jeff47 30 Posted February 26, 2016 I have to say, I really thought his posts did this forum some good. No one else was able to galvanize and unite the members here like he was. Even members who seem to agree on nothing agree'd he was out of line. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scorpio64 5,120 Posted February 26, 2016 ^^^^ What was that guys problem... Please explain? I'm happy as can be that the troll is gone. I'm pretty sure I had a hand in getting rid of him too Do you have a problem with that? I'm not sure where you are coming from with this so please explain yourself.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tattooo 220 Posted February 26, 2016 Guys, I apologize.... but we will not be having so many entertaining posts from AK. Permanent vacation from the forum after he crossed the line with a profane personal attack.Thanks brother !! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
High Exposure 5,635 Posted February 26, 2016 Guys, I apologize.... but we will not be having so many entertaining posts from AK. Permanent vacation from the forum after he crossed the line with a profane personal attack. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
High Exposure 5,635 Posted February 26, 2016 Honestly, I wish he was around a bit longer. I had some stuff to share that contradicts his idiocy. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/02/15/concealed-carry-permits-help-police-officers-and-civilians-stay-in-fight.html?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obnetwork Concealed carry permits help police officers, civilians stay in the fight In the past month, criminals have murdered six police officers in the line of duty. The number might have been eight if not for the actions of two concealed handgun permit holders. More at the link. I hope everyone knows that AK does not represent the beliefs or attitude of a vast majority of cops - Most cops are pro 2A and pro citizen carry. I also have serious doubts that he was a LEO based on some of his choices in words. I agree that training is important. I wish that every gun owner did attend training classes for their own personal improvement and from a sense of wanting to be a better shooter/gun owner/protector tomorrow than they were yesterday - not to check a box on some bureaucrat's list of what he thinks you need to learn and it definitely shouldn't be a requirement in order to own/carry a gun. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
silverado427 10,554 Posted February 26, 2016 Please explain? I'm happy as can be that the troll is gone. I'm pretty sure I had a hand in getting rid of him too Do you have a problem with that? I'm not sure where you are coming from with this so please explain yourself.. Haha , No i was wondering what AKs problem was. Yes he was very annoying. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
voyager9 3,417 Posted February 26, 2016 I agree that training is important. I wish that every gun owner did attend training classes for their own personal improvement and from a sense of wanting to be a better shooter/gun owner/protector tomorrow than they were yesterday - not to check a box on some bureaucrat's list of what he thinks you need to learn and it definitely shouldn't be a requirement in order to own/carry a gun.This I agree with. I also think there are better ways to encourage folks to take classes than just mandating it. Incentivize training through credits on homeowners insurance (like Defensive Driving is against Auto), or something similar. That assumes the goal is to improve safety and not act as a barrier to entry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njpilot 671 Posted February 26, 2016 I hope everyone knows that AK does not represent the beliefs or attitude of a vast majority of cops - Most cops are pro 2A and pro citizen carry. I also have serious doubts that he was a LEO based on some of his choices in words. I think most here would agree with this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scorpio64 5,120 Posted February 26, 2016 Haha , No i was wondering what AKs problem was. Yes he was very annoying. Ya, I thought the comment was out of character and out of context related to the post of mine that you quoted.and thought another body got snatched. Thanks for clarifying. Can't be too careful, there are pod people all over the place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shane45 807 Posted February 26, 2016 After observation and speculation I am of the opinion he was not LE. Indeed I believe he was an anti here to be an intentional irritant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fishnut 2,358 Posted February 26, 2016 Yup I don't think he was a cop either. I said it before, but after the whole buying standard capacity mag in PA thread, I really think AK was an anti reporter trying to dig up dirt on us gun owners to further the anti adjenda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shane45 807 Posted February 26, 2016 That actually may fit too. I thought it was odd how quickly he would accept breaking off contact with anyone that was posing a real challenge to him. It makes sense if he was looking for Cletus and a stupid quotable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot 358 Posted February 26, 2016 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n4p226r 105 Posted February 26, 2016 The thing that really made me think he wasn't a cop was his comments on how much police are required to train. I'm still trying to get a straight answer on the minimum (generally speaking) requirements on firearms training for officers but I was under the impression that you had a week or so in the academy and had to qualify 2-4 times a year. Some places may require more but he made it seem like you did SEAL training every year Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bighungry618 448 Posted February 26, 2016 Only if you have scabies LMAO....that was funny! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
djg0770 481 Posted February 26, 2016 I hope everyone knows that AK does not represent the beliefs or attitude of a vast majority of cops - Most cops are pro 2A and pro citizen carry. I also have serious doubts that he was a LEO based on some of his choices in words. I don't think you have to worry about his stink rubbing off on anyone... I agree that training is important. I wish that every gun owner did attend training classes for their own personal improvement and from a sense of wanting to be a better shooter/gun owner/protector tomorrow than they were yesterday - not to check a box on some bureaucrat's list of what he thinks you need to learn and it definitely shouldn't be a requirement in order to own/carry a gun. Agree with this too. Taking training to check a box results in crappy training (at best). Taking training because YOU want to be trained... Totally different animal and usually provides much better results. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scorpio64 5,120 Posted February 26, 2016 I have to admit, the topic of training and CCW has crossed my mind. On one hand, I believe there should be no mandated training. It can create an exclusionary condition by making it so expensive that one may not be able to afford exercising their right to self protection and personal security. There truly should be no condition set upon exercising ones constitutional rights. On the other hand, I've seen how some folks handle themselves at the range, and if we are being perfectly honest with ourselves here, NJ has an over abundance of morons and loons. I guess back in 1776 it was easier to deal with this type of dilemma. Towns were small and everyone knew everyone so if someone went off the rails or was a known criminal, any issues concerning safety were easily handled by the community. Life was much simpler back then. Anyone who hunts has to pass hunter education and I don't think there has been an outcry over that. Probably because it's free and relatively easy to pass.if one's IQ is over a shoe size. Furthermore, it's hunters educating hunters so there is no feeling that we are being forced to participate or judged by bureaucrats. I did not mind hunter ed at all, actually, it was interesting to me. I think the cost of hunter ed is covered by hunting licenses. Can there be a middle ground? We can pretty much all agree that nobody wants to see irresponsible people packing heat but, irresponsible or not, everyone has a natural (or god given) right to protect themselves. So this begs several questions, should a person have to prove that they are responsible and capable in order to obtain a CCW? Should there be a fee? Who should be responsible for administration of CCW? Should CCW be nationally recognized like drivers licenses? Would you endorse the NRA as a legitimate provider of free or low cost training? Should free training be paid for with ammo taxes? Personally, I'm a believer in the philosophy of John Locke where everyone has the innate right (freedom) to do whatever pleases them as long as it does not threaten the safety of others. A person should only loose rights after they have abused them. Now that the troll is gone, we have an actual opportunity to debate this topic in a courteous and rational manner. I am truly curious to know everyone's thoughts. What, if any, conditions are acceptable to you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fishnut 2,358 Posted February 26, 2016 I've said it here before. At my Utah permit class some girl brought her gun in so the instructor could show here how to load it. Yes she owner a handgun that she planned on carrying and she not only had ever fired a gun before she did not even know how to load it. I understand the argument that manditory training infringes on people's 2A. However I do not feel comfortable being around someone who is carrying a gun and has never even fired it. I think free qualification once a year is not a bad idea. If you can qualify you can carry if you can't qualify then you can own guns And shoot them at ranges you just can't carry. Flame suit on! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
High Exposure 5,635 Posted February 26, 2016 Eveyone has to start somewhere. So where do we draw the line and more importantly, who gets to judge? If I am in a gunfight or involved in something where my gun is out, and I see a fellow cop or CCW holder with their gun out, my first hope is that they are a better shot, a better tactician, and better trained than I am. So, then, if it was up to me, my training level would be the lowest allowed to carry - which isn't right and shouldn't be the benchmark. Do we restrict carry to IPSC or IDPA master level shooters and above? I wouldn't make that cut. How about only folks who can shoot 200 or higher on a bullseye course? 50/50 if I would make this. So then, what are the mandatory minimum performance requirements necessary to be competent enough to protect yourself with a firearm? How do you measure them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siderman 1,131 Posted February 26, 2016 go to any range raise your right hand a recite: 1) treat all guns as if they are loaded 2)never point at anything your not willing to destroy. 3)keep your finger off the trigger untill your sights are on target 4) be sure of your target and whats behind it. then do a clean pull & hit a man size target at 20 feet. no acrobats, room clearing or run & gun,very simple, basic. yes, gotta start somewhere. If you cant do that once a year no ccw. there is something to be said of being a menace to others. there is no one answer because every person/incident will be different. without getting into rights vs privledges i wouldnt want someone driving who cant steer in a straight line either. we are a civilized society, not a free for all, gotta start somewhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
T Bill 649 Posted February 26, 2016 Texas has a practical. But how one reacts under stress is completely different from shooting at a bullseye. License to own is a problem for me, government lists. PA does not have a training requirement, and I do not here about the wild wild west scenario, either. Georgia was one of the first to aithorize CCW way back and I think the mere fact that someone maybe carrying changes the odds on opportunistic possibilities. Here in NJ we are just crime stats waiting to happen. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shane45 807 Posted February 26, 2016 These other states also have a much greater level of general firearms exposure I think. The Taboo of firearms in NJ is what helps create a lot of the common lack of ANY experience whatsoever. But fundamentally I have come to believe that the problem is that any restrictions will lead to contrivance, manipulation or further restriction. It doesn't turn into a problem for states that are pro gun, but it could! But what about states like here? Again, look at purchase permits and how out of bounds that is from the actual law. And it is done intentionally to dissuade purchases! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PK90 3,569 Posted February 26, 2016 Boy, I am REALLY glad I moved to AZ where owning and carrying a firearm, concealed or openly, does NOT require a permit or training of any kind. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jackandjill 683 Posted February 27, 2016 Dang it. I only got $162 now towards my next purchase, unless someone else comes along with funny posts. In all seriousness, I wouldnt be surprised if he was from one of the groups. They are paid and got lot of time on hand. Some of them are gun owners and know how to come up with ridiculous arguments. They got nothing better to do than go around inciting people, trying to show 2A folks in bad light. They also respond to Armslist ads asking to do illegal transactions. He would also trash NRA in every other post. Remember the anti strategy around taking on NRA. Scary thing is, there are couple of characters like that on the other "hunting" forum. And mod there doesnt seem to do anything about it. Good riddance. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekend_junkie 129 Posted February 27, 2016 I've said it here before. At my Utah permit class some girl brought her gun in so the instructor could show here how to load it. Yes she owner a handgun that she planned on carrying and she not only had ever fired a gun before she did not even know how to load it. I understand the argument that manditory training infringes on people's 2A. However I do not feel comfortable being around someone who is carrying a gun and has never even fired it. I think free qualification once a year is not a bad idea. If you can qualify you can carry if you can't qualify then you can own guns And shoot them at ranges you just can't carry. Flame suit on!I'm with you. I have a TX CHL and the 4-5 hours at least gets people familiar with the basics. If more 16 year olds were taught firearm safety, there would be fewer people like whom fishnut described. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
weekend_junkie 129 Posted February 27, 2016 Eveyone has to start somewhere. So where do we draw the line and more importantly, who gets to judge? If I am in a gunfight or involved in something where my gun is out, and I see a fellow cop or CCW holder with their gun out, my first hope is that they are a better shot, a better tactician, and better trained than I am. So, then, if it was up to me, my training level would be the lowest allowed to carry - which isn't right and shouldn't be the benchmark. Do we restrict carry to IPSC or IDPA master level shooters and above? I wouldn't make that cut. How about only folks who can shoot 200 or higher on a bullseye course? 50/50 if I would make this. So then, what are the mandatory minimum performance requirements necessary to be competent enough to protect yourself with a firearm? How do you measure them? For Texas, you basically need to get 6 shots in a 2ft circle at 15 yds. I would think anyone on this forum should be able to achieve that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n4p226r 105 Posted February 27, 2016 Eveyone has to start somewhere. So where do we draw the line and more importantly, who gets to judge? If I am in a gunfight or involved in something where my gun is out, and I see a fellow cop or CCW holder with their gun out, my first hope is that they are a better shot, a better tactician, and better trained than I am. So, then, if it was up to me, my training level would be the lowest allowed to carry - which isn't right and shouldn't be the benchmark. Do we restrict carry to IPSC or IDPA master level shooters and above? I wouldn't make that cut. How about only folks who can shoot 200 or higher on a bullseye course? 50/50 if I would make this. So then, what are the mandatory minimum performance requirements necessary to be competent enough to protect yourself with a firearm? How do you measure them? I'd be fine with what you normally suggest people looking to start with. 1. "Tactical Response" Basic fighting pistol class certificate required 2. Draw from a strong side Serpa without shooting yourself in the leg 5x 3. Draw from a holster and chamber a round with the slingshot method (since carrying chambered is dangerous)" and hit a headshot at 25 yards Israeli style Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
robot_hell 72 Posted February 27, 2016 I'd be fine with what you normally suggest people looking to start with. 1. "Tactical Response" Basic fighting pistol class certificate required 2. Draw from a strong side Serpa without shooting yourself in the leg 5x 3. Draw from a holster and chamber a round with the slingshot method (since carrying chambered is dangerous)" and hit a headshot at 25 yards Israeli style How do I slingshot a revolver? Or do I just leave the chamber under the hammer empty? Nobody needs more than 4 shots, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n4p226r 105 Posted February 27, 2016 Chamber under the hammer empty and the next chamber too. Just in case you pull the trigger on accident. You know those 640s have a hair trigger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
High Exposure 5,635 Posted February 27, 2016 I'd be fine with what you normally suggest people looking to start with. 1. "Tactical Response" Basic fighting pistol class certificate required 2. Draw from a strong side Serpa without shooting yourself in the leg 5x 3. Draw from a holster and chamber a round with the slingshot method (since carrying chambered is dangerous)" and hit a headshot at 25 yards Israeli style Excellent! I believe we have found the new NJ CCW Qualification course. Let's call Fat Boy and let him know. Did Yeager send you here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites