalls for aWorld Government. The supporters of a WorldGov't werepitching the benefits; but all overlooked something critical. OneLTE quoted George Washington to the effect that government is not eloquent or rational. Government is force, brute force, and the threat of force. That is how compliance isobtained with whatever policy, uptopian or otherwise--force or threat of force. The critical overlookedpoint by the advocates was that if gov't has the force to compel good policy, it necessarily has the forceto compelbad policy if bad people get control.

Personally, I think the Constitution is rigged to allow continually increasing federalpower at the expense of the states and citizens.Certainly, that is what has beenoccuring since Day One. The Federal checks andbalances aren'tcompletely checking andbalancing, and growth and power increases have been the result.

The government already has far more power than ever intended bythe original ratifyingStates. I recommend against giving them more.

If we want to improve firearms safety, we make it a social cause. If the NRA is to be believed, their gun-safety programshave beenresponsible for dramatic decreases in gun accidents since the turn of the century, or perhaps the 1930's.

 

[Hawkflyer]

imported post

HankT wrote:

...SNIP
Hawkflyer wrote:

Add to that his posting of PM's without consent of the other party, and I conclude he is morally bankrupt as well. (in case someone is wondering, PM's are just that, PRIVATE MESSAGES, not intended for posting on the forum).

There is no logic nor any rule against posting a PM on this forum. BobCav posted  my PM to him a couple of months ago when it served his purposes.  The wispiness of your objection to doing so is laid bare by your never saying anything about it when BobCav did it. 

Men should stand by their actions and words. You should stand by yours. That's the problem, really. You don't like being held accountable for your utterances.  Your selective objections to what people do are quite apparant, Hawk. I'm sure it all makes sense to you in some rather  convoluted way.

I do stand by my words. I believe that a training requirement could be put in place under the militia statutes, but not if ownership is restricted without the training. If you had posted the ENTIRE conversation in context, you would note that I stated that very specifically. I also believe that most firearms owners would resist that position. What part of the PRIVATE MESSAGE you posted says otherwise.

As to PRIVATE message posting. YOU posted a statement he made to you in private messages before he responded to correct your half truth posting. Of course as usual, you only referenced PART of his message, thus forcing him to post it in proper context. For the record I have never posted a PRIVATE MESSAGE from anyone, while this is a hallmark of your postings.

I stand by what I said. You are morally bankrupt, and you are an anti-rights troll. You are also more than just a little obsessed with refusing to answer questions. That is know as a lack of candor, or more commonly, lying. Clearly you have never OCed and probably are unable to obtain a CHP where you live as well. Your posting of images of OC rigs you supposedly own, and claims of owning a large collection of firearms does nothing to offset that view. Clearly you refuse to honestly answer questions because you would loose any credibility for most of the remarks you make here.