Jump to content
Downr@nge

Serious question about CCW training...

CCW Training, yes or no?  

81 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think ALL CCW permit holders should be required to AT LEAST take a Basic NRA pistol course?

    • Yes! I know my rights end where other's begin but I really don't want to be around untrained individuals!
      35
    • No! The costs would possibly get out of hand thus making it almost impossible to get the permit!
      1
    • EEEEEEKK!!!! I'm an irrational, hoplophobic Brady Foundation fan! PUT ALL GUNS ON A SPACE SHIP AND SEND IT TOWARDS THE SUN SO THEY ALL MELT!!!!
      1
    • No training PERIOD! Rights should not require training!
      44


Recommended Posts

SHOULD and REQUIRED are not the same thing..

like I said before..

 

the person who would benefit from a class is already taking one..

the person who would limp through the class let the info slide in one ear and out the other is wasted time..

 

the problem is suffering from the complete DELUSION that a single NRA basics style class is going to do ANYTHING in regards to actually preparing someone for a self defense shoot..

 

the assumption is purely emotion driven.. "oh can't have a bunch of untrained people walking around every day armed" so you "require them to take a class" as if that one single class will somehow be so filled with amazing instruction that it will instantly make anyone safer.. I have been to MANY a first steps classes.. and while yes at the end.. most people with a brain are marginally safer (keep in mind these people took the class even without being forced)many of them were in NO WAY prepared to defend themselves with a gun..

 

SMH... Listen, nobody is suffering from any delusions over here. Like I said in my last reply, since i am one that does think training is beneficial, all I did was offer a suggestion as to what type of basic training I thought would not cause a hardship on anyone's time or wallet. If you have any better suggestions, by all means, please state them, or not, either way it's your perogative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SMH... Its not nonsense or magic. If a person takes the class and doesn't learn anything, then that is on them. Sure, I agree that ONE class isn't enough. But at the very least, the four golden rules would be learned. Learning basics like that are indispensable to someone new to guns. If anything, the class could teach a person how to safely handle a firearm when not in danger. I don't think it's "magic" at all, and to be honest, that's overstating it quite it bit IMHO. It's just like learning how to drive a car. Those that just get behind the wheel without first learning how to drive usually wreak havoc that first time behind the wheel. These things we call guns aren't toys. Some form of training should be required IMHO. I offered a suggestion as to what level of training that could be but by all means, if you have a better idea, please feel free to add it. However, at the same time, I do understand the argument against mandatory or required training.

 

As a responsible and SAFE gun owner, I just think its highly irresponsible to advocate no training required. It puts me between a rock and a hard place because I also believe in our rights. I also know how crafty the antis are in usurping our right to bear arms. There has to be a happy medium. I made this thread because I believe this will be an issue when it comes time for the Senate to vote on it.

 

 

I am not advocating NO training.. I think ALL gun owners should have training.. I think ALL gun owners should have a safe.. I am just against making a LAW about it.. get it? to be honest.. ONE class ONE day? what is that going to do for your average citizen 5 years from now when confronted with a life or death situation... you think ANY of that is going to matter? that is the point.. I am against illogical LAWS.. not logical practice..

 

EVERYONE who handles a firearm SHOULD have training..

the GOVERNMENT should not REQUIRE it..

 

and like I was saying to you.. people who would actually take something away from the class.. people who know that they need to be trained.. those people are already getting training.. like I offered to take you to the range.. on several occasions.. :icon_e_wink: so yes.. I am an advocate of training.. and think it is necessary.. but I do not think it should have a thing to do with the government.. and them holding it over my head before I can exercise a right..

 

and see if you follow this logic..

 

we both agree ONE class will do nothing..

so tomorrow the state decides you need two classes..

then four classes..

then a week of classes followed by a qualification test.. where you need a %70..

then no that is not enough.. maybe you need an %80..

 

allowing the government to regulate something they have no right regulating just creates bureaucracy.. and potential for abuse..

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not advocating NO training.. I think ALL gun owners should have training.. I think ALL gun owners should have a safe.. I am just against making a LAW about it.. get it? to be honest.. ONE class ONE day? what is that going to do for your average citizen 5 years from now when confronted with a life or death situation... you think ANY of that is going to matter? that is the point.. I am against illogical LAWS.. not logical practice..

 

EVERYONE who handles a firearm SHOULD have training..

the GOVERNMENT should not REQUIRE it..

 

and like I was saying to you.. people who would actually take something away from the class.. people who know that they need to be trained.. those people are already getting training.. like I offered to take you to the range.. on several occasions.. :icon_e_wink: so yes.. I am an advocate of training.. and think it is necessary.. but I do not think it should have a thing to do with the government.. and them holding it over my head before I can exercise a right..

 

and see if you follow this logic..

 

we both agree ONE class will do nothing..

so tomorrow the state decides you need two classes..

then four classes..

then a week of classes followed by a qualification test.. where you need a %70..

then no that is not enough.. maybe you need an %80..

 

allowing the government to regulate something they have no right regulating just creates bureaucracy.. and potential for abuse..

 

drinks.gif

 

I hear you. Thats the other side of the coin. We all believe we should have training because we all believe in being safe and responsible firearm owners. The challenge is, if HR 822 passes, if its not required to train, how do we go about effectively encouraging training and promoting safety to the average person to go train with that brand new firearm they just purchased? Thats my real issue. Like I said, I see both sides of the coin as do many in this thread.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

drinks.gif

 

I hear you. Thats the other side of the coin. We all believe we should have training because we all believe in being safe and responsible firearm owners. The challenge is, if HR 822 passes, if its not required to train, how do we go about effectively encouraging training and promoting safety to the average person to go train with that brand new firearm they just purchased? Thats my real issue. Like I said, I see both sides of the coin as do many in this thread.

 

there are states that do not require training at all..

there are states that require nothing other than a simple single firearms safety class..

 

there are not mass shootings left and right.. there are not missed self defense shootings in which the innocent are being slain in mass.. do NOT take this with disrespect in ANY way.. but I think it is a Jersey state of mind.. we are SO conditioned to think that firearms need to be micromanaged.. all of our checks.. classes.. forms.. etc.. it wears on you.. and start to believe that without being forced to take a class chaos will ensue.. the truth of the matter is some people grow up around guns.. and could teach an NRA basics class in a half drunken stupor.. I for one knew every aspect of safety before even setting foot in the classroom setting.. as a young boy I spent a lot of time on a family farm in PA.. these people in PA would laugh at all this.. they know guns.. left right.. upside down.. and forcing people like that to take any class.. is silly NOT because they know everything.. but because guns are a way of life there.. and NOTHING covered in a basic safety class will tell them anything they do not already know..

 

the other truth is not all classes are projecting the actual law of the land onto new shooters.. they are silly soap box preacher sessions.. in which the "instructor" instills his bogy man tails onto the classroom.. terrifying them about the government.. and how if they drop a hollowpoint in the trunk while emptying it out after a day at the range.. and happen to get pulled over.. they are going to prison.. training.. by the right instructor (who actually explains the law).. to the right student(who actually wants to learn)... is great.. but there are plenty of individuals out there.. who don't need it.. and it is a waste of their time.. and yet others who that one class is a waste of everyones time because just like in high school.. they are just going through the motions.. thos who will benefit.. are already seeking training.. do we make thugs on the street pass a class before they illegally carry? not all is learned in a classroom.. and it certainly should not be a requirement when it comes to a right..

 

think.. bigger picture..

 

IMO of course..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here it is not required to have a permit for open carry and in addition one can legally carry in the car console, glove compartment and any part of the car that has a compartment, loaded or unloaded or in the open without a permit.

 

Now if I decide to wear a coat and happen to cover the gun or place the gun under the car seat instead of the glove box, I now need a permit to do it, because it is then considered concealed.

 

In order to carry concealed, one needs a permit and requires spending $80 on a mandatory safety course and for $60 permit fee and wait two months, all because It got cold out and I decided to put a coat on or place the weapon under the seat.

 

So putting a piece of cloth over a weapon, (the same one weapon I can walk around legally just a second ago without passing a safety course or needing a permit with) now needs a permit and passing a safety course because of a piece of cloth...now where is the logic in that?

 

My opinion is you should not need to pass a safety course to exercise a right. You should be all means know what you are doing. The fact that one is an gun enthusiast would likely (and hopefully) means that they are familiar with their weapon and its operation and the safety aspects that it requires. In order to have an interest in something, it is only logical to assume that someone has more than a casual interest in that subject.

 

I saw the comments about people sweeping at gun ranges and other less than smart activity, by all means the range should put up rules and enforce them! Now that is not restricting anyone's rights. It is a run by a private company

and they have their right to make up their own rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SMH... Its not nonsense or magic. If a person takes the class and doesn't learn anything, then that is on them. Sure, I agree that ONE class isn't enough. But at the very least, the four golden rules would be learned. Learning basics like that are indispensable to someone new to guns. If anything, the class could teach a person how to safely handle a firearm when not in danger. I don't think it's "magic" at all, and to be honest, that's overstating it quite it bit IMHO. It's just like learning how to drive a car. Those that just get behind the wheel without first learning how to drive usually wreak havoc that first time behind the wheel. These things we call guns aren't toys. Some form of training should be required IMHO.

Learning the golden rules is one thing, but I think mandating it infringes on our rights. Just like driving, owning a gun comes with responsibilities. It should be up to the individual, and not the government to make sure one learns the golden rules. Do I want everyone carrying a gun to be safe and and responsible? absolutely! However, it is not up to me or the government to force a person to be responsible. What I want the government to do is to protect me IF the person does something irresponsible, not mandate laws to force some people to pretend to be responsible.

The same irresponsible folks will just take the "required" CCW class and still be irresponsible after the class. So in the end, all you accomplish is forcing responsible gun owners to take a class on what they already learned (from other responsible owners!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Learning the golden rules is one thing, but I think mandating it infringes on our rights. Just like driving, owning a gun comes with responsibilities. It should be up to the individual, and not the government to make sure one learns the golden rules. Do I want everyone carrying a gun to be safe and and responsible? absolutely! However, it is not up to me or the government to force a person to be responsible. What I want the government to do is to protect me IF the person does something irresponsible, not mandate laws to force some people to pretend to be responsible.

The same irresponsible folks will just take the "required" CCW class and still be irresponsible after the class. So in the end, all you accomplish is forcing responsible gun owners to take a class on what they already learned (from other responsible owners!)

 

Great point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Learning the golden rules is one thing, but I think mandating it infringes on our rights. Just like driving, owning a gun comes with responsibilities. It should be up to the individual, and not the government to make sure one learns the golden rules. Do I want everyone carrying a gun to be safe and and responsible? absolutely! However, it is not up to me or the government to force a person to be responsible. What I want the government to do is to protect me IF the person does something irresponsible, not mandate laws to force some people to pretend to be responsible.

The same irresponsible folks will just take the "required" CCW class and still be irresponsible after the class. So in the end, all you accomplish is forcing responsible gun owners to take a class on what they already learned (from other responsible owners!)

 

How does one define what are our rights? The SCOTUS defines our rights. We don't have the right to CCW in NJ. Very few of us have the privilege to CCW in NJ. We may think we should have that right but we don't have it. Whether it is a state right or federal right is up for debate.

 

From a legal/constitutional aspect, if states can deny CCW to their citizens then is it completely reasonable and constitutional for a state to require successful completion of a training course as a prerequisite for CCW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

state to require successful completion of a training course as a prerequisite for CCW.

 

I do not believe this is a discussion about IF a state can try to impose ridiculous requirements.. I think that this is a discussion as to if those requirements are logical.. I have FL ccw and it required any basic firearms safe handling class.. states already require it in SOME cases.. others (PA) does not.. just saying that it does nothing to actually make you safer..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun control, restricting the 2A does nothing to prevent criminals & restricted people from having guns period, not having the ability to exercise our 2A right to defend our selves is all that is taken away.

 

I think everyone should watch this and remember this, and I know many have seen this over and over, but here it is for the folks that have not seen it. I think she has a lot of valid points.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does one define what are our rights? The SCOTUS defines our rights.

SCOTUS does not define our rights. WE THE PEOPLE define our rights through voting lawmakers in office. My knowledge of the Constitution/Bill of rights is not great, but I do know "We the People" is the first line. I believe Article 1 Section 1 gives Congress legislative powers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does NH have a lot of accidental shootings because they don't have any training requirements. As other has said a right doesn't require training. Just remember that right gives you power that you will have to answer too if you have a unjustifiable or accidental shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with those who say that rights shouldn't have any prerequisites (other than citizenship!).

 

On the other hand, proper education and training could, overall, be a tremendous benefit. I mean, just look at voting. If people had to demonstrate even a minimum amount of knowledge about the issues before being allowed to vote then NObama could not possibly have been elected! Or Pelosi! Or any of the other subversive leftists!

 

I don't have an answer to the problem but untrained people do stupid things and that causes our cause to lose credibility. I don't want to require training but I want people to have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with those who say that rights shouldn't have any prerequisites (other than citizenship!).

 

On the other hand, proper education and training could, overall, be a tremendous benefit. I mean, just look at voting. If people had to demonstrate even a minimum amount of knowledge about the issues before being allowed to vote then NObama could not possibly have been elected! Or Pelosi! Or any of the other subversive leftists!

 

I don't have an answer to the problem but untrained people do stupid things and that causes our cause to lose credibility. I don't want to require training but I want people to have it.

 

Some nice points on the voting, that would be interesting to see.

 

Now as far as training. I am completely against requiring training to exercise a right and I feel it is up to the person who choses to carry to do what is right and yes I would like to see anyone who Carry's have some sort of training.

 

Now as much as it pains me to say this, and I really don't like it and I don't think it is right at all, but here is the PR of NJ gun owner speaking. You could allow anyone who has had a training class like the NRA First Step Pistol to have a Free CCW License, all others who don't have the class would have to pay for there CCW, the same price as a CCW class, so it would be a wash if you took the class. To us in NJ it may sounds reasonable, but overall for a Right it's not reasonable at all but figured I'd bring it up just to see how others feel.

 

Now here is the non PR of NJ view, No requirements other than your not a restricted person.

 

Now here is something that I am not sure of, does every state have a FID or a version of a FID??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they do not. They are supposed to decide if laws that have been passed infringes on our rights.

 

You are just arguing semantics. In order to know if a law infringes our rights, SCOTUS needs to know what our rights are i.e. to define them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are just arguing semantics. In order to know if a law infringes our rights, SCOTUS needs to know what our rights are i.e. to define them.

 

If you think this is just semantics, you don't understand the nature of liberty. If it's a right, it doesn't need to be defined. The only reason the Constitution and the Bill of Rights exists is as an explicit check on the government, not the citizenry. The sole purpose of the SCOTUS is to compare the law passed with these founding documents and decide if they infringe or not. Since both these documents were written in plain language at the time, there has never been a requirement for a supreme court judge to hold a law degree.

 

The fact that they have been doing a piss poor job since FDR's New Deal doesn't change the nature of a right.

 

For example, let's take your definition literally; where is your government issued permit to breathe air?

  • Like 1

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.



  • olight.jpg

    Use Promo Code "NJGF10" for 10% Off Regular Items

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • I very seriously doubt this has anything to do with terrorism.    1) Harbor pilots are VERY seriously vetted, and highly trained. Not to mention extremely well paid. My experience knowing a few of them, and knowing how they are recruited and screened tells me that there is a slim to highly unlikely chance that a harbor pilot would have participated in anything like that.    2) Maintenance of foreign flag ships is well known to be dubious. Especially these days. These were NOT US flag, Jones act sailors. It was (to my understanding) a largely Indian crew on that ship, with a Ukrainian Captain. Indian crews are not exactly known for being stellar.    3) The bunkers (fuel) these ships use is ‘Bunker C’, which is a heavy, dirty fuel oil that can, and usually is, pretty contaminated. This stuff ain’t your car grade gasoline or diesel fuel. It’s nasty.   It requires nearly constant filter changes and maintenance to the engine/generators. The ship took on fuel prior to departing port, which would stir up all kinds of shit in the fuel tanks, which would contribute to particulates in the fuel lines/filters.    4) I’d say the posting of the chief engineer for Maserek above was pretty spot on as far as chain of events.    This was a shitty accident, with horrible timing and outcome. Not a terror attack. 
    • I saw Lara's interview on Bannon's War Room, and that gave me pause for thought. Her conjecture depends primarily on the veracity of her sources. Regardless, if it's not applicable in any way to this ship disaster, the methods described seem valid to me. And worthy of consideration for the future. As I said before, IMO something is coming. Death by a thousand cuts? Lara Logan Provides Comprehensive Baltimore Update: Experts in Behavioral Analytics, Counter-Terrorism, and National Security Analyze Recent Incident | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hᴏft
    • Another big windfall for governments'. The 'winner'? Not so much. Mega Millions $1.13 billion winner is facing mega tax bill. The amount is staggering. - nj.com
×
×
  • Create New...