Concerns after attending a CCW Class.

[SuHu]

Originally Posted by ColtRG100

Dive why don't you grow up? Your holding on to ideals that are nearly 250 years old. We live in a completely different world than the founding fathers. What worked then does not necessarily work now. Realize that. Educate yourself on the world of today. We dont need a history lesson. This isn't high school.

Fighting tyranny and oppression is an ageless principle.

[Red Dirt Dave]

Originally Posted by ColtRG100

Dive why don't you grow up? Your holding on to ideals that are nearly 250 years old. We live in a completely different world than the founding fathers. What worked then does not necessarily work now. Realize that. Educate yourself on the world of today. We dont need a history lesson. This isn't high school.

Wow, the first guy ever to earn a spot on my "ignore" list.
He actually sounds like he believes this stuff.

[TresOsos]

All you have to do is read this thread to realize how we got the gun control laws we already have on the books.

[mikeg1005]

Originally Posted by ColtRG100

Dive why don't you grow up? Your holding on to ideals that are nearly 250 years old. We live in a completely different world than the founding fathers. What worked then does not necessarily work now. Realize that. Educate yourself on the world of today. We dont need a history lesson. This isn't high school.

Yes, the ideals still work in today's world. Everyone seems to understand that expect for you. What do we need to educate myself on in today's world? That somehow it is right for someone else to tell me what requirements I must meet to be allowed to have my right to defend myself.

I don't even like Ted Nugent... but his quote speaks volumes on this matter.

I believe that a person moral compass can be determined by how he references free men the right to defend themselves. The second amendment to me is so obvious to me, its insane that there is an argument. Let’s pretend there is no document. Let’s pretend brave families didn’t leave the tyrants and slave drivers of Europe, so that they could practise the religion of their choice, they could speak out without being murdered, that they could produce wool without the King’s men coming and taking it from them every season of harvest. Lets pretend none of this happened. Lets just pretend that this guy named Ted Nugent, parachuted down to earth and woke up one morning and saw all of these wonderful resources and had dreams of excellence and being the best that I could be. I don’t need a document and I don’t need another man to explain to me that I have the right to defend my gift of life. And that there is an argument in America from Hilary Clinton, from Barbara Boxer, Diane Feist, from a whole gaggle of numbnuts, who would try to tell me they will dictate where how and if, I can defend myself. I find that preposterous, I find that unacceptable and I will not accept it. I am a free man, DON’T Tread on Me

Originally Posted by ColtRG100

Gunbug,

Then it is not a right. It is a privilege because not everyon can afford to buy a gun. Rights are not earned.

A "right" is not a material object, it is the concept that sholud we choose to purhcase a firearm to defend ourselves/this country, the gov't can't stop us..... you are pretty bad at this trolling thing.


Get a clue man, you aren't going to convince people that we need to gov't to tell us that we need know how to shoot if you choose to carry, its a personal responsibility.... if people were held accountable for their actions and were responsible for themselves we wouldn't have any of this... and the reason all the prior has started is becuase of our gov't operating on a nanny state mentality where people aren't required to think/do for themselves, you develope people who blame others for something they did which only leads to more useless laws to "protect" people from having to be responsible .... stop trolling.


I'm out.

MIke.

[GunBugBit]

Originally Posted by ColtRG100

Gunbug,

Then it is not a right. It is a privilege because not everyon can afford to buy a gun. Rights are not earned.

Nice try, but an epic fail. You stepped right into the realm of ENTITLEMENT.

You have a RIGHT to defend yourself, but you are not ENTITLED to free guns.

[DivePanama]

Originally Posted by ColtRG100

Dive why don't you grow up? Your holding on to ideals that are nearly 250 years old. We live in a completely different world than the founding fathers. What worked then does not necessarily work now. Realize that. Educate yourself on the world of today. We dont need a history lesson. This isn't high school.

Ah yes, the good progressive mindset now comes to light. Those pesky "old" ideas of unalienable rights, liberty, individual responsibility, government by consent of the governed. How silly of me to think that these ideas should have any relevance in todays "enlightened" society you are advocating.

You are truly a troll and a tool, friend. With gun owning "comrades" like you the 2A does not need any outside enemies. You and those that think like you will gladly give up your liberties AND barter away ours given half a chance.

As far as "we" needing a history lesson, you're partially right. Most of the membership here does not but obviously you do. So with that said I will leave you with the following from the time period of our founding fathers:
http://www.dojgov.net/Liberty_Watch.htm

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
Richard Henry Lee - Senator, First Congress

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..."
George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774_1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

Good day Adhemar.

[DivePanama]

Originally Posted by Red Dirt Dave

Wow, the first guy ever to earn a spot on my "ignore" list.
He actually sounds like he believes this stuff.

Yep, he is truly a product of todays modern public school system. Good little indoctrinated statist who is in lock step with the modern progressive agenda.

[ehparis]

Originally Posted by rebelxd1224

I attended a CCW class today. It was conducted in AZ at a range north of Phoenix.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am an Army veteran. I was an infantryman with two combat tours to Iraq. I now work for an armed Federal Agency. I am required to qualtify with my issued sidearm, M-4 Rifle and Shotgun once per quarter. I consider myself to be proficient with a firearm and to be tactically prficient as well. I took the course for specific instruction on CCW laws here in AZ, to be covered as a permit holder while not carrying my issued firearm/creditentials and to make the buying process that much simpler.

Overall, the class was less than what I was expecting. It was 4 hours long. One hour devoted to CCW law, two hours devoted to basic markmanship and one hour to range time. (15 rounds were shot per student)

Based on my observations and IMHO, about half the class was what I consider proficient in the handling and manipulation of their chosen firearm. Of the other half, 7 or 8 individuals, they would not have been considered by most to be proficient. None of these individuals were able to maintain a 6 inch spread for their 15 shots from a distance of 5 yards. Several were not able to maintain a center mass spread and one individual shot the pelvis region of the silihoutte as well as the neck area while supposed to be aiming center mass. There were several instances of people not understanding the basic commands of the Range Officer and or not understanding how to manipulate their weapon. No serious safety infractions, such as flagging people or shooting out of turn or off command but there were a few people who had to be told several times not to put their finger on the trigger until ready to shoot.

1st question. Is this what you have seen or experienced in your CCW classes?? Any CCW instructors out there, is this about average for what you have seen in your classes??

2nd question. Is this what we want collectively as a group of lawfully armed citizens?? If a person is not comfortable mainpulating their weapon on a range in a controled enviornment, how are they going to be able to be expected to perform adequately during a violent encounter?? I realize that the training standard military/Law Enforcement try to maintain may not be reasonable for the average armed citizen, but at 5 yards, not being able to maintain a 6 or 8 inch spread??

Last question. (And this is the one I expect to receive some backlash on.) Would it be unreasonable to require a more in depth training course and evaluation before individuals go for their CCW permit?? I understand our right to carry weapons as a lawfully armed citizen but doesn't that also come with a responsibilty to be able to operate that weapon in a more proficient manner.

CCW classes aren't a forum for instructing students in the use of firearms. A cursory course is given in my case which doesn't result in any improvement in marksmanship, but that's not the point.

In my view CCW laws only imitate the 2nd Amendment's Right to Keep and Bear Firearms. As such they shouldn't *arbitrarily* set some restriction which requires a high level of proficiency. Do you really want the government deciding who is and who is not an "adequate" marksman or knowledgeable in the use of firearms. The license application, courses, et al costs $260. in my state and that pretty screens out casual applicants anyway.

(I in no way believe all the class and license fees are legitimate in my state or elsewhere. That's a far too expensive threshold for the average person to obtain a CCW. But this doesn't change my views that I don't want some bureaucrat deciding whether or not I am proficient in using firearms.)

[chrysanthemum]

Originally Posted by DivePanama

Yep, he is truly a product of todays modern public school system. Good little indoctrinated statist who is in lock step with the modern progressive agenda.

It would be a colossal tragedy if this individual is representative of an entire generation and the current public school system.

This gives reason to fear for the future of the country, not to mention the future of the 2A.

Great post above on the meaning of the word "militia" at the time the 2A was written.

[DivePanama]

Originally Posted by chrysanthemum

It would be a colossal tragedy if this individual is representative of an entire generation and the current public school system.

This gives reason to fear for the future of the country, not to mention the future of the 2A.

Great post above on the meaning of the word "militia" at the time the 2A was written.

I truly hope this person is some "way out in left field" aberration from the education system but I have my doubts.

What I do not understand is why the purpose and meaning of the 2A is so baffling to some? The wording is very plain and simple, and there are plenty of references, both hard copy and online, that can be researched. The founding fathers and the generation of that day left us a copious amount of written material in the form of essays, letters, the Federal Papers, Congressional records, etc... that explained in detail the ideas and principles being set forth in the DoI and COTUS.

I have attempted in my life to be a student of history. I firmly believe in the axiom that those who forget the lessons of history are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Take care

[Capt. Methane]

Only an individual can make a decision to properly exercise a right or not...more regulation may weed out a few but ultimately idiots get through almost any filtering system.

[ColtRG100]

Well op it seems you have the answer to all of your questions. It is common for people to no be proficient with a firearm yet still carry.

This is, by general consensus of this thread, what we want as gun owners. simply because the second amendment says keep and bear arms. But then again an a1 Abrams is considered arms. I think ill pick mine up next week. You know, just because the second amendment says I can.

And finally, it is very unreasonable to even think about having people qual for their permits. Cuz granny might not be able to.

To everyone else that I have offended. I'm sorry my views differ from yours. As a responsible gun owner you should realize that one incident effects us all. It puts a bad taste in the rest of the publics mouth and that returns to us by more anti gun laws. That's why we have them in the first place. So why not protect the little rights we have left by making all legal gun owners responsible by training them to handle a gun safely and proficiently?

[Nathan]

This has been a VERY difficult issue for me also. Thank you for posting this.

In OH, I think our class requirement must be like 12 hours. I don't know all the requirements of the 12 hours. We had many many total newbs. We spent quite a bit of time working on basic gun handling with dummy cartridges. We also spent quite a bit of time on safety rules and laws. Last, we shot for 4 hours.

I also know others in OH who shot 10 rounds and had a much abbreviated class taught by one less knowledgeable trainer.

The end result of my class was about 100 rounds of live fire and a 5 round "for score" target.

I hope everyone in my class sought further training or practice as the class was not thorough enough. On the positive, it did teach enough to get someone off on the right foot.

SD is a right and guns are a great tool. In America, people have to choose training on their own.

This is why I wish that the state would change the requirement from 12 hours training to a test. The test could be administered by agents of the state for $40 max. The test would be a written test, an oral quick answer and finally a shooting requirement. I'm thinking 30 min total. The shooting requirement would be something like 5 normal lighting and 5 in complete darkness. You provide the tools to pass. The shooting requirement would be something like 12" at 7 yards. 10 sec with lights on and with lights off. Draw and fire.

Failure is simple. Retrain on your own or in another class. Motorcycle licensing is like this.

The test could still be administered privately and they could still push some super class. On the other hand, this method allows the states to get out of training and licensing people who cannot pass a reasonable skill challenge.

Right now, OH is giving licenses to people who have shot 1 round into a bucket in some cases!

[Mr. T]

Originally Posted by ColtRG100

Well op it seems you have the answer to all of your questions. It is common for people to no be proficient with a firearm yet still carry.

This is, by general consensus of this thread, what we want as gun owners. simply because the second amendment says keep and bear arms. But then again an a1 Abrams is considered arms. I think ill pick mine up next week. You know, just because the second amendment says I can.

And finally, it is very unreasonable to even think about having people qual for their permits. Cuz granny might not be able to.

To everyone else that I have offended. I'm sorry my views differ from yours. As a responsible gun owner you should realize that one incident effects us all. It puts a bad taste in the rest of the publics mouth and that returns to us by more anti gun laws. That's why we have them in the first place. So why not protect the little rights we have left by making all legal gun owners responsible by training them to handle a gun safely and proficiently?

Who will be placed in charge of creating a nationwide standard? How much will it cost? Who will set the price? What is the standard that everyone must achieve? Who determines eligibility? How do you get all 50 states to agree to it? What standard will give you the warm and fuzzies?

[chrysanthemum]

Originally Posted by ColtRG100

As a responsible gun owner you should realize that one incident effects us all.

Colt, as much as I've disagreed with much of your preceding commentary, this particular sentence is first rate.

And in line with this comment, each firearm owner should endeavor to do his/her part. I do.

But going down the slippery slope of attempting to legally enforce a standard (that would be very judgmental by nature) is not the right way. It plays into the hands of the anti-gun types who have used the same road map in the UK, Australia and other countries ... always with the same end result of barring private ownership of firearms.

[DivePanama]

Originally Posted by ColtRG100

Well op it seems you have the answer to all of your questions. It is common for people to no be proficient with a firearm yet still carry.

This is, by general consensus of this thread, what we want as gun owners. simply because the second amendment says keep and bear arms. But then again an a1 Abrams is considered arms. I think ill pick mine up next week. You know, just because the second amendment says I can.

And finally, it is very unreasonable to even think about having people qual for their permits. Cuz granny might not be able to.

To everyone else that I have offended. I'm sorry my views differ from yours. As a responsible gun owner you should realize that one incident effects us all. It puts a bad taste in the rest of the publics mouth and that returns to us by more anti gun laws. That's why we have them in the first place. So why not protect the little rights we have left by making all legal gun owners responsible by training them to handle a gun safely and proficiently?

As usual you don't get it. No one here has advocated against citizens seeking training. What most folks here understand, except you, is that mandated training in order to exercise a Right is not the answer. You clearly neither understand the purpose of the 2A, its meaning or the concept of unalienable Rights. Also you clearly demonstrate that you do not wish to face and accept the historical truths concerning our Constitution and why the framers wrote it the way they did. Instead you would rather selfishly infringe upon and deny your fellow citizens their ability to defend themselves.

Bottom line, what you have argued for is not protecting our rights but further eroding them. Feel free to surrender your liberties if that's how you feel. But don't expect the rest of us to fall in line with your statist viewpoint.

Good night Adhemar.

[Tim Burke]

I note there are some 250 year old ideas of which I am very fond. Note that this forum is dedicated to a machine that is over 100 years old. Old does not mean obsolete.

Since we have long since left the realm of tactics and ventured into Legal & Political, I'm closing this.