Thursday, March 18, 2010

My Response to Their Response

"...Mandated training is not the enemy, yet, it could play a very important role in saving our rights in the long run. Therefore in order to protect our rights we will support mandated training whenever it is available..."

My response...not "no," but HELL NO!


Bill Rushmore said...

You tell 'em!

Their whole argument for mandatory training is based on the same rational used for every other gun control law: The People can't be trusted but of coarse you can trust the state.

Rick said...

Give me an ALLELUIA, brother Michael!

Here in Indiana, we have no required classes, and to my knowledge never have. We reimburse the local authority and state for the expense of the background check, get fingerprinted, and are then issued a license as long as we are not a felon. We even have a lifetime permit system now in effect, which is the next best thing to AK and VT style carry.

It would be interesting to compare rates of accidental shootings in Indiana to a state that has mandatory training. My guess is that we would be comparable if not lower.

I am not saying training is not advisable, but I believe that is up to the individual to decide, not the government. After all , if the individual is involved in an accidental shooting, then it is THEIR personal responsibility and will be judged based on the circumstances. A smart person will get the training needed to increase their knowledge, and don't need the government to yank on their yoke!

Atlantalawyer said...

What's really scary is to contemplate what effect that law would have had in recent real scenarios. How about Katrina? Should the citizens of New Orleans been required to take a class in the midst of a crisis before being allowed to defend themselves? What about the thousands of people every day who deploy a firearm to defend themselves or another without "adequate training."

It's like the same old argument for waiting periods. You know what question I ask every person I find who is in favor of waiting periods? "Okay, so which of these thousand women who purchased a firearm within days of an attack do you believe should have been raped and killed? Let's go track them down and see if they think they should have been made to wait."

Most states already take forever to complete their background checks anyway. Add another six months to that if you are required to take a course.

Eric said...

Preach on, brother Mike!

FatWhiteMan said...

Reminds me of those few gun dealers that support gun show restrictions so more $$$ heads their way instead.

Matthew said...

The comparisons between training and non-training states have already been done. There's no statistical correlation.

Dave S. said...

Insight's original letter encouraged their students to write their representatives in opposition to a proposed law. This concerns me, insofar as there is no indication that the persons at Insight or the majority of their students are trained writers.

I believe that mandated training in informed and responsible expression is ultimately necessary to protect our First Amendment rights to free speech. Irresponsible speech has resulted in bad laws, ruined lives, injury, death and even the ultimate overthrow of whole governments and systems.

I oppose Insight's attempts to influence legislation until they can demonstrate official certification in Logic, Rhetoric, Epistemology, Grammar, and Debate.

Joe said...

Ok so they are all for mandatory training. Ask them if they understand the 2nd amendment. Then if they say they do and still support mandatory training, ask them when they can be counted on to start supporting a drive requiring mandatory training for those who wish to say what they want about the Federal Government. Remind him that this will apply to all every citizen who has the ability to communicate, in any way possible, anything critical of the government.

Anonymous said...

these folks are asshats, hell no indeed, their commercial interests are all that is driving this

JohnJacobH said...

Man, is it just me or have we got a serious epidemic of societal "expert" fatigue?

saltydogbk said...

Mr. Bane, once again you have taken the words right out of my mouth.

Robert said...

They apparently love government mandates before exercising rights...

Does anyone want to bet on whether they registered as lobbyists with the State of Arizona in accordance with A.R.S. 41-1232?

I'm sure they don't think they need to pay before they exercise their rights.

Anonymous said...

"We work closely with numerous police and prosecutors and have been told that close to 90% of gun cases are related directly to people's
ignorance of the law or gun safety responsibilities."

Who are these idiots and why would they trot out such obvious falsehood?

KM200 said...

I got the same email response.

We believe training may very well be a key factor in retaining or losing the very right our Second Amendment provides

If these idiots believe that the antigun "media" will back off if everyone has "training" they are not only stupid but dangerous - to us!
That is their goal and has been stated more than a few times by Fineswine & Brady, just to name two. To think that you can placate the antis with ANYTHING less is stupid beyond belief!

We hear on a consistent basis from our students that they had no idea the responsibilities and liabilities they faced while exercising their Second
Amendment Rights until after taking this course, including post law enforcement

LEOs didn't know the "responsibilities and liabilities" of using deadly force??
That is one poorly trained cop!!
Maybe they should watch The Best Defense on TOC!

Moosejaw said...

I agree with the HELL NO

I grudgingly possess a carry permit....but dont feel I should have to have one based on my constitutional rights....

Dave S. said...

"If these idiots believe that the antigun "media" will back off if everyone has "training" they are not only stupid but dangerous - to us!"

You know how the media would spin that?

"Would-Be Vigilantes Receive Military-Type Training in High-Powered Weapons Use."

Unknown said...

WARNING! Spleen venting follows!


This is another case of "profit before principal". They are essentially saying 'The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed, unless it gets in the way of making a buck or two.

We had been damned by our own divisibility for years!

Some "sporting shotgun shooters" saw no "sporting purpose" in the USAS 12 or Street Sweeper 12s so they become NFA DDs.

Some hunters and shooters see no use in an AR or 50 BMG rifle so they want to push them into the realm of the NFA registered M16s so long as they can "keep their pet gun/sport/income safe".

It is ALL BS folks! We WILL loose our 2nd Amendment rights (even if incrementally so) as long as we continue to reward or stand behind ANY organization that fails to support 100% of the 2nd Amendment rights of ANY shooter in ANY firearm category!

That means if it is SASS members with their revolvers, lever actions and SXS shotguns or the 3 Gun match competitors with ARs, Glocks, and FN high cap shotguns or even the FCSA shooters with the M107 Barrett 50BMGs they are ALL safeguarding the 2nd amendment and WE (the shooting community) cannot afford to let one of them be banned.

Is "if one fails we all fail" an extreme point of view? YES! But it is the only way we will keep the Right in the face of the extremists who want to crush it.

So think on that the next time you are spending your hard earned $$$ on training or on joining any organization. This should also be in the forefront of your mind when voting!


Dr. H

Anonymous said...

Personal responsibility should prevail. That is what our culture was founded on, even though the current "Rulers" have other plans.
I'd suggest that the permit issuing activity, simply hand out copies of the law and a list of your responsibilities. Sometimes, simply giving the correct information is ALL that is required.
Making training mandatory only opens up the door for making the training impossible to pass and/or too expensive for most, if anyone, to afford. In my state, you had to "buy" your CPL, if you wanted it. That's how the CPL requirements used to be before two very Constitutionally minded Democrats(!) in my county actually reformed the policy. Those were the County Sherriff and the County Prosecutor. The third vote on whether, or not you were granted a permit still was voted "No!" and that was by our then State Police Chief. The two votes trumped the third though and reform was born in the state. The training required back then was rudimentary, but still mandatory and it cost a days wage for a skilled-tradesman. That was the only sticking point for us.
Life Member
P. S.: In the latest "National Rifleman, the NRA's magazine, it was noted that Raul Castro has a firearms turn-in "moratorium" going on now. You can turn the guns in that you've "illegally" had since 1959 and not be prosecuted (snicker!). You can also apply for a permit to keep them, but you must first pass an "aptitude and psychological" test.
See, doesn't that sound like some "common sense" gun laws?

Grunt said...

Compromise within the battle so we can present a united front breed this sort of idiot. These people need to be Zumbo'd.

KK said...

Bring me your poor, your destitute, your starving masses - and I will train them to be responsible.....and I alone will be deciding who passes go and collects their $200.

These folks are ass-hats simply trying to drum up bidnez.

You preach on Wolfbane!

Anonymous said...

They make a lot of valid points. There are a lot of dufuses out there and a lot of overconfident gun owners with the "magic talisman" in their possession. However, such a license/permit system is always "recorded" and now used to target gun owners during traffic stops and to decide how warrants are served (no knock and kick your door down). So perhaps a compromise would be a certificate given out but NOT recorded. Lack of the CCW certificate would NOT be a crime (let alone a felony) but say a civil fine like for not wearing your seatbelt. The criminalization of a lack of a "shall issue license" is BS.

This issue is huge in states with "permit/license." No amount of "Hell no" will not deal with the issue that already exists of criminalization of those who DO NOT want to give up their privacy or speedy access to their rights--which is what a licensing/permit scheme is!

The points they make will come up over and over and the "hell no" will get you nowhere. Make the issue a "training certificate" violation with a civil fine and the issues they raise goes mostly away. What does the public get: 1)reasonable privacy 2) decriminalizes the lack of a "permit" 3) non infringment of exercising your right.