User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:21:59 AM EDT
[#1]
Fuck you.
No compromises......ever |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:22:32 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope criminals don't obey the training laws. I would rather have well trained citizens, and poorly/non trained criminals. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THE GOVT CONDUCT THE TRAINING. A private org such as the NRA would suffice. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Your whole niave concept is fundamentally flawed in that it rides upon the assumption that would be criminals would obey the system. I hope criminals don't obey the training laws. I would rather have well trained citizens, and poorly/non trained criminals. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THE GOVT CONDUCT THE TRAINING. A private org such as the NRA would suffice. And would pay for all of this mandatory training? You do realize that most gun owners are not NRA members, yes? You gonna pay for this infringement out of your pocket, Mr. Gates? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:22:43 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hope criminals don't obey the training laws. I would rather have well trained citizens, and poorly/non trained criminals. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THE GOVT CONDUCT THE TRAINING. A private org such as the NRA would suffice. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Your whole niave concept is fundamentally flawed in that it rides upon the assumption that would be criminals would obey the system. I hope criminals don't obey the training laws. I would rather have well trained citizens, and poorly/non trained criminals. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THE GOVT CONDUCT THE TRAINING. A private org such as the NRA would suffice. If it was conducted by a private entity how would it be enforced? The only way it could be mandatory is if had the threat of force from the government behind it. I sure a shit wouldn't take a class just because the nra said I had too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:23:07 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You need to take a class on the acceptable forms of speech to make sure you don't misuse your free-speech First amendment rights. ...And voter education programs, to make sure voters know how to vote |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:23:17 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fuck you. No compromises......ever You ever fill out a background check when you purchase a gun? You've already compromised. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:23:50 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I certainly do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OP probably tells his friends and possibly co workers that he is pro-gun. I certainly do. I'll bet their friendship wasn't fucking mandatory, was it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:24:25 AM EDT
[#7]
I don't need your or anyone else's permission to buy a gun. No. That is all.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:25:33 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it was conducted by a private entity how would it be enforced? The only way it could be mandatory is if had the threat of force from the government behind it. I sure a shit wouldn't take a class just because the nra said I had too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your whole niave concept is fundamentally flawed in that it rides upon the assumption that would be criminals would obey the system. I hope criminals don't obey the training laws. I would rather have well trained citizens, and poorly/non trained criminals. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THE GOVT CONDUCT THE TRAINING. A private org such as the NRA would suffice. If it was conducted by a private entity how would it be enforced? The only way it could be mandatory is if had the threat of force from the government behind it. I sure a shit wouldn't take a class just because the nra said I had too. The govt could contract the NRA to conduct the training, and have the LGS comply, but have no say in how the training is conducted, nor get any info as to who is going through the classes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:27:37 AM EDT
[#9]
Someone please provide me with some good reasons beyond,
"Noone can tell me if I can buy a gun or not" and that the govt sucks. I agree that the govt sucks, that's why I'm suggesting it be done by a private entity, or even the LGS itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:30:34 AM EDT
[#10]
You know Frostburg instead of fucking around here, you should be more actively campaigning for Hillary. You are wasting for valuable time here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:31:18 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The govt could contract the NRA to conduct the training, and have the LGS comply, but have no say in how the training is conducted, nor get any info as to who is going through the classes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your whole niave concept is fundamentally flawed in that it rides upon the assumption that would be criminals would obey the system. I hope criminals don't obey the training laws. I would rather have well trained citizens, and poorly/non trained criminals. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THE GOVT CONDUCT THE TRAINING. A private org such as the NRA would suffice. If it was conducted by a private entity how would it be enforced? The only way it could be mandatory is if had the threat of force from the government behind it. I sure a shit wouldn't take a class just because the nra said I had too. The govt could contract the NRA to conduct the training, and have the LGS comply, but have no say in how the training is conducted, nor get any info as to who is going through the classes. So having no say in how the training is conducted, how would the gov't know if the LGS just stamped everybody's card, and sent them home 5 minutes later, with no training whatsoever? Redundant mandatory class is redundant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:31:26 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I certainly do. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: OP probably tells his friends and possibly co workers that he is pro-gun. I certainly do. too many idiots out there with no business owning a firearms mandatory training a way for observant trainers to identify potentially unstable individuals paperwork to obtain a gun allow potential ant-social personality types to be IDed felt there might be an issue, he could recommend the individual to a more lengthy screening process Licensing would be conducted Who the fuck do you think you're kidding? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:32:02 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You ever fill out a background check when you purchase a gun? You've already compromised. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Fuck you. No compromises......ever You ever fill out a background check when you purchase a gun? You've already compromised. Maybe, or maybe not. My answer to you is still, fuck you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:33:54 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So having no say in how the training is conducted, how would the gov't know if the LGS just stamped everybody's card, and sent them home 5 minutes later, with no training whatsoever? Redundant mandatory class is redundant. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your whole niave concept is fundamentally flawed in that it rides upon the assumption that would be criminals would obey the system. I hope criminals don't obey the training laws. I would rather have well trained citizens, and poorly/non trained criminals. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THE GOVT CONDUCT THE TRAINING. A private org such as the NRA would suffice. If it was conducted by a private entity how would it be enforced? The only way it could be mandatory is if had the threat of force from the government behind it. I sure a shit wouldn't take a class just because the nra said I had too. The govt could contract the NRA to conduct the training, and have the LGS comply, but have no say in how the training is conducted, nor get any info as to who is going through the classes. So having no say in how the training is conducted, how would the gov't know if the LGS just stamped everybody's card, and sent them home 5 minutes later, with no training whatsoever? Redundant mandatory class is redundant. You could have an NRA trainer come down to the LGS to conduct the class, or have an employee of the LGS be NRA certified. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:34:42 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Someone please provide me with some good reasons beyond, "Noone can tell me if I can buy a gun or not" and that the govt sucks. I agree that the govt sucks, that's why I'm suggesting it be done by a private entity, or even the LGS itself. How about a good reason to shut up and go away? First reason - Nobody likes you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:35:55 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about a good reason to shut up and go away? First reason - Nobody likes you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Someone please provide me with some good reasons beyond, "Noone can tell me if I can buy a gun or not" and that the govt sucks. I agree that the govt sucks, that's why I'm suggesting it be done by a private entity, or even the LGS itself. How about a good reason to shut up and go away? First reason - Nobody likes you. Great reasoning skills you got there. At least make an effort to argue against me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:36:20 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Great reasoning skills you got there. At least make an effort to argue against me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone please provide me with some good reasons beyond, "Noone can tell me if I can buy a gun or not" and that the govt sucks. I agree that the govt sucks, that's why I'm suggesting it be done by a private entity, or even the LGS itself. How about a good reason to shut up and go away? First reason - Nobody likes you. Great reasoning skills you got there. At least make an effort to argue against me. It's more fun for me to fuck with you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:36:59 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You ever fill out a background check when you purchase a gun? You've already compromised. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Fuck you. No compromises......ever You ever fill out a background check when you purchase a gun? You've already compromised. So we should...compromise more?  People like you are to blame for the shit we already have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:37:11 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
snip.... You could have an NRA trainer come down to the LGS to conduct the class, or have an employee of the LGS be NRA certified. But the NRA is contracted through the government, remember? Gun shops can't shred 4473's the second a person clears a background check, can they? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:37:19 AM EDT
[#20]
And how will the gov enforce it off that nra certified instructor just rubber stamps everyone because he believes rights trump feelings? How will the gov identify who was rubber stamped and who wasn't?
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:37:51 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's more fun for me to fuck with you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone please provide me with some good reasons beyond, "Noone can tell me if I can buy a gun or not" and that the govt sucks. I agree that the govt sucks, that's why I'm suggesting it be done by a private entity, or even the LGS itself. How about a good reason to shut up and go away? First reason - Nobody likes you. Great reasoning skills you got there. At least make an effort to argue against me. It's more fun for me to fuck with you. Not really bothered by it. Just wondering if anyone can offer me an actual objection to this idea, if not, then I can assume that no one has an actual reason to dismiss this idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:38:54 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not really bothered by it. Just wondering if anyone can offer me an actual objection to this idea, if not, then I can assume that no one has an actual reason to dismiss this idea. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone please provide me with some good reasons beyond, "Noone can tell me if I can buy a gun or not" and that the govt sucks. I agree that the govt sucks, that's why I'm suggesting it be done by a private entity, or even the LGS itself. How about a good reason to shut up and go away? First reason - Nobody likes you. Great reasoning skills you got there. At least make an effort to argue against me. It's more fun for me to fuck with you. Not really bothered by it. Just wondering if anyone can offer me an actual objection to this idea, if not, then I can assume that no one has an actual reason to dismiss this idea. We don't care what you think, about anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:39:23 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And how will the gov enforce it off that nra certified instructor just rubber stamps everyone because he believes rights trump feelings? How will the gov identify who was rubber stamped and who wasn't? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile No way to really check that. Just hope the NRA does its job on good faith. Or a small fine if they get caught not doing it. Better than nothing, honestly. I don't want the govt involved more than anyone else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:40:19 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not really bothered by it. Just wondering if anyone can offer me an actual objection to this idea, if not, then I can assume that no one has an actual reason to dismiss this idea. In your mind, what do you think your idea would accomplish? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:40:56 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No way to really check that. Just hope the NRA does its job on good faith. Or a small fine if they get caught not doing it. Better than nothing, honestly. I don't want the govt involved more than anyone else. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And how will the gov enforce it off that nra certified instructor just rubber stamps everyone because he believes rights trump feelings? How will the gov identify who was rubber stamped and who wasn't? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile No way to really check that. Just hope the NRA does its job on good faith. Or a small fine if they get caught not doing it. Better than nothing, honestly. I don't want the govt involved more than anyone else. But you want them involved enough that they fine the instructor for misbehaving? Yeah, you want the government involved more than you think you do. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:41:11 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not really bothered by it. Just wondering if anyone can offer me an actual objection to this idea, if not, then I can assume that no one has an actual reason to dismiss this idea. It's tough to pick one reason. You've got the paperwork, the mandatory training, the licensing, the further scrutiny if the trainer feels someone doesn't qualify to exercise their rights... You're gun grabbing scum, even by arfcom's loose standards. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:41:32 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not really bothered by it. Just wondering if anyone can offer me an actual objection to this idea, if not, then I can assume that no one has an actual reason to dismiss this idea. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone please provide me with some good reasons beyond, "Noone can tell me if I can buy a gun or not" and that the govt sucks. I agree that the govt sucks, that's why I'm suggesting it be done by a private entity, or even the LGS itself. How about a good reason to shut up and go away? First reason - Nobody likes you. Great reasoning skills you got there. At least make an effort to argue against me. It's more fun for me to fuck with you. Not really bothered by it. Just wondering if anyone can offer me an actual objection to this idea, if not, then I can assume that no one has an actual reason to dismiss this idea. Who does the mental evaluations? By what standards? How do we prevent abuse of that position? How do we enforce it? What if a guy is an antisocial personalty type but poses no danger to others? Do we deny him his rights because he might fit a dangerous personality type? Who pays for his lawyer and court appeal when Joe blow instructor wrongly decides he should be barred from purchasing a firearm? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:41:37 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not really bothered by it. Just wondering if anyone can offer me an actual objection to this idea, if not, then I can assume that no one has an actual reason to dismiss this idea. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Someone please provide me with some good reasons beyond, "Noone can tell me if I can buy a gun or not" and that the govt sucks. I agree that the govt sucks, that's why I'm suggesting it be done by a private entity, or even the LGS itself. How about a good reason to shut up and go away? First reason - Nobody likes you. Great reasoning skills you got there. At least make an effort to argue against me. It's more fun for me to fuck with you. Not really bothered by it. Just wondering if anyone can offer me an actual objection to this idea, if not, then I can assume that no one has an actual reason to dismiss this idea. People have already offered numerous reasons, you're just too obtuse to listen. No need to argue you. Filth like you are the reason I sent the NRA $1000 today for a Life Membership. It's also the reason the NRA is having record high membership numbers AND record high donations. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:42:11 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No way to really check that. Just hope the NRA does its job on good faith. Or a small fine if they get caught not doing it. Better than nothing, honestly. I don't want the govt involved more than anyone else. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And how will the gov enforce it off that nra certified instructor just rubber stamps everyone because he believes rights trump feelings? How will the gov identify who was rubber stamped and who wasn't? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile No way to really check that. Just hope the NRA does its job on good faith. Or a small fine if they get caught not doing it. Better than nothing, honestly. I don't want the govt involved more than anyone else. When you go back to DU and claim victory, tell pajama boy that we said hello. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:43:48 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But you want them involved enough that they fine the instructor for misbehaving? Yeah, you want the government involved more than you think you do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
And how will the gov enforce it off that nra certified instructor just rubber stamps everyone because he believes rights trump feelings? How will the gov identify who was rubber stamped and who wasn't? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile No way to really check that. Just hope the NRA does its job on good faith. Or a small fine if they get caught not doing it. Better than nothing, honestly. I don't want the govt involved more than anyone else. But you want them involved enough that they fine the instructor for misbehaving? Yeah, you want the government involved more than you think you do. Hes wasting tax dollars on an unenforceable program based around the honesty system? ?? Right... Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:44:15 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's tough to pick one reason. You've got the paperwork, the mandatory training, the licensing, the further scrutiny if the trainer feels someone doesn't qualify to exercise their rights... You're gun grabbing scum, even by arfcom's loose standards. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not really bothered by it. Just wondering if anyone can offer me an actual objection to this idea, if not, then I can assume that no one has an actual reason to dismiss this idea. It's tough to pick one reason. You've got the paperwork, the mandatory training, the licensing, the further scrutiny if the trainer feels someone doesn't qualify to exercise their rights... You're gun grabbing scum, even by arfcom's loose standards. Mandatory training doesn't count as a specific reason against. You're just stating my idea. The paperwork would be about the same as the instant background check if done right. Licensing while being a burden, it would preclude you from ever having to do an instant background check again. The scrutiny would be heavily checked with actual reasons, and the right of the citizen to defend him or herself. And, I have plenty of personal firearms, thank you very much. I'm no gun grabber. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:45:07 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mandatory training doesn't count as a specific reason against. You're just stating my idea. The paperwork would be about the same as the instant background check if done right. Licensing while being a burden, it would preclude you from ever having to do an instant background check again. The scrutiny would be heavily checked with actual reasons, and the right of the citizen to defend him or herself. And, I have plenty of personal firearms, thank you very much. I'm no gun grabber. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not really bothered by it. Just wondering if anyone can offer me an actual objection to this idea, if not, then I can assume that no one has an actual reason to dismiss this idea. It's tough to pick one reason. You've got the paperwork, the mandatory training, the licensing, the further scrutiny if the trainer feels someone doesn't qualify to exercise their rights... You're gun grabbing scum, even by arfcom's loose standards. Mandatory training doesn't count as a specific reason against. You're just stating my idea. The paperwork would be about the same as the instant background check if done right. Licensing while being a burden, it would preclude you from ever having to do an instant background check again. The scrutiny would be heavily checked with actual reasons, and the right of the citizen to defend him or herself. And, I have plenty of personal firearms, thank you very much. I'm no gun grabber. My state charges 25.00 for a free NICS check. What's to stop them from doing the same for your stupid class? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:45:21 AM EDT
[#33]
No mandatory training, its right.
I would rather see a firearms training class in every high school where students learn safety,marksmanship and the relevant laws applicable to firearms and self defense etc. The firearms education equivalent to sex ed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:46:08 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mandatory training doesn't count as a specific reason against. You're just stating my idea. The paperwork would be about the same as the instant background check if done right. Licensing while being a burden, it would preclude you from ever having to do an instant background check again. The scrutiny would be heavily checked with actual reasons, and the right of the citizen to defend him or herself. And, I have plenty of personal firearms, thank you very much. I'm no gun grabber. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not really bothered by it. Just wondering if anyone can offer me an actual objection to this idea, if not, then I can assume that no one has an actual reason to dismiss this idea. It's tough to pick one reason. You've got the paperwork, the mandatory training, the licensing, the further scrutiny if the trainer feels someone doesn't qualify to exercise their rights... You're gun grabbing scum, even by arfcom's loose standards. Mandatory training doesn't count as a specific reason against. You're just stating my idea. The paperwork would be about the same as the instant background check if done right. Licensing while being a burden, it would preclude you from ever having to do an instant background check again. The scrutiny would be heavily checked with actual reasons, and the right of the citizen to defend him or herself. And, I have plenty of personal firearms, thank you very much. I'm no gun grabber. Maybe we should limit those other pesky and dangerous rights too. Shit, what would be the harm in just tattooing our license numbers right on our forearm for quick verification? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:47:16 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about a good reason to shut up and go away? First reason - Nobody likes you. Yeah? Well what would you know about it 15er?! Some of us have been here over a decade and have been in the trenches fighting like hell. Of course I don't mean me. What's my last name? Nobody knows. Do you know why? Because my character isn't important enough for a last name, because I'm gonna die five minutes in. Is there air? You don't know! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:47:40 AM EDT
[#36]
What happens when the gov decides that relatively harmless mental disorders like obsessive compulsive disorder, stress,minor depression, and autism are reasons for instructors to red flag people?
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:47:46 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No mandatory training, its right. I would rather see a firearms training class in every high school where students learn safety,marksmanship and the relevant laws applicable to firearms and self defense etc. The firearms education equivalent to sex ed. I have no problem with training classes in H.S. as an acceptable alternative to my idea. And as for a fee, my idea is free. No fee. No govt. Just a class to ensure proficiency, and some creep deterrence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:48:08 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mandatory training doesn't count as a specific reason against. You're just stating my idea. The paperwork would be about the same as the instant background check if done right. Licensing while being a burden, it would preclude you from ever having to do an instant background check again. The scrutiny would be heavily checked with actual reasons, and the right of the citizen to defend him or herself. And, I have plenty of personal firearms, thank you very much. I'm no gun grabber. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not really bothered by it. Just wondering if anyone can offer me an actual objection to this idea, if not, then I can assume that no one has an actual reason to dismiss this idea. It's tough to pick one reason. You've got the paperwork, the mandatory training, the licensing, the further scrutiny if the trainer feels someone doesn't qualify to exercise their rights... You're gun grabbing scum, even by arfcom's loose standards. Mandatory training doesn't count as a specific reason against. You're just stating my idea. The paperwork would be about the same as the instant background check if done right. Licensing while being a burden, it would preclude you from ever having to do an instant background check again. The scrutiny would be heavily checked with actual reasons, and the right of the citizen to defend him or herself. And, I have plenty of personal firearms, thank you very much. I'm no gun grabber. Right. You're just a gun owner in favor of "sensible" gun laws. Bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:48:16 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mandatory training doesn't count as a specific reason against. You're just stating my idea. The paperwork would be about the same as the instant background check if done right. Licensing while being a burden, it would preclude you from ever having to do an instant background check again. The scrutiny would be heavily checked with actual reasons, and the right of the citizen to defend him or herself. And, I have plenty of personal firearms, thank you very much. I'm no gun grabber. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not really bothered by it. Just wondering if anyone can offer me an actual objection to this idea, if not, then I can assume that no one has an actual reason to dismiss this idea. It's tough to pick one reason. You've got the paperwork, the mandatory training, the licensing, the further scrutiny if the trainer feels someone doesn't qualify to exercise their rights... You're gun grabbing scum, even by arfcom's loose standards. Mandatory training doesn't count as a specific reason against. You're just stating my idea. The paperwork would be about the same as the instant background check if done right. Licensing while being a burden, it would preclude you from ever having to do an instant background check again. The scrutiny would be heavily checked with actual reasons, and the right of the citizen to defend him or herself. And, I have plenty of personal firearms, thank you very much. I'm no gun grabber. A CCW license accomplishes all of that. Except for the registering guns part. Report back to whoever sent you here that you have failed miserably. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:48:34 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and take this with you for the ride....... http://i1083.photobucket.com/albums/j390/m40hog/bagodicks.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How about - Fuck you 
Head on back to DU with this "mandatory" bullshit. and take this with you for the ride....... http://i1083.photobucket.com/albums/j390/m40hog/bagodicks.jpg The OP is throwing out a hypothetical discussion. nO reason to shit on him and insult. Dont take part if you dont like it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:48:39 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
I know this post is going to generate tons of heat, so I post this with a fair bit of warning. I'm not a huge proponent of mandatory gun training for prospective gun buyers, but it is something I've thought about. I think we all agree that good training is important to a firearms owner. There are too many idiots out there with no business owning a firearms. People too incompetent, or worse, people like the guy in Oregon. I'm starting to think that not only would mandatory training help ensure that owners are more competent, but also be a way for observant trainers to identify potentially unstable individuals. I think this could be a win-win. Most criminals don't go through the paperwork to obtain a gun, and most would avoid any mandatory training that comes with it. This would increase the odds in the favor of the legal owner when it comes to a deadly confrontation. Not only that, but mandatory training would allow potential ant-social personality types to be IDed. I'm not saying that the trainer could necessarily stop someone from completing training, but if he felt there might be an issue, he could recommend the individual to a more lengthy screening process, just to be certain that the person isn't dangerous. I know there are people who would argue that this would mean registration. It doesn't have to. Licensing would be conducted, and no records would be sent kept by the Govt. I mean, think about it. Every time you go to a LGS, you fill out a form for an instant background check. The govt still doesn't keep a record of your purchase. The class and licensing would be done in the same manner. The govt wouldn't keep a record, the purchaser would, and he would simply show the license to the LGS on every purchase. The class should be offered for free, just like hunter safety courses are. Thoughts? My thoughts? Everything you just said is bull ****. I rest my case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:48:41 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What happens when the gov decides that relatively harmless mental disorders like obsessive compulsive disorder, stress,minor depression, and autism are reasons for instructors to red flag people? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Because the govt would have no say in how the training, or screening would work. The NRA or another gun friendly group would. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:48:54 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mandatory training doesn't count as a specific reason against. You're just stating my idea. The paperwork would be about the same as the instant background check if done right. Licensing while being a burden, it would preclude you from ever having to do an instant background check again. The scrutiny would be heavily checked with actual reasons, and the right of the citizen to defend him or herself. And, I have plenty of personal firearms, thank you very much. I'm no gun grabber. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not really bothered by it. Just wondering if anyone can offer me an actual objection to this idea, if not, then I can assume that no one has an actual reason to dismiss this idea. It's tough to pick one reason. You've got the paperwork, the mandatory training, the licensing, the further scrutiny if the trainer feels someone doesn't qualify to exercise their rights... You're gun grabbing scum, even by arfcom's loose standards. Mandatory training doesn't count as a specific reason against. You're just stating my idea. The paperwork would be about the same as the instant background check if done right. Licensing while being a burden, it would preclude you from ever having to do an instant background check again. The scrutiny would be heavily checked with actual reasons, and the right of the citizen to defend him or herself. And, I have plenty of personal firearms, thank you very much. I'm no gun grabber. It might preclude you from having to do a background check again, but it wouldn't preclude you from having to do one to begin with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:49:58 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have no problem with training classes in H.S. as an acceptable alternative to my idea. And as for a fee, my idea is free. No fee. No govt. Just a class to ensure proficiency, and some creep deterrence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No mandatory training, its right. I would rather see a firearms training class in every high school where students learn safety,marksmanship and the relevant laws applicable to firearms and self defense etc. The firearms education equivalent to sex ed. I have no problem with training classes in H.S. as an acceptable alternative to my idea. And as for a fee, my idea is free. No fee. No govt. Just a class to ensure proficiency, and some creep deterrence. Define creep... Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:50:02 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A CCW license accomplishes all of that. Except for the registering guns part. Report back to whoever sent you here that you have failed miserably. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not really bothered by it. Just wondering if anyone can offer me an actual objection to this idea, if not, then I can assume that no one has an actual reason to dismiss this idea. It's tough to pick one reason. You've got the paperwork, the mandatory training, the licensing, the further scrutiny if the trainer feels someone doesn't qualify to exercise their rights... You're gun grabbing scum, even by arfcom's loose standards. Mandatory training doesn't count as a specific reason against. You're just stating my idea. The paperwork would be about the same as the instant background check if done right. Licensing while being a burden, it would preclude you from ever having to do an instant background check again. The scrutiny would be heavily checked with actual reasons, and the right of the citizen to defend him or herself. And, I have plenty of personal firearms, thank you very much. I'm no gun grabber. A CCW license accomplishes all of that. Except for the registering guns part. Report back to whoever sent you here that you have failed miserably. I said nothing about registration. I am against registration of any kind. It's simply a laminated card which says you are competent to handle a gun. That's it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:50:11 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
How about a good reason to shut up and go away? First reason - Nobody likes you. Yeah? Well what would you know about it 15er?! Some of us have been here over a decade and have been in the trenches fighting like hell. Of course I don't mean me. What's my last name? Nobody knows. Do you know why? Because my character isn't important enough for a last name, because I'm gonna die five minutes in. Is there air? You don't know! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:50:42 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and take this with you for the ride....... http://i1083.photobucket.com/albums/j390/m40hog/bagodicks.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How about - Fuck you
Head on back to DU with this "mandatory" bullshit. and take this with you for the ride....... http://i1083.photobucket.com/albums/j390/m40hog/bagodicks.jpg The OP is throwing out a hypothetical discussion. nO reason to shit on him and insult. Dont take part if you dont like it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:50:46 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah? Well what would you know about it 15er?! Some of us have been here over a decade and have been in the trenches fighting like hell. Of course I don't mean me. What's my last name? Nobody knows. Do you know why? Because my character isn't important enough for a last name, because I'm gonna die five minutes in. Is there air? You don't know! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How about a good reason to shut up and go away? First reason - Nobody likes you. Yeah? Well what would you know about it 15er?! Some of us have been here over a decade and have been in the trenches fighting like hell. Of course I don't mean me. What's my last name? Nobody knows. Do you know why? Because my character isn't important enough for a last name, because I'm gonna die five minutes in. Is there air? You don't know! You know that Captain America meme where he says "I understood that reference". I am the opposite of that meme right now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:51:27 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mandatory training doesn't count as a specific reason against. You're just stating my idea. The paperwork would be about the same as the instant background check if done right. Licensing while being a burden, it would preclude you from ever having to do an instant background check again. The scrutiny would be heavily checked with actual reasons, and the right of the citizen to defend him or herself. And, I have plenty of personal firearms, thank you very much. I'm no gun grabber. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Not really bothered by it. Just wondering if anyone can offer me an actual objection to this idea, if not, then I can assume that no one has an actual reason to dismiss this idea. It's tough to pick one reason. You've got the paperwork, the mandatory training, the licensing, the further scrutiny if the trainer feels someone doesn't qualify to exercise their rights... You're gun grabbing scum, even by arfcom's loose standards. Mandatory training doesn't count as a specific reason against. You're just stating my idea. The paperwork would be about the same as the instant background check if done right. Licensing while being a burden, it would preclude you from ever having to do an instant background check again. The scrutiny would be heavily checked with actual reasons, and the right of the citizen to defend him or herself. And, I have plenty of personal firearms, thank you very much. I'm no gun grabber. You're a gun grabber to the core. Owning guns is no shield from that label. There should be no paperwork. There should be no licensing. There should be no background checks. You registered here three years ago and made 886 posts to piss the effort away on this? Bloomberg is dumping that fucking money down a hole. I'm tempted to look for a job in his organization, honestly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/4/2015 2:51:34 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The OP is throwing out a hypothetical discussion. nO reason to shit on him and insult. Dont take part if you dont like it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How about - Fuck you
Head on back to DU with this "mandatory" bullshit. and take this with you for the ride....... http://i1083.photobucket.com/albums/j390/m40hog/bagodicks.jpg The OP is throwing out a hypothetical discussion. nO reason to shit on him and insult. Dont take part if you dont like it. He's trolling. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
