1911Forum
Forum   Reviews   Rules   Legal   Site Supporters & Donations   Advertise


Go Back   1911Forum > Applications > Tactics & Personal Defense


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
Old 05-06-2012, 05:46 PM
DANCESWITHGUNS DANCESWITHGUNS is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 4,590



Please, no more regulation and law...I'm in NY and already have it bad enough!

Just move to NY, NJ, Hi etc. if ya need more regulation
__________________
Proverbs 29:10 Bloodthirsty men hate a man of integrity and seek to kill the upright.
  #27  
Old 05-06-2012, 06:11 PM
Horoscope Fish Horoscope Fish is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Sunny So-Cal
Posts: 5,857
I would not expect a CCW class to be a Marksmanship training course; nor do I think they should be.

I would expect a CCW class to cover the legal aspects, ramifications, rights and responsibilities et al. of carrying a concealed weapon.
__________________
How to Post Pics on the Forum
Accuracy Impaired Yet, Ballistically Challenged.
  #28  
Old 05-06-2012, 07:04 PM
Ichiban Ichiban is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 394
The lack of training in a lot of people that CCW scares me.
The lack of training in a lot of people that drive scares me.
The lack of training in a lot of people that have kids scares me.
The lack of education in a lot of people that vote scares me.

Such is life on earth. Things are a lot different on my home planet.
  #29  
Old 05-07-2012, 02:09 PM
ak907 ak907 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 20
i took a ccw course last year, as its not required here in alaska but something i wanted to do anyway. i had already studied all the laws for my state before i started to carry a firearm so the class was a good refresher.
the class went into very good detail and simplified all of the laws and requirements justifications and such. (by simplified i mean he put it in way so that all in the class could understand and grasp the laws and not be confused be wording. lamens terms as it were.
the whole class was a day and a half.
the class was 8 hours long including a written test.
the shooting part was 4-5 hours of the next day.
the instructor was very good making sure all understood the commands, was safe and understood their firearm of choice before putting live rounds in the gun.

i have heard of some pretty lame courses that just seem like too little. you should be able to leave the class confident in knowing the laws of your state and comfortable with handling the firearm. the rest is up to you to become confident in carrying the firarm and shooting proficiently.

all in all i was very satisfied with my choice in the course i took. and will be taking further courses from the instructor in the future.
__________________
Kimber pro carry ii. EDC.
Taurus pt1911. at home/camp 1911.
S.A. Champion 4". project 1911.

Don't tell my wife, but I'm in love with a one hundred year old... handgun design.

Last edited by ak907; 05-07-2012 at 02:11 PM.
  #30  
Old 05-07-2012, 03:02 PM
skrap1r0n skrap1r0n is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 25
I don't think you can regulate the amount of training. Driving isn't a constitutional right, nor is being a surgeon. Anyone that is a US citizen, mentally stable and not a felon should be able to carry.

That said, I believe as responsible carriers, we should all strive to train and encourage anyone we know that isn't as proficient as they ought to be to train and learn.
  #31  
Old 05-07-2012, 04:38 PM
MPJMP MPJMP is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 136
I'm also an Army vet with a tours in Iraq and South Asia for a DoD agency where my primary weapon was a concealed handgun.

I think coming from that sort of background we have higher standards for what is deemed an "acceptable" skill level and what is not. We hold ourselves to those standards even when it is not required.

In my opinion, the purpose of a CCW class should be to 1) educate permit holders on their legal and ethical obligations, and 2) instill safe gun handling skills.

It's like getting your driver's license. You need to know the rules of the road and show that you can be safe. You don't have to prove that you can drive like Andretti.

As much as I'd like to feel that my fellow CCW permit holders are competent and an asset on the streets, I don't think there should be a stringent proficiency standard.

Now, if someone can't hit the broad side of a barn they are a legitimate safety concern.

But short of that, I would not expect nor require the average citizen to have the skill level of a trained professional.

Just my opinion.
  #32  
Old 05-07-2012, 05:51 PM
Mr. T Mr. T is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by MPJMP View Post
I'm also an Army vet with a tours in Iraq and South Asia for a DoD agency where my primary weapon was a concealed handgun.

I think coming from that sort of background we have higher standards for what is deemed an "acceptable" skill level and what is not. We hold ourselves to those standards even when it is not required.

In my opinion, the purpose of a CCW class should be to 1) educate permit holders on their legal and ethical obligations, and 2) instill safe gun handling skills.

It's like getting your driver's license. You need to know the rules of the road and show that you can be safe. You don't have to prove that you can drive like Andretti.

As much as I'd like to feel that my fellow CCW permit holders are competent and an asset on the streets, I don't think there should be a stringent proficiency standard.

Now, if someone can't hit the broad side of a barn they are a legitimate safety concern.

But short of that, I would not expect nor require the average citizen to have the skill level of a trained professional.

Just my opinion.
The CCW classes should not be a safe gun handling/fundamentals class. People should posses safe gun handling skills long before they decide to carry concealed. It is the individuals personal responsibility to learn firearm safety as soon as they make the decision to purchase a firearm.
__________________
Mr. T
Be sure you're right, then go ahead!
  #33  
Old 05-07-2012, 06:49 PM
QHhorseman QHhorseman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Southern Colorado
Posts: 511
Many times it's the "pro" you should be worried about, not the "amatuer".
  #34  
Old 05-07-2012, 07:24 PM
Wolfebyte Wolfebyte is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 120
and Texas is at the opposite end of that scale.. I think our course is 8 hours of class time, 2 hours of range time. I think you shoot a total of 40 rounds? . There was a bit of dust stirred up recently about a class that you could take online and obtain an out of state (Texas) CHL that would allow you to carry in Texas.. That was Nevada? it was shut down pretty quick. Class costs around here are from 85.00 to 125.00 depending on the instructor and location. Some have approved ranges that they can use, some have to pay rental at a range for the class..
  #35  
Old 05-07-2012, 08:32 PM
ColtRG100 ColtRG100 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Flemington, NJ
Posts: 22
I think all of you are crazy except the OP. everyone should be allowed to own guns. Not everyone should be allowed to carry guns outside their property. There should be a minimum requirement for marksmanship. Otherwise you will have dead innocent bystanders instead of dead criminals. I just took a cousre for my UT/FL permit this past weekend, the instructor was very good I learned a lot. But some people in the class just seemed to want to have a ccw to be a BA.

That being said. While we were on the range. During on of the exercises the we were instructed to unload clear and make the weapon safe. One of idiots in the class fired the last to round in his magazine yet still passed the course. What would have happened if that was a real world incident whet the police showed up and gave him those instructions? he would have been shot by the cops.

Carrying a concealed weapon in public should not be a right just like driving isn't a right. That doesn't man you cant own guns. That is a right of every American. Lets think this through people. there are enough stupid criminals running around with guns. Publicly Putting guns in the hands of people who are not competent is just as bad.
  #36  
Old 05-07-2012, 09:12 PM
permafrost permafrost is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: oklahoma
Posts: 37
I too was apalled at the lack of even basic skills by some participants in my class. I believe there should be at least a minor proficiency requirement to carry a deadly weapon. How can you truly respect the amount of power and responsibility you have in your hands without being completely familiar with your weapon?
  #37  
Old 05-07-2012, 09:23 PM
Red Dirt Dave Red Dirt Dave is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: OOOOOklahoma!
Age: 61
Posts: 1,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColtRG100 View Post
Carrying a concealed weapon in public should not be a right just like driving isn't a right. That doesn't man you cant own guns. That is a right of every American. Lets think this through people. there are enough stupid criminals running around with guns. Publicly Putting guns in the hands of people who are not competent is just as bad.
So, you'll take the "keep" part of the Second Amendment, but trash the, "and bear" part.

Possibly YOU are the one who should think this through.
__________________
"They who have done such things never talk of them; and they who talk of such things have never done them.
  #38  
Old 05-07-2012, 10:12 PM
DivePanama DivePanama is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: West Virginia, surrounded by good folk. Still trying to figure out the rebel flag deal in a state that fought for the Union LOL.
Age: 51
Posts: 5,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColtRG100 View Post
I think all of you are crazy except the OP. everyone should be allowed to own guns. Not everyone should be allowed to carry guns outside their property. There should be a minimum requirement for marksmanship. Otherwise you will have dead innocent bystanders instead of dead criminals. I just took a cousre for my UT/FL permit this past weekend, the instructor was very good I learned a lot. But some people in the class just seemed to want to have a ccw to be a BA.
Wow. 8 posts here and you have judged everyone here "crazy" except for the OP Now on a serious note. Have you ever bothered to read the Constitution of the United States? Specifically the 2A? If so then where exactly does it state that to bear arms one must meet a minimum standard? I'll even help you out a bit here and post the 2A if you are not familiar with it.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What I do notice is that it does specifically say that the RIGHT of the people to both keep and BEAR arms is not to be infringed upon.

Now no one here has ever said that training is a bad idea or should not be pursued. But it is the responsibility and choice of the individual citizen to seek such training as they deem appropriate. Constitutionally it is neither the government nor fellow citizens role or right to dictate such training onto others as a requirement in order to be able to freely exercise a right.

Quote:
That being said. While we were on the range. During on of the exercises the we were instructed to unload clear and make the weapon safe. One of idiots in the class fired the last to round in his magazine yet still passed the course. What would have happened if that was a real world incident whet the police showed up and gave him those instructions? he would have been shot by the cops.
Guess what, everyone makes mistakes. Professionals and amateurs alike. Did anyone actually get hurt? If not then let it go. Often times mistakes are the most effective tool for for learning. Your zero defect mentality is not realistic.

Quote:
Carrying a concealed weapon in public should not be a right just like driving isn't a right. That doesn't man you cant own guns. That is a right of every American. Lets think this through people. there are enough stupid criminals running around with guns. Publicly Putting guns in the hands of people who are not competent is just as bad.
Feel as you wish but again you need to read the Constitution. Also I find it amusing that you acknowledge that criminals are "running" around already but your solution to keeping folks safe is to prevent some law abiding citizens from being armed in public because you FEEL they are not competent.

Instead of worrying about and judging your fellow citizens I suggest you ensure that YOU are competent. By your standards I should then be able to keep you from going about in public being armed. I highly doubt you have been through the training I have been through and I, like you, should FEEL that you are competent by MY standards before you go out armed near ME.

Fortunately our rights are not about how you feel

Good day.
__________________
COTEP member
NRA Endowment Life Member
Retired Paratrooper-Master Rated
"Only two things in this world keeps a chickens ass off the ground and its not wings"

Last edited by DivePanama; 05-07-2012 at 10:20 PM.
  #39  
Old 05-07-2012, 10:18 PM
DivePanama DivePanama is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: West Virginia, surrounded by good folk. Still trying to figure out the rebel flag deal in a state that fought for the Union LOL.
Age: 51
Posts: 5,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by permafrost View Post
I too was apalled at the lack of even basic skills by some participants in my class. I believe there should be at least a minor proficiency requirement to carry a deadly weapon. How can you truly respect the amount of power and responsibility you have in your hands without being completely familiar with your weapon?
Here's your standard:
Quote:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Your a free citizen. It's your responsibility to seek training. I'm all about training, my last career required quite a bit of it. But I do not agree with the concept of requiring training in order to exercise a right recognized in the Constitution.

Have a nice day.
__________________
COTEP member
NRA Endowment Life Member
Retired Paratrooper-Master Rated
"Only two things in this world keeps a chickens ass off the ground and its not wings"
  #40  
Old 05-07-2012, 10:38 PM
gunguy556 gunguy556 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Glendale, AZ
Age: 27
Posts: 7
I took my CCW class in AZ back in 2008, and my experience was the same. I do not believe in required training, but for some i would strongly suggest it so they have a deeper understanding of their responsibility as a firearms owner. I used my first gen xd45 service model when i took the class and received some weird looks for using such a large handgun (a lot of people were using .38's and .380 or subcom 9mm's). I think only 6 people out of about 17 had some real range time before the class and their accuracy reflected that. All i can hope is that they pursued further training.
__________________
Sig Sauer Tac Ops 1911, Sig Sauer P220 in .45 acp, AR15, XD45 w/ YHM supressor, Rem SPS Tac in .308, Mossberg 500, 10/22 Ruger
  #41  
Old 05-08-2012, 05:16 AM
ColtRG100 ColtRG100 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Flemington, NJ
Posts: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by DivePanama View Post
Wow. 8 posts here and you have judged everyone here "crazy" except for the OP Now on a serious note. Have you ever bothered to read the Constitution of the United States? Specifically the 2A? If so then where exactly does it state that to bear arms one must meet a minimum standard? I'll even help you out a bit here and post the 2A if you are not familiar with it.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What I do notice is that it does specifically say that the RIGHT of the people to both keep and BEAR arms is not to be infringed upon.

Now no one here has ever said that training is a bad idea or should not be pursued. But it is the responsibility and choice of the individual citizen to seek such training as they deem appropriate. Constitutionally it is neither the government nor fellow citizens role or right to dictate such training onto others as a requirement in order to be able to freely exercise a right.



Guess what, everyone makes mistakes. Professionals and amateurs alike. Did anyone actually get hurt? If not then let it go. Often times mistakes are the most effective tool for for learning. Your zero defect mentality is not realistic.



Feel as you wish but again you need to read the Constitution. Also I find it amusing that you acknowledge that criminals are "running" around already but your solution to keeping folks safe is to prevent some law abiding citizens from being armed in public because you FEEL they are not competent.

Instead of worrying about and judging your fellow citizens I suggest you ensure that YOU are competent. By your standards I should then be able to keep you from going about in public being armed. I highly doubt you have been through the training I have been through and I, like you, should FEEL that you are competent by MY standards before you go out armed near ME.

Fortunately our rights are not about how you feel

Good day.

You you are just like everyone else who is a 2A supporter. You see keep and bear arm but dont see the first part about the militia. They usually were required to TRAIN with their muskets. when you read something read the whole thing not just the part that suits your needs.
  #42  
Old 05-08-2012, 06:14 AM
BillD BillD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Independence, IN
Age: 59
Posts: 22,390
Quote:
Originally Posted by NETim View Post
The conversation goes like this:

Private citizens don't have enough training and therefore are not qualified.

But I've been to Thunder Ranch. I've trained with Mas Ayoob. I've trained with Todd Green.

Well in that case, having taken all that training, you're obviously just a trigger happy vigilante cop-wannabe looking to kill people. Next!

.
I've had someone on this forum basically say that about me.
__________________
You can make excuses or you can make ready.
Life is too short to buy cheap guns.
USPSA TY41889
NRA Life Member
  #43  
Old 05-08-2012, 06:15 AM
richpetrone richpetrone is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 6,322
CCW class

I have taught the NRA basic pistol marksmanship class for several years, which allows the participants that successfully complete the course, an NRA Basic Pistol Marksmanship Training Certificate. This can be used in FLA as a means of showing "proof of firearm proficiency" when applying for a CWP (in FLA it is a concealed weapon permit, so knives, brass knuckles, etc. can be used as a weapon for self defense.) My class was usually 3-4 hours of classroom and 2-3 hours of live fire. I taught the classes at a private outdoor gun range.

In my opinion, a firearm is a tool that can be deadly if improperly used, or handled. As with any tool, knowing how the tool operates, and knowing how to safely use the tool so you do not injure yourself or others is paramount. Different states have different guidelines on what type of experience or proficiency is required to obtain a CCW. I believe the state of Florida is a bit vague on the statute, since they require "proof of firearm proficiency" which does not stipulate live fire with a weapon.

Unless the laws in FLA have changed, there are constant CCW courses offered at gun shows, for roughly $45 per person, that is all class room training and no live fire. I do not agree with only having class room training to show proof of firearm proficiency.

I understand that people deserve the right of self protection, but carrying a loaded firearrm should demand some type of live fire experience to show the person can safely operate the firearm, and not inadvertently kill a non threat in a self defense situation. If a person can not meet a minimum standard of safety, they should not be allowed to carrry a firearm, but have every right to find another means of self protection such as a TASER, chemical sprays, etc.

Most all states allow their citizens to drive a motor vehicle only after they have passed a motor vehicle driving test. After all, a car or truck can also be a deadly tool if not used properly.

I have the same opinion that proof of firearm profiency with minimum standards to include actual live fire range time, should be part of any CCW permit applicatioin process. There are some people that need more training to pass a driving test, and I am sure there are those that need or should have more training to pass some form of "minimum proficiency" to carry a firearm. What exactly the standard should be is debatable.....however, a person that passes a CCW course without firing a shot from their weapon is a potential accident waiting to happen if they don't have the basic skills of handling and firing a weapon to hit a close in target. IMHO, a person should be able to hit a man sized target with at least 5 rounds and keep all shots somewhere on the target at distance of 15 feet with their weapon of choice. There are always ways to get around this criteria, but allowing a person to get a permit that allows carrying of a concealed firearm without ever firing a shot just doesn't sit well with me. In the state of FLA, a permit can also be obtained if you can prove having had previous experience with firearms, such as a veteran with military records showing firearms training, competitive shooters that can show proof with some form of classification that shows they compete with firearms, or passing a Hunter's Safety Course, which incorporates live fire of various firearms which can range from black powder firearms to modern handguns and rifles.

Last edited by richpetrone; 05-08-2012 at 06:25 AM.
  #44  
Old 05-08-2012, 09:18 AM
chrysanthemum chrysanthemum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: North Texas
Posts: 3,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColtRG100 View Post
I think all of you are crazy except the OP. everyone should be allowed to own guns. Not everyone should be allowed to carry guns outside their property. There should be a minimum requirement for marksmanship. Otherwise you will have dead innocent bystanders instead of dead criminals.
I'm a pretty understanding and flexible person, with friends on both sides of the political spectrum, but I take some offense to your statement that "all of you are crazy". That statement is is an inappropriate and unwarranted insult to the fine people here on the Forum.

Have you read the Constitution and the Second Amendment? If so, your understanding and/or reading comprehension is lacking.

And even today, how many instances has the Granny or Granddad with a CHL/CCW shot and killed an innocent bystander? Seriously, where are all of these dead innocent bystanders caused by the thousands of CCW/CHL licenses who aren't military-grade marksmen? Where are they? Evidence please!! Otherwise, please take your FALSE assertions off of this Forum.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member

"Freedom is only a temporary thing unless it is backed by the blunt capability and willingness to fight back against evil with sufficient arms." -- Myself

Last edited by chrysanthemum; 05-08-2012 at 09:26 AM.
  #45  
Old 05-08-2012, 09:32 AM
BillD BillD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Independence, IN
Age: 59
Posts: 22,390
To keep and bear means to own and carry.
__________________
You can make excuses or you can make ready.
Life is too short to buy cheap guns.
USPSA TY41889
NRA Life Member
  #46  
Old 05-08-2012, 09:34 AM
chrysanthemum chrysanthemum is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: North Texas
Posts: 3,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horoscope Fish View Post
I would not expect a CCW class to be a Marksmanship training course; nor do I think they should be.

I would expect a CCW class to cover the legal aspects, ramifications, rights and responsibilities et al. of carrying a concealed weapon.
+1,000.

I have no objection to requiring CCW/CHL applicants and renewals to demonstrate a basic understanding of their firearm's controls and operation, but to go into the areas of marksmanship and tactical skills becomes messy. Where does one set the standard? If a woman wishes to defend herself against a rapist at point blank range and she knows how to operate her firearm's controls, why should she be required to hit within a certain spread (pick your standard) on a range from (pick your distance).

In the realm of tactical skills, even professional law enforcement personnel are at risk of making an error ... but there is also a risk to bystanders and innocent parties in FAILING to make a defensive response to a violent crime in process. This latter risk is also an integral part of the equation, and it is a risk that the anti-2A and anti-gun folks ignore for their own convenience and for their purpose of distorting reality.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member

"Freedom is only a temporary thing unless it is backed by the blunt capability and willingness to fight back against evil with sufficient arms." -- Myself

Last edited by chrysanthemum; 05-08-2012 at 09:46 AM.
  #47  
Old 05-08-2012, 09:36 AM
Mr. T Mr. T is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColtRG100 View Post
I think all of you are crazy except the OP. everyone should be allowed to own guns. Not everyone should be allowed to carry guns outside their property. There should be a minimum requirement for marksmanship. Otherwise you will have dead innocent bystanders instead of dead criminals. I just took a cousre for my UT/FL permit this past weekend, the instructor was very good I learned a lot. But some people in the class just seemed to want to have a ccw to be a BA.

That being said. While we were on the range. During on of the exercises the we were instructed to unload clear and make the weapon safe. One of idiots in the class fired the last to round in his magazine yet still passed the course. What would have happened if that was a real world incident whet the police showed up and gave him those instructions? he would have been shot by the cops.

Carrying a concealed weapon in public should not be a right just like driving isn't a right. That doesn't man you cant own guns. That is a right of every American. Lets think this through people. there are enough stupid criminals running around with guns. Publicly Putting guns in the hands of people who are not competent is just as bad.
There are many states that don't require a class or a permit at all. How many dead innocent bystanders do we have because of people who carry concealed in these places? Can you provide statistics? I would rather have law abiding citizens carrying guns than the criminals you mention. Your comments here sound just like the anti-gun advocacy groups.
__________________
Mr. T
Be sure you're right, then go ahead!

Last edited by Mr. T; 05-08-2012 at 09:39 AM.
  #48  
Old 05-08-2012, 09:48 AM
BillD BillD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Independence, IN
Age: 59
Posts: 22,390
It's BS.

We have no training requirement in Indiana. I'm pretty sure we haven't lost a bystander yet.
__________________
You can make excuses or you can make ready.
Life is too short to buy cheap guns.
USPSA TY41889
NRA Life Member
  #49  
Old 05-08-2012, 10:22 AM
mikeg1005 mikeg1005 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Illinois
Posts: 6,480
I don't understand how this is such a big deal... how many bystanders are actually shot by law abiding citizens trying to defend themselves?

Every story I have ever heard about innocent bystanders being hit (there are alot in Chicago) is some criminal shooting up a suspected rival's block party, or drive by, or walking up and shooting them in the car, etc. etc. etc.... EVERY SINGLE SELF DEFENSE SHOOTING STORY I SEE... the victim shot the offender, and didn't hit anyone else.

Who really needs more training? People who want to defend themselves? Or the gov't to stop crime?

Doesn't matter to me... the whole "people might shoot themsevles" arguement becomes null to me when you realize 40,000+ people are killed and nearly 3 million a year are injured in automobile accidents... and all I ever hear is "how much easier" the driving test is now.

If people actually cared about saving lives(and not pushing personal agendas) they'd address the things that kill/hurt the most people.


Mike.
  #50  
Old 05-08-2012, 10:28 AM
ColtRG100 ColtRG100 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Flemington, NJ
Posts: 22
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA... What don't you people understand about this first statement if the second amendment? I for one would feel more comfortable knowing that there is some sort of minimum marksmanship requirement. Putting 50 rounds in a 14x14 in square at 5 or 7 yards is not very hard. Anyone wuth basic understanding of how to operate a firearm could do this. those who cant need to try again after some more practice.

Is that too much to ask? I dont think so.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:24 AM.


NOTICE TO USERS OF THIS SITE: By continuing to use this site, you certify that you have read and agree to abide by the Legal Terms of Use. All information, data, text or other materials ("Content") posted to this site by any users are the sole responsibility of those users. 1911Forum does not guarantee the accuracy, integrity, or quality of such Content.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2011 1911Forum.com, LLC. All Rights Reserved