Some people you can't unfuck.

You are pathetic. Glad to see you dont have an answer that can combat any of what was presented othen than its my right. Well its "my right" to have a different opinion and understanding of laws and responsibility.

Good day sir.

OK, I get it. The MN law was to have training requirements and the AACFI guys stepped in and monopolized who could teach that training.

I certainly think that I got my money's worth in that course, so I have no bitch with AACFI. Two words are still stuck in my mind ... "reluctant participant". In addition to that, what to do after a self defense shooting was extremely good info that most people don't know.

About mandatory training.... I'm on the fence on that one. I see your point very well...it IS a right, and rights apply to everyone equally, not just those who fulfill some prerequisite. OTOH, I can see the point of training requirements. In a perfect world, people would all voluntarily get training... but we know that won't happen. Just because someone can now legally OC without training doesn't mean they know WTF they're doing. There are responsible people in this world, and just as many irresponsible people... those are the ones I worry about.

But it IS a right. Rights shouldn't have prerquisites, but they DO have responsibilities to exercise them properly.

What I'd like to see in WI, is AK/AZ type CC. I'd like the option of getting a 'resident' permit for reciprocity. If we get VT carry, I'm fine with that too. I'll just renew my non-res permits. If we get shall-issue, I'm OK with that too, because I'm one of the responsible people who will get training on my own.

You shouldn't have to get a permit in my opinion.  VT AK AZ allow carry with no permit and I think WY is trying to pass making a permit optional.  Are these states the wild west?  Is there blood in the streets?  Many states have no training requirement or except permits from states that have no training requirement, where is all the chaos you speak of?  FL has a training requirement which my hunters safety class fills.  In hunter safety they don't teach force continuum, is it the wild west?

Don't get me wrong I believe in firearms training more than most people and have countless hours put in over the last 5 years but that doesn't mean the gov should force it to exercise a right.  Does this make me an irresponsible gun owner too?  

By your standard you should have to have mandatory training just to own a firearm you may use for self defense.  Opportunity, ability and intent still apply.  That criteria should be used whether you use a firearm, knife, baseball bat, car or any other method of defending yourself.  

There may be restrictions on the 2nd but that doesn't mean it is right nor should I have to get used to it.  We are our own worst enemies when it come to allowing our rights to slip away.  


Brian

You had ample opportunity to provide an answer, but you resorted to insults, obfuscations, and strawmen.  The second you started running off at the keyboard instead of saying "Whoops, I mistyped..." or "You're right, what I meant was..." you lost all credibility.  You've just dug yourself deeper with each further word.

Learn how the quote button works, provide point/counterpoint instead of general platitudes and attempted e-penis measurements, and MAYBE we can then have a civil conversation.

Till then...

Ding!  ...sorta.

I think it was slimy that the supposed leaders of the states RKBA group wrote a commercial windfall into a bill that was supposedly there to help get people packing.  If anything, they should have left the trainer certification open to damn near anyone, and only set the curriculum.  Optionally, something like Florida's system where any gun safety course + a signature on the ap that the applicant has read, and will abide by the UoF/DF laws of the sate would have sufficed (and made the permit process much more affordable).



It can vary greatly from instructor to instructor whether that happens or not.  The AACFI UoF/DF curriculum is not terrible, at least as it applies to MN.  Firearms training it is not.  A barely adequate overview of the law so that you can apply for a permit?  Sure.



On the latter, it is an instructor's opinion, only.  I don't know what they're teaching right now, but if it isn't "STFU" and lawyer up, it's wrong.

On the former, realize that it is a vagary of MN law specifically.  That, along with what legally constitutes "great bodily harm", is probably worth the course cost.



This is good.



Those same folks drive 3000#(+) killing machines, vote, and procreate.  Ya can't really do anything about it until they hurt someone else (i.e. their rights infringe on those of another).



...and there is a process to deal with those who don't.  I can think of  a dozen states that have no training requirement whatsoever to carry a gun with/without a permit.  There may be restrictions on where, who, what, and how, but "training" is not a statutory requirement.

I kinda like that, and it directly refutes anyone's assertions that some sort of comprehensive knowledge of the law (let alone a formal class for the same) is a "necessity" before a person can exercise their RKBA.



I have no problem with this, nor do folks like Rogue1 (I'm pretty sure).  We're both pretty hardcore absolutists when it comes to rights, what they are, and what they are not.  We'd both love to see more folks train.  Hell, I think I need more training.  That doesn't change the fact that we have the opportunity here to remove an outdated CCW prohibition with little to no opposition, and put an optional permit system in at a later date.

To get a good constitutional / no-permit law, it'll be necessary to repeal more than just 941.23. The unloaded  / cased in a vehicle needs repeal, so does the GFSZ., otherwise, what's the point? There's still the problem of the federal GFSZ. To carry within the federal GFSZzone, a permit is required. There's nothing that WI can do about that one, except issue permits.

I'd like to see something done very very soon. I've learned to "never underestimate your enemy", and if the very pissed off and well funded Dems are successful in recalling and replacing 3 Repub Senators more than Dems who may get recalled, there goes CCW down the drain... again!  After the last 3 attempts got thwarted when everyone was sure that "this time" we'll win, and totally unexpected shit killed our bills each time... I'm a little (pardon the pun) gun-shy about the whole thing. The Assembly is safe, Walker is safe... the Senate? not so sure. The ironic part is, in the last two CCW attempts, only the Senate stood firm and overrode the governors veto, but it was the Assembly that failed. This time we've got a sure thing with the Gov and Assembly, and now only the Senate (because of the possibility of recalls)  has the least bit of doubt.  A CCW bill needs to get through the Senate ASAP!!!!

OK lets start this out correctly. I have given you answers. You are choosing to ignore them by deflecting. You are pathetic. I will not say "I mistyped" because I didnt, I will not say that "you are right" because I have an opinion that does not go with yours. You live in some la-la land where if people dont put words in your order they dont exist.  No matter how much you cry foul and try to play the victim it will not work on me. I dont fall for stupid tactics that libs try to pull. As for your "e-penis" remark I dont need to measure since you refuse to address any point that I brought up after I answered your questions.

You lose this conversation because I refuse to post what you want to read. I DO NOT HAVE THE SAME VIEWS AND OPINIONS AS YOU! GET OVER IT! I have given you answers but I am feeling generous and will go over it with you point by point so you can understand. I know you will ignore it like you did everything else but I will at least try.

1. The right to bear arms (with limitations)
         - you cannot own Nukes, bombs, missles (fact)
         - felons cannot own firearms (fact)
         - multiple states have other restrictions that are not illegal (fact)
         - many states have actual permits you must get (not illegal) (fact)
         - other states with CCW have restrictions (not illegal) (fact)    

Just like many other "rights" that have limitations

for example:

the first ammendment
         - free speech/ but you cant slander/ cant yell fire in a movie theatre
         - free press/ but you cant write liable things
         - free assembly/ but no right to collectivly bargain

There are reasonable limitations put in rights, society in WI elects people to decide those limitations.

For someone who claims the right to bear arms you are pretty quick to give up those rights when someone else besides me says it.    

Wow way to put words in my mouth. Liberal tactic much? I never said any of that.

Nope. You seem to be able to formulate sentences and understand words like a normal person who takes training courses. Such as your Opp Abil and Intent/Jeopardy comment


I simply am saying that uniformed people on the use of force continuum and WI laws are not going to know how to legally and responsibly CCW. This can and will come to haunt us.
Driving is a privledge that you take many hours of classes and training on mandated by the state on all levels. So that doesnt really count.
Up until we get CCW WI's only way to defend yourself is with a bat, a knife, and other such items (OC if you want to get technical).  Out in public that is. But you still cant CCW any of those items. Should you get training for defensive purposes on those? No because neither of which can kill someone from any distance over 3 ft with its original use. A firearm however is a weapon that can kill people great distances and should have reasinable lomits and standards IMO.

Agreed.



Most likely it's unenforceable under Heller (the re-enactment under Lopez was already tenuous at best), but even if it was, it would require the active cooperation of federal and local police to prosecute. In VT, AZ, AK, and everywhere else that non-resident permits* are honored, it hasn't been a problem.

*Non-resident permits are not valid in a GFSZ.



Agreed again.

You made a statement of fact that was false, and I corrected it with examples.

From page 1-2:



My response:



You dug yourself further:



Notice how none of those things is required for a permit issued in the states I mentioned?  Your answer was insufficient to refute the point I made.  You then went on to respond with reasons why your opinion was correct with differing examples instead of addressing the original point.

In debate, this is called a "strawman".



And again with the insults.  Tsk tsk.



Nothing I stated originally about training not being a requirement to get a permit in the states I listed was an opinion.  You posted information that was materially and demonstrably false.. twice.  That it is your opinion doesn't change the fact that it is not truth.



Words have meaning.



I'm not sure how to address this, or what it's reffering to unless it is in reference to the insults.  I have a sense of common decency and would like to be treated with a bit of respect... especially when it comes to how I handle myself and my responsibility when it comes to firearms.  It is doubly offensive when someone who (AFAIK) I have never met or shot with accuses me of being irresponsible around guns and other people's lives.

If you want, I can tell you that your opinion is not fact, you seem to have that all fucked up, and need to shut your cockholster until you can figure out the difference.  Would that make you think I'm not playing the victim?



You still haven't provided an adequate counter to my original point, namely that training is not universally necessary for a permit (let alone to exercise a right).



Umad?

I could care less what your opinion is.  You've made statements of fact that are demonstrable false, and not only left them uncorrected, but continue to insist that they are correct because they are your opinion.  Again, words have meaning.



You should start at the beginning of this post.



I have simply focused on the original point, and attempted to engage you on that single issue (though you are very likely to end up on my "ignore" list after this).  While you maintain that the points below are relevant,  this is called a "strawman argument" in debate.  They actually have nothing to do with the original discussion.



Again, these things are a separate topic from your original statements.  I danced with them a bit, but kept coming back to the original.



Wow.  While I appreciate your attempt at using the quote button just this once, proper form would be to include the context.  When that is done, my statement has absolutely nothing to do with rights (again, part of the strawman you set up), and is rather commentary on the classroom curriculum of a specific company.



This stuff  is still slightly relevant because it was part of the original interchange.  I will state the caveat that I was not there, but will follow up by imparting I was one of the first in WI to take a class from an AACFI instructor, and became very interested in how it all went down when the MNSC struck down the law.  I reviewed the legislative history, spoke with other (non AACFI) MN CCW instructors, and did my own research because it was very relevant to my interests at that time.



The training requirements were written into the law before passage.  AACFI was named specifically.  Cronyism, not capitalism was at work.
         


While I have no input on their laws, the process on how they came about is a concern... because the same folks that helped get MN's laws on the books have been "helping" behind the scenes here in Wisconsin ever since.  Any informed RKBA advocate would be wise to look long and hard at what worked, what didn't, and who made money as a result of back room deals there so that it the same mistakes won't happen here.



I have a non-res MN CCW permit, travel there frequently for business, and have paid for the privilege to CCW there legally. I have taken multiple carry courses that qualify for MN's CCW permit...  AACFI was one.  My unhappiness with the course came in retrospect, but the lack of good information on some subjects was bothersome even at the time I took it. There are alternatives to AACFI for MN CCW permits, and savvy consumers can now find them.



Is that another statement of fact?



Believe me, I've thought about it.



Again with the strawman.
             


This would be the e-penis measuring that I was talking about.  Do you know me, or are you speculating?



Thanks for bring it all back home at the end.  Now that you've made the assertion, go back to the beginning and back it up with something other than your opinion.













Edits for content, clarity, spelling, grammar, formatting, yada.
2nd Edit:  For a long read of the AACFI/PPA saga, click here.  The formatting sucks, but read through and click "next" at the end of each page.  It's an archive of the discussions that were going on in 2003 when the MN PPA passed.  Somewhere in the middle, there's a reprint of the Mpls Star-Tribune's article "Trainer's role in new gun law questioned."  That article is also available separately with a few comments over in the archives at TFL.  Just an FYI.

I at no point intended to put words in your mouth.  I was simply asking questions based off comments in this thread you have made.  For instance:

"Why should someone have to get training to carry? So they dont go around breaking the law and infringing on my rights to life. If some guy doenst realize that he is resposible for the bullets he shoots, he could be getting mugged and start shooting wildly and one of his rounds hits and kills you or one of your loved ones. If he had an understanding of the laws he would be more cautious knowing that he could be put into jail and or sued civilly. Your right to protect yourself does not make you immune to responsibility in not harming other people."

A guess  statement like this would make me think of blood in the streets and possible chaos. And you did use the phrase wild west.  So you saying I was using some type of liberal tactic was just a way not to answer the question, btw what exactly makes something a liberal tactic?  

Here is another question for you.  Can you show me proof that the states that have a mandatory training requirement which would include a use of deadly force component in there curriculum have less innocent bystanders getting shot by ccw holders than states that do not have that component or have a zero training requirement.  



I will agree with you that a firearm is a distance weapon, but use of deadly force applies at any distance with any weapon.  You still failed to answer my question about your average gun owner that may use their firearm to defend themselves on their property:  Should they be required to get training?  

You can keep believing that mandatory training is necessary  but if you expect me to believe it too then we will both be wrong.  

If you let the gov make you jump through hoops and pay money to excercise your rights are they really your rights anymore?  Or are they becoming a privilege?

Brian

Stan

I recently heard they are going to introduce two bills to the floor one of them would be constitutional carry like VT the other will be a permit system.  May be time to get on the horn to all the reps and senators and let them know where you stand.  This senator told me he was for the permit bill and would be working to help write it,  that scared me a little bit because he used the word privilege in the same discussion.  

Brian

Based upon 10 yrs experience of fighting for CCW in WI, here's what I see. (by "fighting" I mean going to Madison for hearings, writing/calling/speaking in person to my elected reps, ciculating pro-ccw petitions... I even went on local TV news when they covered the last PPA).

Those that want constitutional carry are mostly people who are "gun people" like those who post on sites like this one. But the reality is, although there's quite a few of us, we're still a minority. On the other side, are the anti-gun, anti-ccw people. They too are a  minority, but they get all the free liberal MSM coverage, so like it or not, even though we may outnumber them, they have more influence than we do.

There's a third group. That group is by far the largest, and because of sheer numbers, they have the most influence. That group is the CC "fence-sitters". WI is a state with a large population of hunters, and most fall into this group. But being a hunter doesn't necessarily make you "gun people" in the same sense that we are. Also in this group are those who don't hunt, or don't own guns, but don't necessarily fear or hate guns. To get a CCW law in WI, and keep it the next time the pendulum swings to the Dems having power, we must convince the majority of this group to either back us, or at the least, not oppose CCW.

IMO, FWIW, going from no CC whatsoever to VT carry is a huge leap that the majority of the third group won't endorse. It'd likely have the opposite effect of pushing fence-sitters to the anti-ccw side. I've talked about CC in WI to quite a few members of group 3, doing my best to make them see my side of the issue. The overwhelming majority are OK with CC  only if  there's background checks and a minimum of training involved. This is reality that I don't like to see, but nevertheless, it is real.

Being a "gun person", I understand the issue of RKBA rights, and I clearly see that a permit issued is nothing more than a "privelege". Although I back constitutional carry, I see it as too high of a mountain to climb going straight up the steepest side. Going up a gradual slope, by starting with a shall-issue permit system, then shifting to an AZ/AK permit optional system when the time is right, will still get us to the top of the mountain in time, without risking falling off a cliff and getting nowhere but back to the bottom. The Dems will just label VT carry as "another radical Repub idea", and the media will run with it. We cannot win that PR battle in one giant leap.

Not taking sides between 40xb-shooter or FMD...  but neither of you have mentioned the fact that in addition to a RKBA Amendment in our State constitution, we also have a right to hunt, fish, and trap amendment. Hunting is now a guarenteed right in WI just as is RKBA, but not only do you need a hunting license, you need to partake in a hunter safety course to obtain that license. Does buying a "permit" (hunting license) and taking a required training course negate the fact that it's still a right?

I've got my opinion, but before saying what it is, I'd like to hear yours.

BTW... I'm a former hunters safety instructor. Regardless of what you may think about hunters safety, the facts have proven it works. Hunting accidents and fatalities, and even violations of game laws, have declined significantly since it became mandatory. There's still stupid people doing stupid things with firearms out in the woods, but there's far less of them.

I think that's a fair assesment.  While my opinion of what can and should be done differs from yours, I'd still like to get to the top of the mountain.

I get where you got the blood in the streets implication, but that was not my intent since clearly there is not blood in the streets in states that have CCW. The liberal tactic comment comes from that, Liberals will certainly start spouting off lies as truth to make their point. Since we know there is not blood flowing throught the streets (lie) then that is where I made that statement. I appologize if I offended you in it. Not my intent. My intent was to show that uninformed people are a bigger risk. Of course it will always come doen to choice of what they do but I would rather them be "trained". Training does not solve everything but it is a start.

I cannot show you proof between states that have "mandatory classes" and the ones that dont. The reason being is that population of the state, population of those who CCW, the number of accidents covered by lies (cleaning accidents), and the difference in trainings in each state create too many factors and variables. I would be interested in seeing a stat that shows the amount of total issues between the two types of states

BTW not one of you have asked me what training I would like to see...I would be for a 4 hours class that goes over basic laws and basic use of force contunuum hell I wouldnt even ask for a test just that they sign and say they understand what was taught to them, I would even donate my time to teach if I got certified to do so.

At the risk of going off-topic (for me)...



Negate?  No. Negating a right via legislation is impossible.   As long as the person is able to get away with it, I have no moral issue whatsoever with someone hunting/fishing/trapping their own land without getting permission from the "king".

The state has assumed that it is acting within its scope to make it unlawful with out paying to exercise that freedom  (essentially turning it into a privilege).  Morally, I see that as wrong, since it violates multiple tenets of Life, Liberty, Property.  That said, the state has bigger guns than I do, and might makes right.

It's a risk/reward thing... just like CCW is at the moment.



Regarding your last, how much of that is due directly to hunter's ed?  How much is due to increased enforcement?  How much is due to natural selection?

One of the most unsafe-with-a-firearm folks I know is a state-certified hunter's ed teacher.  I know it's anecdotal, but my point is this; regardless of if hunter's ed is a good idea or not (and I actually think that it, or a mentor-type program would be worth their weight in gold to a new hunter), at what cost does it weigh heavier than a person's right to life, liberty and property?  Why do we (as a state) insist on someone like none's daughter, or rogue1's son go through hunter's ed when they are both more responsible with firearms (due to some awesome parenting) at 12, than the hunter's ed instructor?  Why is it that we require them (well, almost all of us under 40, now) to go through the motions to exercise a right on their own property?

There is the law, and then there's what's right.  There's a huge difference.

Second time I've dropped this quote now in a week or so:

FMD,

States can make laws that make limitations. As long as they do not stop you completely. 10th Ammendment says if it is not defined by the US Constitution/Federal govt then the states get to make the rules.

Different states make different rules hence the different ccw rules in different states. It is my opinion that people need training of some type for CCW. Other people and other states think the same thing and are the majority since the states you posted are a few and the minority.

You are a liar for the blood in the streets comments since I never said that.

You are a hypocrate for saying that you think that its ok for people to have to take a class to apply for their CCW.

You are just as disrepectful as me by saying I need to get "unfucked" and then made reference to my mouth being a "cockholster". The difference is I dont cry and try to play the victim card.

God forbid anyone make a post not in your format that you approve of. I guess it takes you a while to comprehend any other way than yours.

Your e-penis comment still makes me laugh, there are people that know more than you in training and have fought for gun rights more than you in actual courts and not on the internet but I guess since your so awesome they dont matter and their expert opinions mean nothing. This shows your arrogance and why people should really not take you so seriously. Some of us are humble enough to listen to them.

You are still very blatantly biased against MN CCW laws and their decisions. Once again they dont care wht you think and can make their own laws that can change for the better over time.

Hunting is a right but you must take hunter safety traiing
Owning a car is a right but you must take drivers ed
Owning a spped boat is right but you must take boater safety
Speech is a right but you cant slander
Assembly is a right but it doesnt give collective bargaining
Press/writing is a right but you cant write liable statements
Bearing arms is a right but some places require FOID cards and training

Its called precedence.

I could care less if you respond to this because as of now you are on my ignore list.

Skipped ahead to this without reading...



1) Are you sure you want to call me a liar?  Really?
2) Are you familiar with a question mark as a sign of an interrogatory sentence?

Article 1 Section 26:
The people have the right to fish, hunt,
trap, and take game subject only to reasonable restrictions as
prescribed by law.

They made sure they added the reasonable restrictions. Obviously this is needed for game management but, I'm sure some peoples idea of a "reasonable restriction" is a revenue source for others. Personally, I don't think a Wisconsin resident should have to purchase a permit. The hunters safety course should be optional or at the bare minimum only required if your hunting on public land.


Article 1 Section 25:
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for
security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

Luckily we have it spelled out pretty clear and as long as we keep a good state supreme court we are in good shape. Concealed carry restriction in my opinion is just a good case away from being ruled unconstitutional and instantly making us a constitutional carry state, if the genie were to be let out I don't think they could put it back in.

Of course with Doyle gone, some form of concealed carry should get passed (I'm not as confident as I was before this shit storm), and with that the concealed carry regulation will remain constitutional.

Like most I will take any step forward but, this will be the closest we will ever come to being able to get the cleanest bill of all the states and I will use my time telling my representatives I want constitutional carry. Even if that isn't possible they should still put it on the table and go from there. The reality is, like everything in life, it's all about the money and whoever stands to make the most off of a carry bill will be greasing some palms and having the biggest influence.

Quoted, just because...

See, that is the crux of the issue, it is your opinion. You just said so yourself. In regards to the states that have varying laws, that has no relevance to this discussion or the actual point of discussion. Just because some states do something one way, does not make it right, moral, or just. If you could show me the statistics that prove having mandatory training produces any kind of result, I'd be glad to look it over. However, lets pretend those numbers did exist, and they did prove that, having mandatory training to exercise a right that is established and guaranteed in the Constitution is clearly an infringement on said rights. The Second Amendment is clear, the people have the right to keep and bear arms. If I have to take mandatory training and go through some approval process, it's not a right at that point, at least according to how the states view it. That is morally wrong. Period.



Actually, you made a reference to the wild west and made quite a few mentions of all the problems that would entail without requiring mandatory training. So... no. Not off base at all.



Where is he playing the victim card? I really don't see that at all, as I just got done reading all three pages.



?



Actually, if you knew FMD, you WOULD take him seriously. Having taken some training with him and spending quite a bit of time with him on several occasions, he is not an "armchair commando" as you are implying. He has extensive training, knowledge, and education concerning these topics and his opinion is held in high regard on this forum. Don't believe me? Ask around. I have an enormous amount of respect for him.



Of course they don't care what he thinks. Has he implied any different? Jeez man, you sure like to argue with yourself.



Do you understand the difference between a right and what the government does? Just because a state has enacted some draconian piece of legislation that restricts the ability to carry a weapon concealed, buy a firearm, talk, write, or some other "right" does not mean that is morally or even constitutionally or legally justified or right.



Wouldn't that make the Constitution the foremost authoritative document concerning the right to keep and bear arms?



Somehow I think you'll respond to him yet.

If you have not read Bastiat's The Law, you need to. Should be required reading at the academy.

While I'd take issue with the details, I'll concede the point for this thread.



If you'd said this in the beginning, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  Instead you insisted that your opinion was fact.  It is not.  It is simply your opinion.



What I gave you was off the top of my head.

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,Wyoming, and Washington issue permits without any training requirements (other restrictions may apply – not all are “shall issue”).  That's 21 of 47.

Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, and yes, even Wisconsin allow for open carry without a permit or any sort of training.  That's an additional 17 states we can add to the above.

If you're counting, that's 38 states out of 50 that allow for the exercise of the RKBA without a training class.  Not only is that more than a few, it is the majority (edit: note that I did not count any state twice even though it might allow for both CCW and OC without training).



You have no command of the English language if you think that statement applied to something you typed.  Read what I actually posted, and pay attention to the punctuation.  I admit it was hyperbole and typed in shorthand, but I can't really help you if your reading comprehension is that bad.



I'm not sure how to handle this statement.  To a certain extent, you're correct.  OTOH, I think you're ascribing a position to me that I did not take in our back and forth in this thread.



Physician, heal thyself (i.e.you just did the same thing).

First, you insulted me when you began to lose the argument.  I held my tongue and asked you to apologize.  You continued, and my retort, though vulger, was an accurate representation of your unwillingness to concede a point that you clearly were incapable of comprehending.  You persisted, and ascribed to me the label of “victim”.  My tongue in cheek reply (note the smiley – in Law Enforcement, they'd call that a “clue”) was designed to illustrate that I do not think of myself that way, and neither should you.

With the powers of deduction you've displayed, I wouldn't plan on making Detective any time soon (and that would be “sarcasm").



English!  How does it work?



Again, have we met? Are you familiar with my CV (or lack thereof)?

Mr. Ayoob has an account here.  Perhaps you'd like to invite him to point out the flaws in anything I've typed?



I believe I've been clear that I am suspect of the trainer certification process that was written into their law, and the very real danger that it could be repeated here.  It is an informed position.  Are you aware of the same knowledge, or are you posting from a position of ignorance?



Could you point out where I've said anything to the contrary?



Strawman much?



Are you a cop?  Seriously, because if this is demonstrable of your knowledge of American jurisprudence, you need to go back to night school.  Hint: links to applicable case law are helpful in discussions such as this.



I'm honored.  Really.

I have to side with no training required....

There are over 40 + states that have CCW and there is no slaughter of innocent bystanders from CCW any more then there is when the assault ban was lifted...

Do I think folks should get training... Yes, but at the end of the day, the majority of folks are not going to and that is just the way it is...

And I grew up from a time when there was no hunter safety required.... and there was no slaughter in the woods prior to the .gov stepping in to regulate something that had been going on for thousands of years prior to them showing up.

The right of the people shall not be infringed...... pretty simple....I train so I can make good decisions if I do exercise my right to defend myself. But I don't need the.Gov to decide for me... that's the whole freakin point..... A good justified shoot is a good justified shoot.... and If I have to make it.. I won't need Massod Ayoob to testify for me...

You think the average Joe is going to have that great of depth of understanding of all the laws....Christ , most couldn't tell you who has the right of way at a 4 way stop.....

If training is going to be required to exercise a right, then I guess the 1st Amendment is going to require all of us to take a writing and speech class...before all those dangling participles cause mayhem out on the street....

I have stayed out of this. I have mixed feelings and will keep it to myself. I do have a question though. I'm not picking on you specifically Harv just something you said.

How is Joe Beer with no training going to know what a good shoot is and what is not a good shoot? What you and I think is a good shoot may be/is different than what Joe Beer thinks a good shoot is.

It's simple... if your life is threatened. I don't need training or a permit to know when my life is in danger or when I can or can't defend it. If my life or the life of someone is threatened, I/you/they have the right to self defense and the right to use lethal force to protect such life/lives.

It's very simple.

I've lived in my current residence for almost a year.  The address on my DL is NOT that address.  DOT has the current address on file, however they don't issue new licenses anymore.



Oh, and my DL doesn't expire until 2014.



 

I only spend about 7 hours a week behind the wheel and not a month goes by that some fool isn't going the wrong way down a three lane one way in the middle of rush hour. The cars parked against them on both sides don't seem to register.

They should still get to exercise their rights. They should also be held accountable if they're so incompetent that they cause injury to persons or property.

I know they don't issue new license, but I was under the impression you were supposed to go get another one at the DMV a certain time period after moving.

It's not as simple as you claim.

I just asked a question and now I have a couple of answers.

Oh yeah .... this thread is way too emotional and personal.

You're pathetic.
You just can't unfuck some people. ........... (Where the hell is drawcut to scold you?)

Nothing that couldn't be fixed by the legislature. New address = surrender old DL and get a new one; free of charge.

There wouldn't be no trouble except for that king-shit cop! All I wanted was something to eat. But the man kept pushing Sir*.

Yet you know I'm right, dontcha?













*ETA: Lest anyone misinterpret, it's a line from Rambo.  The next is "They drew first blood, not me".  Context, as always, is key.

It IS that simple. I have the right to LIFE. So does ANYONE. I do not need training or a permit to exercise my right to life.

I understand your position due to the court system and a "justified" shooting, etc... but it doesn't matter, at the end of the day, I have the right to LIFE. If someone threatens that right, I have the RIGHT to exercise any means necessary to protect that right and protect my life.

Thats not what I meant David. Yes you have the right to life. Duh

What you deem a threat to your life is different than what someone else thinks a threat to their life is. Fact. No if's and's or but's about it. It is truth. That is what I am saying. So yes, you have the right to life and to defend yourself. So does the next guy. Somones intterpritation of a threat is not the same across the board. Some people have a hard time wrapping their heads around that FACT.

Sorry, I was under the assumption you had 30 days maximum to obtain a new license with your current address on it. I haven't moved in 20 years... that's the way it used to be. If an updated license is unavailable, at least the name & picture part should be proof the person is at least who they say they are... not someone who died years ago. Couple that with another proof of residense, such as a utility bill, and the end result is the same.

Yes, if you read my post, you'll see that I said the same thing... not sure where the argument is? I said that I understood what you were saying by my reference to the court systems and their interpretations of "justified" or "legal" shootings/defense.

But, back to the original point... I do not need training or a permit to exercise my right to life or self defense. I understand that training will help open your eyes and understand the legal ramifications of shooting someone in defense, understanding how the courts interpret it, etc... I have taken training from some of the same people as you

However, at the end of the day, after having taken training from Sully and others, my interpretation of danger and whether or not I was being threatened is no different. I do not need a permit or training to know when my life is in danger and whether or not to use lethal force to defend myself.

If the time ever comes when I have to use such lethal force to defend myself, I will not "worry" about the consequences because I know the alternative was life threatening.

Requiring training or a permit is putting a condition on a right, which in and of itself is morally wrong. Read "The Law", by Frederic Bastiat.

ETA: Spelling.

I think it is a valid question...

I guess from my point of view... living with the freedom we have ... means that you have the right to screw up as badly as you want just as much as not. We used to have common sense not too long ago, and folks knew how to make there own decisions. Were mistakes made?? sure.... always will... but for the majority of folks, when there was no law, they were able to make for the most part, good decisions up to and including the use of deadly force.

And we did not need a .gov entity that we funded, telling us exactly how to do it with great detail. We have become a nation of over regulated scaredy cats that sharpen a lawn mover blade with out having to lock out/tag out  there Toro and file a report with OSHA to insure that everything is safe, because some retard cut his fingers off.

Just getting up every morning  is a risk to life, Hell, you should know that...) and for most of us, we take more of a risk driving to work then anything else we do that day.
I'm tired of having my government regulate my life as if I'm not smart enough, or don't know enough to do it myself.  I use to work for those guys for over 20 years.... they ain't as bright as everyone thinks.

Our founding fathers, did not require hunter safety in order for us to feed our families and they certainly did not anticipate having to train us in order to protect them or ourselves either.  They should stick to the few things there marginally good at.... and I'll take care of myself....  It's that whole "Rugged individualism" that Ronald Reagen talked about.


Like I said before... I'm not worried about the sudden carnage in the streets  that having CCW will supposedly create in WI. I think the majority of people would benefit greatly from getting some training and learning "What a good shoot is" But most folks who get a CCW and will actually carry one will usually go above the minimum requirement anyhow. because they have taken the responsibility that our freedom gives us to have the ability to defend themselves.  For the rest... they will most likely have left there gun at home during the one time in there life when they may need it anyhow... so 40 X should be relieved...

You just have to notify them of your address change.  They used to give you these little cards that you wrote the address in on and they stuck to the back of your DL.  They don't do that anymore either.



<shrug>



 

I am not really arguing anything, other than stating that there are differences in the way people think about ones life being in danger. I have said in no way if I am for or against training as a requierment for CCW. So the rest of what you have posted does not apply to my question.

You just have to notify them.



When I went to vote in November they made me bring a utility bill to show proof of address because my DL didn't have the correct address on it.



Isn't that normal?



You CAN get a new DL but it costs you something like $10 IIRC.



 

I hear ya. I think at the end of the day, who cares? If you feel your life is in danger and you cannot escape the situation using alternative methods, 2 in the chest and be done with it. That's way I view it, at least.

+1

I think this is a well put statement.

I think what this entire thread has degraded into is one group of people believing that there should not be any training to ccw and another group thinking that there should. Really nothing more than that. The purists just cannot seem fathom there is an opinion that differs from theirs. Neither one is wrong. Some will not aggree with that statement, but they don't have to. That's the way it works. That is what is lost on some.

Then again I could be talking completely out of my ass.

For the most part, I think your correct. I think the larger view is how much the .Gov needs to be involved when your talking exercising a right vs a privilege. For the most part, none of the other rights have a training requirement before you exercise them, but then others would say that incorrectly exercising  the majority of those rights does not result in killing someone innocent.

I can see that. There are quite a few folks I know who I believe have no business carrying a weapon.... cause there an idiot. But is my feeling someone is an idiot and should not be allowed to carry... trump there constitutional right??


Which reverts back to my opinion that everything YOU do is on YOU, until you prove you cannot exercise that right. Now some would say, that it's too late, if they killed someone... but if you follow that slippery slope, then you better be prepared to limit and restrict a lot of peoples rights, based on what they MIGHT do, vs what they have proven to have done. Where do you draw the line..... We already have a .Gov that is too large..... and too intrusive into our lives...so now we have them step in and protect us from ourselves.???

I travel a bit and get to see TSA (.Gov ) in action...... yea, that's  not making me feel safe.... so I don't need them stepping in on CCW either...

Not a fan of that..... not at all...

'Cmon now princess, we know you talk outta your ass.

Bro, if that is what you've taken away from the interchange, then you haven't really been reading.

Most of us can recognize that there is an ideal, and then there is practicality.  What some folks seem to be missing is that we have an opportunity to get closer to the ideal *right now* than we ever have had, and may ever have in the future.  Not pressing the issue is insanity given the legislative history of CCW in Wisconsin.

What we give up *right now* will take decades to get back... if we ever can.