Jump to content
ogfarmer

A3764- Assembly Bill-- Requires successful completion of firearms education program to obtain initial firearms purchaser identification card and permi

Recommended Posts

It amazes me the kind of people that this forum collects.  What in the world does "I don't support it but I'm OK with it" mean?  ... A budding statist Democrat or Republican politician perhaps!  If you think this way, please don't do down South.   Since the virus is already here, I hate to say it, but keep that viral mindset here.   Keep South Carolina free of progressive syndrome.  Also, get checked for acute lead poisoning.

 

At the very least we live in a less-than-free world in which our freedom and security are being compromised on a daily basis by the State.  We should not want and should not support further requirements for gun ownership.  At the very least, gun ownership should be viewed as a 'necessary evil' essential for freedom.  And, although I don't agree with that  statement entirely (because firearm ownership is NOT an evil), and, although a few guns may get into the hands of the wrong people occasionally, the good of having an armed populace far outweighs the negatives of having some fools or bad people armed (bad people will find means of armament, anyway).   This would just be one more encroachment, one more hurdle, and further abuse put in place by the State... a state bent on its crooked path to disarmament and total control of the citizenry, one more degree of shift of the Overton Window, and the further molding and brainwashing of the sheeple.  And it amazes me how many do-gooder type, misinformed, disillusioned members of the community buy into it and would trade the appearance of a little more safety for less freedom. 

 

It would be fruitful if more training for firearms owners was available, but just as with healthcare, NEVER more government involvement.  So, when someone says he or she is really OK with it, that person is really supporting it.   I just have a problem with this bloomturdian thinking. 

 

Oh, and I actually would be opposed to more regulations and training even if it allowed for concealed carry, as that would still be an effective way of keeping firearms out of the hands of many citizens.  It would setup a framework for abuse and one for further establishing an elite class.  And, at a later point and time all the government would have to do is make the requirements even more arduous for gun owners.  That argument is flawed as well.  I say, Zero Tolerance for this kind of thinking on a forum dedicated to guns and the 2nd Amendment!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If safety was their motive then they would incentivize training, not mandate it.

 

You hit the proverbial nail right on the head.  Does ANYONE on here think that those clowns would pass ANYTHING reasonable or good for our community?   That thought can be extrapolated to the clowns down in DC as well.  Instead of firearms training, lets have a mandatory class entitled Statism 101. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who trained you in your free exercise of religion and what proof did the government require?

 

Your right of free expression here on the Internet, and what cert did that require?

 

Your right to vote, and who best to vote for?

 

Your right to privacy and against self-incrimination? Where are your 16 hours training there?

 

I did not intend to imply anything with my quotes, other than to "quote" an earlier "quotation" from a previous post. I also believe that keeping and bearing arms is a constitutional right that should not be infringed.  But is it truly "infringement" to require training? Is it the training to which you object, or the cost of the training, or the fact that the govt. is behind the mandate for training?  Would you feel better if the 2A community were the motivation behind the training, rather than the govt. (i.e. "self-policing")? If so, than perhaps that's something toward which we can work. We've done it successfully in the "cave diving" community. We are still self-policing. And we do an excellent job of it.

 

Point being, I can't believe the founding fathers just allowed anyone to do whatever they wanted with firearms... there was training... (i.e. show them how they work, how to clean them, how to be safe with them, how to organize attacks and defenses against the enemies with them and not shoot each other up in the process).... They were, after all, "well regulated" militias.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who trained you in your free exercise of religion and what proof did the government require?

 

Your right of free expression here on the Internet, and what cert did that require?

 

Your right to vote, and who best to vote for?

 

Your right to privacy and against self-incrimination? Where are your 16 hours training there?

 

 

None of those things have the immediate potential to kill/injure other things/people as quickly, if used improperly/carelessly.

 

Look,  I get the point. It shouldn't be a "govt. requirement." It should be something that "responsible gun owners" do voluntarily (i.e. get training), but should never be mandated by the govt. 

 

Fair enough.  As long as you also accept responsibility for any mishaps that occur (that you're culpable for)  because you elected not to get that training and, otherwise, don't have the requisite knowledge/experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of those things have the immediate potential to kill/injure other things/people as quickly, if used improperly/carelessly.

 

Look,  I get the point. It shouldn't be a "govt. requirement." It should be something that "responsible gun owners" do voluntarily (i.e. get training), but should never be mandated by the govt. 

 

Fair enough.  As long as you also accept responsibility for any mishaps that occur (that you're culpable for)  because you elected not to get that training and, otherwise, don't have the requisite knowledge/experience.

 

You are finally starting to get it.  I don't think that any of us on here would agree that training is bad for firearms owners. 

 

The whole point is that YOU have to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your actions.  Just because a training course is "mandated" doesn't mean you will be any more aware, or act any safer.  Only an individual can make that choice to learn enough to be a more safe and responsible firearms owner.  Just because one attends a class, etc., it doesn't necessarily mean that anything is retained.  It is up to the the individual to seek out training and to internalize that training.  The responsible individual can learn from more experienced members in either a class setting, or through personal contact with more knowledgeable members.  Again, the key is for intrinsic motivation... without government interference.  The firearms community, itself, can provide incentives and opportunities by requiring training to use private facilities, etc., and by helping to make training both affordable and available for its fledgling and more advanced members.   And, that is largely where the NRA, IDPA, and other groups comes into play.  They provide both a framework and opportunities for  increased firearms awareness and handling.   And, there are certainly a few professional outfits to get that training, but at a premium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fair enough. As long as you also accept responsibility for any mishaps that occur (that you're culpable for) because you elected not to get that training and, otherwise, don't have the requisite knowledge/experience.

No one has to "accept responsibility" for their own negligence. Liability is a matter of law and not subject to that party's agreement. Same goes for criminal charges.

 

Life is an inherently dangerous endeavor. People do stupid things and sometimes that results in tragedy. This is what people need to accept. Stop trying to bubble wrap the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are finally starting to get it.  I don't think that any of us on here would agree that training is bad for firearms owners. 

 

The whole point is that YOU have to take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for your actions.  Just because a training course is "mandated" doesn't mean you will be any more aware, or act any safer.  Only an individual can make that choice to learn enough to be a more safe and responsible firearms owner.  Just because one attends a class, etc., it doesn't necessarily mean that anything is retained.  It is up to the the individual to seek out training and to internalize that training.  The responsible individual can learn from more experienced members in either a class setting, or through personal contact with more knowledgeable members.  Again, the key is for intrinsic motivation... without government interference.  The firearms community, itself, can provide incentives and opportunities by requiring training to use private facilities, etc., and by helping to make training both affordable and available for its fledgling and more advanced members.   And, that is largely where the NRA, IDPA, and other groups comes into play.  They provide both a framework and opportunities for  increased firearms awareness and handling.   And, there are certainly a few professional outfits to get that training, but at a premium.

 

I think we also need either the gun mfgr's and/or dealers, ROs, etc. to initiate a component of this as well, and attempt to get their buyers / customers into training before any weapons are sold/used. Point being, it's all well to accept personal responsibility for one's actions, but gun "mishaps" that result in these kinds of tragedies affect all gun owners, even/especially the responsible ones that do things right.  We can't afford the MSM and the Anti's, MAIGS,etc. any opportunity to snipe at us. We need a little bit of self-policing here... not "Govt." policing, mind you... but industry/community self-policing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one has to "accept responsibility" for their own negligence. Liability is a matter of law and not subject to that party's agreement. Same goes for criminal charges.

 

Life is an inherently dangerous endeavor. People do stupid things and sometimes that results in tragedy. This is what people need to accept. Stop trying to bubble wrap the world.

 

 

Yeah, good luck with that if it's me or mine that ever gets killed/injured due to someone's "negligence."     :mad:  :nono:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, good luck with that if it's me or mine that ever gets killed/injured due to someone's "negligence."     :mad:  :nono:

 

Can you explain what you mean by this statement?  Sounds to me like you think my constitutionally guaranteed right should be further infringed upon on the off chance that someone's negligence with a firearm causes you harm.   Your argument doesn't seem too far from the, "If it saves just one child's life..." crap the anti's use. 

 

If you or yours are ever killed or injured by someone who is drunk should I have to be trained before buying a beer?  If you or yours are ever killed or injured by a fire cause by a neighbor smoking in bed will I have to be trained before I can buy a cigarette or a match?  I have a dog.  Do I need to attend a mandatory training class because some people are negligent and their dogs hurt people?  How about my cell phone.  Some people text while driving and cause fatal crashes.  Better get a mandatory cell phone training class going pronto.

 

So, what exactly do you mean by "accept responsibility" when I point out that the law already enforces responsibility and you respond with "...good luck with that..."  Isn't that exactly what you asked for in post #132?

 

Is it any wonder that 2A rights are in such a sorry state in NJ when supposed 2A supporters are OK with further attempts to restrict our rights? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you explain what you mean by this statement?  Sounds to me like you think my constitutionally guaranteed right should be further infringed upon on the off chance that someone's negligence with a firearm causes you harm.   Your argument doesn't seem too far from the, "If it saves just one child's life..." crap the anti's use.

 

That is absolutely NOT what I said. Now, please listen carefully.

 

If you or yours are ever killed or injured by someone who is drunk should I have to be trained before buying a beer?

 

Absolutely not. But the person who did kill/injure me or mine because they were drunk should rot away in jail for a long time, regardless of what education they may or may not have had about drunk driving. Hopefully, if they *did* have some education, they'd be responsible enough not to drive when drinking/drunk in the first place. Failing that, they should be responsible enough to face the justice that's coming to them.

 

If you or yours are ever killed or injured by a fire cause by a neighbor smoking in bed will I have to be trained before I can buy a cigarette or a match?  I have a dog.  Do I need to attend a mandatory training class because some people are negligent and their dogs hurt people?  How about my cell phone.  Some people text while driving and cause fatal crashes.  Better get a mandatory cell phone training class going pronto.

 

Again, absolutely not! But whomever does cause me or mine death or serious injury, as per the above, should face the stiffest penalties possible. And as long as I'm around, I'll be seeing to that.

 

So, what exactly do you mean by "accept responsibility" when I point out that the law already enforces responsibility and you respond with "...good luck with that..."  Isn't that exactly what you asked for in post #132?

 

In post #134 you said

 

No one has to "accept responsibility" for their own negligence.

 

 BS!    If they do something negligent that also happens to be against the law or subject to civil liability, then they most certain do have to accept responsibility for it!

 

Is it any wonder that 2A rights are in such a sorry state in NJ when supposed 2A supporters are OK with further attempts to restrict our rights?

And just where I have restricted anyone's 2A rights here? I just said (in post #132), that training should not be required by the govt! It *should* be offered by the industry and the 2A community, and everyone *should* take it, but voluntarily.  Still, if you choose to exercise your right (or for whatever reason you choose) not to get that training, and for whatever reason your lack of training/experience results in a tragedy (death or serious injury), you deserve to face all the justice that's coming to you.

 

That's "accepting responsibility."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is absolutely NOT what I said. Now, please listen carefully.

 

 

Absolutely not. But the person who did kill/injure me or mine because they were drunk should rot away in jail for a long time, regardless of what education they may or may not have had about drunk driving. Hopefully, if they *did* have some education, they'd be responsible enough not to drive when drinking/drunk in the first place. Failing that, they should be responsible enough to face the justice that's coming to them.

 

 

Again, absolutely not! But whomever does cause me or mine death or serious injury, as per the above, should face the stiffest penalties possible. And as long as I'm around, I'll be seeing to that.

 

 

In post #134 you said

 

 

 BS!    If they do something negligent that also happens to be against the law or subject to civil liability, then they most certain do have to accept responsibility for it!

 

And just where I have restricted anyone's 2A rights here? I just said (in post #132), that training should not be required by the govt! It *should* be offered by the industry and the 2A community, and everyone *should* take it, but voluntarily.  Still, if you choose to exercise your right (or for whatever reason you choose) not to get that training, and for whatever reason your lack of training/experience results in a tragedy (death or serious injury), you deserve to face all the justice that's coming to you.

 

That's "accepting responsibility."

 

I don't really get what you are on about here.  Do you really think that a person has to accept responsibility in order to suffer the consequences?  There are plenty of people in prison who show no remorse for their crimes and deny guilt despite a mountain of evidence.  Are they not facing justice?  Were they not tried and convicted?

 

So yes, anyone that accidentally shoots you will be subject to justice whether or not he accepts his responsibility.  In NJ especially, it is highly unlikely that LE will just look the other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really get what you are on about here.  Do you really think that a person has to accept responsibility in order to suffer the consequences?

 

I think we're splitting hairs over the definition of "accepting responsibility."  OK For the sake of not :deadhorse: , let's call it "facing the justice system" instead. 

Therefore, if you, in the name of exercising your constitutional 2A rights, choose to use firearms having no training or other equivalent experience in handling/using them safely, and your use of them results in a tragic event (death or serious injury, etc.), then you deserve to "face the justice system" and whatever is coming to you in that regard. Of course, you have the right to defend yourself against all that, as with any other criminal or civil charge. No one is expecting you to "admit guilt," which I suspect may be your issue with the phrase "accept responsibility."   Likewise, no one is mandating that you get any training, But if you F up (by any means), training or not, you deserve to "face the justice system" and whatever is coming.

 

Better?  :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we also need either the gun mfgr's and/or dealers, ROs, etc. to initiate a component of this as well, and attempt to get their buyers / customers into training before any weapons are sold/used. Point being, it's all well to accept personal responsibility for one's actions, but gun "mishaps" that result in these kinds of tragedies affect all gun owners, even/especially the responsible ones that do things right.  We can't afford the MSM and the Anti's, MAIGS,etc. any opportunity to snipe at us. We need a little bit of self-policing here... not "Govt." policing, mind you... but industry/community self-policing.

 

This is ridiculous.  Why would a gun manufacturer, range officers, gun dealers, etc. need to do this?  They are already involved and have a vested interest.   It is up to the INDIVIDUAL to get training and to learn how to operate the firearm.  I already have to put up with the writing and such that lawyers have deemed reasonable all over my firearms.   There should be options for training, etc.  I see no reason that a gun dealer, etc. should not provide local training information for gun owners if they so choose.   And, I see no reason why a gun manufacturer shouldn't contribute to organizations like the NRA (which provide the training that you are talking about) if they so choose.  But, again, the responsibility is on the individual.   If a gun shop doesn't provide it, YOU put together a flyer that they can display and ask them if they would.

 

Gun mishaps, etc. are relatively rare and far in between.  Many more people die from deer accidents, every year, in vehicles that ARE a privilege and not a CONSTITUTIONALLY backed unalienable right.   If your goal is to save lives, then put pressure on the cops to slow the populace down.  There is education out there.  There are laws.  The same with drunk driving.. there are laws and strict penalties.  There is education, etc.  and it still happens.  More people are killed by hammers every year in this country, and yet there are no courses to have safe usage, and surprisingly, the MSM isn't sensationalizing these black hammer deaths or reporting on them continuously. 

 

You have a valid concern in calling for more safety education for firearms ownership, but it appears that you have an unreasonable fear of firearms when put in perspective.  Your focus should be on punishment of repeat offenders ( a cash cow for our bogus legal justice system), and on helping those that truly have mental illnesses.  You should write your representative and let them know that it would be nice to get rid of all the regulations prohibiting them, so we can have local ranges that are cost effective for practice.  You should work toward getting rid of zero-tolerance BS that doesn't allow for our society to be educated on the use of primary and valuable tools... firearms.  Push for the teaching of firearms safety in our public schools.  That is where  the initial focus on training should be.  And, then if you are a big-government supporter (and I am not), push for incentivizing  further training, for example, if you buy a firearm, and you seek out training, you get an $80 tax credit, etc.  Don't mandated it, create incentives. The manufactures have it... if you buy a gun they donate money toward the NRA (our primary training system in this country). 

 

As far as the MSM goes, etc.  we can't afford them "sniping" at us?   That is ridiculous.  We cannot cave; we are not victims.  We need to stand tall.  Most gun owners are responsible... GET that message out regardless of the government-run MSM.    We are where we are because we have already given up too much of our rights and created an atmosphere where gun ownership is for 2nd Class Citizens and largely unacceptable.  Again, this is just another layer created by the anti-gun statists that would take away nail clippers if given the chance.  We have to stand firm and not give in.  These laws and regulations are the pussy-willowification of society and further erode ANY hope of personal responsibility.     I don't know your background, experiences, etc. but you seem to have way too much fear of firearms.   They are not toys, and just as with other tools, they need to be handled correctly but it is not the gun manufacturers, gun dealers, gun organizations, gun culture in general, but again, it is the individual that is responsible for seeking out and getting that needed education.   You are misguided. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, good luck with that if it's me or mine that ever gets killed/injured due to someone's "negligence."     :mad:  :nono:

 

I could be wrong, but it almost sounds like you would consider not going through the justice system, but in taking matters into your own hands.  You believe that that would be wrong and don't want to have to be placed in that situation because you don't know how YOU would react.  I have often wondered about people with such exaggerated fears about firearms.  They have either had a tragic experience (almost understandable), or maybe they have found that they are utterly incompetent with firearms safety... perhaps a discharge while cleaning, etc., or perhaps they are overly emotional or irresponsible and not able to control their own emotions or act responsibly and then they transfer this to others.  Since they cannot be personally responsible, they feel that the state should step in and then they can go on auto-sheeple-pilot.   

 

Do you really think that a mandatory safety class would make gun ownership any safer? 

 

Repeat this mantra over and over.... "Many more people are saved on a daily basis through responsible gun ownership than harmed by it." 

 

They must be doing something right and gun ownership definitely appears to be a good idea amongst responsible adults.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but it almost sounds like you would consider not going through the justice system, but in taking matters into your own hands.  You believe that that would be wrong and don't want to have to be placed in that situation because you don't know how YOU would react.  I have often wondered about people with such exaggerated fears about firearms.  They have either had a tragic experience (almost understandable), or maybe they have found that they are utterly incompetent with firearms safety... perhaps a discharge while cleaning, etc., or perhaps they are overly emotional or irresponsible and not able to control their own emotions or act responsibly and then they transfer this to others.  Since they cannot be personally responsible, they feel that the state should step in and then they can go on auto-sheeple-pilot.   

 

Do you really think that a mandatory safety class would make gun ownership any safer? 

 

Repeat this mantra over and over.... "Many more people are saved on a daily basis through responsible gun ownership than harmed by it." 

 

They must be doing something right and gun ownership definitely appears to be a good idea amongst responsible adults.

 

All I can say to this (and to your above post) is that you do not know me, my morals, or my motivations and mindset. You couldn't be more wrong about me. But this is not the time or place to discuss it.  For now, just know that for all it's flaws and faults, I have enough respect for the justice system and the rule of law never to take it into my own hands for any reason, even if "me or mine" were ever killed or injured.  To speculate otherwise is what is, truly, "ridiculous,"  and seems. perhaps. to reflect some insecurities on the part of the speculator(s) as well.

 

Repeat this mantra over and over.... "Many more people are saved on a daily basis through responsible gun ownership than harmed by it." 

 

They must be doing something right and gun ownership definitely appears to be a good idea amongst responsible adults.

 

Trust me sir, I am the very last person that needs to repeat this mantra or be told it in any way, shape or form.

 

And with that, I'm done with this thread.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who is okay with this really needs to think about it.  Do you really thinks it's about "safety"?  Then I guess your okay with 10 round mag restrictions?  Bans or further restrictions on scary black rifles?  Smart guns.... etc, etc.  It's not about safety.  It's about control.  It's about throwing up further barriers to disincentive gun ownership.

 

As Voyager9 said, if they truly care about safety then incentive it.  Proof of completed safety class, no charge for the FID or any permits.

 

If it get's far enough Christie should send it back and say "Tell me what other rights you want to require testing for before free people practice them?"  And then he should reverse the necessary need requirement.......I can dream can't I.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This! Excellent Post! Too bad it contradicts your other one.

 

Have you ever heard the phrase "you cannot fix stupid"? You think a training course will make you more safe at the range, etc.? The community should police itself. If someone is unsafe at the range, the range officer, and/or others there should politely set them straight. Do you honestly think this will matter. "Peace Officers" go through lots of training and there are quite a few stories about stupid cops doing dangerous things with firearms. This is about control, not safety!

Exactly. For those who think this is about making gun owners safer / more responsible, please google "police officer gun accident". I'm not picking on cops in any way but they have training. They are very experienced with firearms. Yet they still make mistakes.

 

Any range or range member will self police / train. I'm not an expert but I've corrected people at ranges (standing behind the line during a cease fire, not touching guns during cease fire, etc). If the same people violate rules over and over they aren't going to be at that range for long.

 

There's a list of some very simple to follow / understand firearm safety rules in a stickie thread. That is all the safety one needs. Read it, learn it, practice it and teach it to every new shooter you take to the range.

 

Repeat after me. This is not about safety. This is not about safety.....

 

Nobody can guarante your safety 100% of the time. It's each individuals resposibility to look after their own safety. We don't need the government further limiting or resticting our right to own a firearm.

 

Repeat after me. This is not about safety. This is not about safety

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It amazes me the kind of people that this forum collects.

It is called "NJGunforums."

 

The only problem is, now you are spreading. I'd take an anti as a next door neighbor and registered voter over gun owners that want to mysticize guns and destroy liberty. The latter is far more dangerous to freedom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know. I would have thought that many/all of NJ's active gun culture wouldn't buy into progressive, statist BS, but there is an element on here that does. I want to believe it is just an occasional troll or two but rather believe it's part of the culture. This sickness is spreading and the unwary, everywhere take heed. This is why those of us fighting in a slave state are important and need to challenge this "armed-sheeple" thinking, the kind of thinking that got Booker reelected to office, or that wants a writ of permission to have a firearm and then wants you to attend Firearms Anonymous for training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my humble opinion, people tend to think in terms of "me, my loved ones, threats to my family" etc and lose sight of what happened in last 1000, 500, 200, 100 years and what will happen in that timeline in future. 

 

People (including me) also tend to look for solutions in things they can control (like law abiding citizens)  than confronting the realities of what they CANNOT easily control, for e.g criminal with no regard for law, training or 100 other controls already in place.

 

Put them together, we have what we have in NJ when it comes to 2A.

 

Ability to defend self (and community) is not an issue of you, your family, your lifespan but should be seen as an issue for mankind (and every living thing out there in fact).  Similarly, ability to form, control and defend a governing structure that is BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE is an issue for mankind.

 

Regardless of your personal insecurities, what may (or may not happen) to you, your loved ones - ANY infringement of 2A (and freespeech, due process etc) is a threat to mankind for ALL the future to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...