Range Trip

KAZ · Post by **KAZ** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:54 am

In supporting the 2ND I have put my $$$ where my mouth is. However we will all lose if a small stature person cranks off a round trying to cycle a slide on a semi auto or "Hides" a revolver under the bed for the kids to find/play with, or demonstrates psychotic behavior. The greener is right that some need to have safe handling instruction somewhat required. I'm all for individual rights, and all for my right not to be shot

[/u]

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:03 pm

You know, common sense tells you to be careful with a loaded gun but then common sense is not as common as we would like it to be.

bigfatdave · Post by **bigfatdave** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 12:40 pm

And you can neither legislate nor train in common sense.

"Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. Mandatory training is an infringement.

bgreenea3 · Post by **bgreenea3** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:09 pm

Common sense isn't so common... i had a young man I wrote a ticket for "failing to stop exiting a private drive" (pulled out of a business onto a busy road without even slowing down) tell the magistrate "I wan't taught that in drivers ed" the magistrates response was "you were not taught very well then" the young man proceded to pull out his copy of what Every Driver Must Know put out by the DMV and said "its not in here!"
after he was found responsible I pointed out that there are many road and driving laws not covered in that pamphlet that he is responsible to follow, like bumper hieght and number and color of lights allowed on vehicles. he still didn't understand.

The problem with mandatory training is we are assuming the trainer has common sense. Although with CCW's I am happy that they have to focus on the legal ramifications of using their carry piece and the responsibility ot carries with it. A lot of folks do not think about those things.

ruger22 · Post by **ruger22** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 1:14 pm

Chronic stupidity has reached epidemic levels, you can see that anywhere you go. I have no problem with at least a safe handling knowledge requirement. Wouldn't be bad to have to present proof of that when even purchasing a firearm. Assuming it could be done in an intelligent, logical way.

greener · Post by **greener** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:39 pm

I'm not saying that a class is a bad thing, I'm saying it shouldn't be MANDATORY.

ayep. Agree with that

bigfatdave · Post by **bigfatdave** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:44 pm

ruger22 wrote:Chronic stupidity has reached epidemic levels, you can see that anywhere you go. I have no problem with at least a safe handling knowledge requirement. Wouldn't be bad to have to present proof of that when even purchasing a firearm. Assuming it could be done in an intelligent, logical way.

OK, fine. How about I do the testing and training for everyone nationwide?
My standards are high and my hours are few and far between, the application fee will be $2million and you'll have to shoot out the a 4" bullseye with a .22 and 10 rounds at 50 yards. I'll do training every fifth Monday of months ending in "ber".

Is that fair enough, or have I made my point about mandatory training?

bgreenea3 · Post by **bgreenea3** » Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:57 pm

Mi has a 8 question basic pistol safety quiz that you have to take when you get you permit to purchase..... true and false like treat every gun as if its loaded type questions....its hard to fail, like most standardized "training" or testing, when MI made firearms standards to be met by EVERY Police Dept. and Retirees who want to carry (so we met the national Police safety act standards to carry nationwide) they made it so easy that we had guys shoot it blindfolded (had a guy pointing them in a safe direction

) so standards are usually "sub standard"

bigfatdave · Post by **bigfatdave** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:52 am

And what prevents that written test from being arbitrarily restrictive?
the good intentions of the benevolent overlords?

bgreenea3 · Post by **bgreenea3** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 5:09 pm

BFD we speak with our votes. if we don't like what the folks in goverment are doing or the laws that have been passed then we have a right and duty to vote for change.... real change not BHO!

greener · Post by **greener** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:01 pm

bgreenea3 wrote:BFD we speak with our votes. if we don't like what the folks in goverment are doing or the laws that have been passed then we have a right and duty to vote for change.... real change not BHO!

And, believe it or not, the Peoples' Democratic Republic of Michigan is ahead of Virginia on gun control.

edit: ahead means more gun friendly laws. Just read the sentence.

bearandoldman · Post by **bearandoldman** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 7:03 pm

greener wrote:
bgreenea3 wrote:BFD we speak with our votes. if we don't like what the folks in goverment are doing or the laws that have been passed then we have a right and duty to vote for change.... real change not BHO!
And, believe it or not, the Peoples' Democratic Republic of Michigan is ahead of Virginia on gun control.

edit: ahead means more gun friendly laws. Just read the sentence.

Is that good or bad?

greener · Post by **greener** » Tue Feb 01, 2011 9:00 pm

bearandoldman wrote:
greener wrote:
bgreenea3 wrote:BFD we speak with our votes. if we don't like what the folks in goverment are doing or the laws that have been passed then we have a right and duty to vote for change.... real change not BHO!
And, believe it or not, the Peoples' Democratic Republic of Michigan is ahead of Virginia on gun control.

edit: ahead means more gun friendly laws. Just read the sentence.
Is that good or bad?

No one gun per month, castle doctrine in MI. Good