Opinion: Should states have mandatory training to receive CCW license?

[Discollector]

Okay, so Dr Phil. Haven't seen much of him. We don't really watch much TV anymore and right now we aren't even paying for any type of cable/satellite.

I understand how they can say that referring to certain situations, but stating something like that as an absolute just seems strange to me considering most of the time it doesn't apply. JMO
On his show and in interrogations that is probably pretty common though.

"I did everything I could to raise them right, BUT I could have disciplined them more." Now they are in prison.
"I'm an honest person, but I've been in some trouble for..."
"I didn't lie about that night, but..."

I have no idea what you're talking about, but let's act mature here:

Most intelligent people realize that there are no absolutes in studying behavior. Just because a person looks up and to their left doesn't mean they're lying (that is considered a trait of lying as liars are trying to access a certain part of their brain.) So, you look for more than a single sign and you take into account you will need other signs as well.

For example, when Donald Trump says he will negotiate and then folds his arms and holds himself, you realize that his body language is contradicting his words. It's not until you study his previous statements and actions that you understand that all of that confirms his body language. It's the same principle when people tell you one thing and then say... but. It might not be conclusive, then again, it is worth noting and looking for other actions that support your observations.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

The Right to keep and bear Arms isn't worth a plug nickle if you don't have a citizenry willing to hold the public servants and politicians accountable. So, while they are usurping powers, we can sit here, crying because the founding fathers fought, bled and died in order to establish our Republic and and most Americans today are too lazy and self absorbed to become active and DO something that will actually make a difference.

This. The 2A is one giant bluff that has been called by the government. If an AWB-II and even AWB-III were to pass, I would bet my house that no one would do anything more than have Tea Party type rally or two at their state capitols and Washington D.C. They'd congratulate themselves for being so clever with their fishing boat accidents, which precludes them from ever being able to use their felonious firearms and accessories. Sad but true.

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

Mrs. Esterhause, WHEN was the bluff called?

Was it with the National Firearms Act of 1934? (heavy tax on full autos, silencers?)

Was it the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (creation of FFL license for dealers, paperwork to be engaged in the gun biz?)

Was it with the Gun Control Act of 1968 (list of prohibited persons, mandatory FFL involvement in intestate transfers, bans cheap small imported Saturday Night Specials?)

Was it the Brady background check law?

Was it the ban on armor-piercing handgun bullets that had steel cores or other unusual construction with too little lead and too much copper or brass or tungsten?

The federal Assault Weapon Ban, 1994-2004?

Was it ATF's rulings that ended the practice of selling 80% complete machinegun kits that you could (physically, though not legally) turn into a working full auto gun in 20 minutes?)

Was it ATF's rulings and Amendments to GCA '68 that ended the practice of selling silencer do-it-yourself kits, which were legal as long as selling you the tube or body was a separate transaction from selling you the baffles / wipes / internals?)

Is it the Trump administration's ban on bumpfire or slide-fire stocks?

Point out specifically where the government (I assume you mean federal, not the various states' anti-gun schemes like CA, IL, NY and NJ have) has CALLED OUR BLUFF.

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

Mrs. Esterhause, WHEN was the bluff called?

Was it with the National Firearms Act of 1934? (heavy tax on full autos, silencers?)

Was it the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (creation of FFL license for dealers, paperwork to be engaged in the gun biz?)

Was it with the Gun Control Act of 1968 (list of prohibited persons, mandatory FFL involvement in intestate transfers, bans cheap small imported Saturday Night Specials?)

Was it the Brady background check law?

Was it the ban on armor-piercing handgun bullets that had steel cores or other unusual construction with too little lead and too much copper or brass or tungsten?

The federal Assault Weapon Ban, 1994-2004?

Was it ATF's rulings that ended the practice of selling 80% complete machinegun kits that you could (physically, though not legally) turn into a working full auto gun in 20 minutes?)

Was it ATF's rulings and Amendments to GCA '68 that ended the practice of selling silencer do-it-yourself kits, which were legal as long as selling you the tube or body was a separate transaction from selling you the baffles / wipes / internals?)

Is it the Trump administration's ban on bumpfire or slide-fire stocks?

Point out specifically where the government (I assume you mean federal, not the various states' anti-gun schemes like CA, IL, NY and NJ have) has CALLED OUR BLUFF.

All of the above. I keep hearing the total myth that the 2A is to prevent a tyrannical overreach of our rights. People keep spouting off about a "reset switch". I'm sorry, after all the bans you listed and no response of any kind from gun owners, I no longer believe the myth. It was a built in constitutional bluff that has been called and continues to be called with every ban passed, the NJ mag bad simply being the latest.

 

[Discollector]

This. The 2A is one giant bluff that has been called by the government. If an AWB-II and even AWB-III were to pass, I would bet my house that no one would do anything more than have Tea Party type rally or two at their state capitols and Washington D.C. They'd congratulate themselves for being so clever with their fishing boat accidents, which precludes them from ever being able to use their felonious firearms and accessories. Sad but true.

I agree with you wholeheartedly. Three times on this board I asked if anyone felt like me: Fed up with the compromising, losing and incremental attacks on our Rights. They were even told to PM me if they wanted to sit down and start a plan of action other than keyboard pecking. Not one taker.

Then, when the next round of major gun legislation is signed into law, the sell-outs will tell you how protected you are and how it could have been worse.

The government is no longer taking our Rights; we're GIVING them away!

 

[Mrs_Esterhouse]

Then, when the next round of major gun legislation is signed into law, the sell-outs will tell you how protected you are and how it could have been worse.

The government is no longer taking our Rights; we're GIVING them away!

With the NRA leading the charge.

 

[romans1212]

Training would be yet another tax on law abiding citizens much like the carry permit is.

 

[GrumpyGus]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I prefer that carriers be trained. The difference is this - in 1787 most people carried a gun, hunted, and were familiar with the business end of a gun. Today, we hunt at the grocery store and 80% of people above the mason dixon line have never held a gun before. They're idiots and their ability to carry a firearm with their finger on the trigger (because of movies) and one in the chamber (because of innernets) is a recipe for trouble.

I'm all for Alaska, Utah, Georgia (ex Atlanta), Texas, and Texas having constitutional carry. Most folks there can point the right direction. But most other states are chock-full of people that need to be trained first in gun safety and firing, then allowed to experience the joys of shooting.

I'm not against them having guns at home, mind you. Just carrying on their person away from home without training.

 

[Discollector]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I prefer that carriers be trained. The difference is this - in 1787 most people carried a gun, hunted, and were familiar with the business end of a gun. Today, we hunt at the grocery store and 80% of people above the mason dixon line have never held a gun before. They're idiots and their ability to carry a firearm with their finger on the trigger (because of movies) and one in the chamber (because of innernets) is a recipe for trouble.

I'm all for Alaska, Utah, Georgia (ex Atlanta), Texas, and Texas having constitutional carry. Most folks there can point the right direction. But most other states are chock-full of people that need to be trained first in gun safety and firing, then allowed to experience the joys of shooting.

I'm not against them having guns at home, mind you. Just carrying on their person away from home without training.

You're very definitely in the minority, but if you read the thread I did offer a solution that would allay your fears. Check out post # 100

 

[TheGman]

Who the **** is the “state” to approve personal defense?