your take on...

[bigbob]

This is kind of going to be me thinking out loud so forgive me if it sounds like rambling.

As responsible gun owners, we have the responsibility to train with our firearms and I would even go as far to say we are obligated to become experts with them. So that being said ,with all the crazy stuff going around, what would help further our cause and be REAL meaningful action? the gun grabbers trust LEO with guns. That stands to reason that there is a level of training that will satisfy them ( assuming logic can be used on a gun grabber) to be comfortable with people being armed. What if it were mediatory that you qualify (same qualification that our Michigan LEO have to do) with the pistol that you carry. Like every other gun regulation and restriction... those rights shall not be infringed... and yes this is infringement, but it would probably go a long way to get the anti's off our backs. at the end of the day, a man/women carrying a gun would have passed the same test the our police have to that proves you are proficient with the firearm. the next problem is, it would obviously cost money to do this. That again is a double edged sword. It would further the fees associated with our RIGHT to bear arms but hell, even if it cost me 20$ plus the ammo to qualify with a pistol, I would do it for fun. It is only 10$ more than your average lane rental at the range. and $20 X the approx. 350,000 MI CPL holders is a $7,000,000 stimulant to the economy. This is only taking into account CPL holders and only at one gun a piece.  It would also probably be a good thing to fall back on in a legal defense as well.  It is your responsibility to be proficient with the weapon anyways. This in my head would just make it more "official".

I guess in general I think the biggest thing we could do to make our country safer is to have a large population of properly trained and armed civilians. I would argue that it would be hard to keep "pistol free zones" if we all met the same standard as our LEO, even from the anti-gun point of view. perhaps this could all be a revision to the CPL process instead of having to take an additional day out of your life to complete. Or, maybe a once every 4 year type of deal you have to complete in the same manor we do with our driving license. Most of use have taken the CPL class and I am sure most of you had a large number of people in your class that had never fired a gun. It is not like you have to demonstrate any meaningful skill to obtain a CPL.  I was at the range just yesterday and looked down the line to see a long string of targets at the 7 yard mark. the majority of them looked like #8 bird hit the target at 50 yards. What are your thoughts on all this rambling? I am not 100% convinced myself that this is the right direction. I have just been mulling over it for a while now, and all these ridiculous gun laws that will have no effect whatsoever are being proposed/have been imposed pretty much as "feel good" laws.  Flame suit on... weather I get "gun owners are their own worst enemy" or "ya I would support that" let me know your thoughts!

[TheQ]

It was nice having you on the Forum, bob.

I hope you'll stay after the others rip you to shreds in this thread.


Now where's the popcorn?

[bigbob]

So you are saying I am going to see what the ammo dump is all about shortly? haha like i said I am not 100% convinced this is the right way to go I am just curious to know every ones opinions on this and see if I am a clown or not. Go lightly fellas and gals

[Ezerharden]

Unfortunately I believe you are identifying the wrong aspect of why the anti's have no issue with LEO's. It isn't so much the firearms training, it's the longer training of the academy and more importantly the badge. The badge confers magical abilities to it's wearer, placing them in a position far above mere mortal civilians. Now most police I know do not believe that, but the anti's sure do.

[bigbob]

I defiantly agree with you. I am not trying to say being able to shoot the target makes you equal in anyway to a guy who has been there or has to train on a regular basis I guess that came off wrong. I was trying to draw swiss laws comparison in a way. The overall  "we don't trust you with assault weapons" and we don't trust you in "Pistol free zones" attitude. Is there an way to overcome this nonsense?

[Ezerharden]

Well for myself I see the anti's in two groups. the die hards and the fence sitters. I hope that enough exposure to seeing everyday people open carry will sway the fence sitters. Maybe then the fence sitters will sway the die hards (doubtful but one can hope). But bottom line is education, desensitization, and combating the anti's with facts and logic to dispel their lies and twisted information. So as i see it there is no real single solution out there, but a combination of things that may win the day eventually.

[gryphon]

Is there an way to overcome this nonsense?

For most, no.

[T3000]

IMHO, I don't think any amount of training will appease the "anit-gunners". I do think, however, that the requirements to obtain a CPL (and gun ownership in general) should be more stringent. The second amendment states "A well REGULATED malitia...". When you have a system which allows any gomer who wants to carry a gun (for whatever reason) but has no concept of responsible gun ownership, that can lead to problems. Sure, I would say a majority of people who go through the process are responsible and go a lifetime without incident. But every so often there are stories of legal gun owners doing something irresponsible or stupid with their firearms. Or you have gun owners who leave their firearms accessible and you end up with a mass shooting in the headlines. Some people just shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

[Super Trucker]

Some people just shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

Automobiles, prescription drugs, knives, where do you draw the line? People die everyday using everything I listed because people are irresponsible.




To the OP I see you think people would like "official". There is a nearly worthless paper that was signed by a few people in 1791 that they can look at.
With you even thinking about giving up your rights to appease the people who think you do not need rights, is you saying "I give up they win".

[Zeteo]

To the OP I see you think people would like "official". There is a nearly worthless paper that was signed by a few people in 1791 that they can look at.
With you even thinking about giving up your rights to appease the people who think you do not need rights, is you saying "I give up they win".
[/quote]

+100

[Mando21]

T3000.

In the Second Amendment, the word "well regulated" often lead people in the wrong direction.  You see, the meaning of words are always evolving and back when the Constitution was written the word regulated meant something closer to trained or disciplined, which could be an argument for government regulation now, I suppose, but I think it had/has more to do with your preparation and training as a unit than as giving the government permission to interfere.

And while your are somewhat right in that some people should not own guns, who should decide?  That is power, power which can and eventually will be used against you or other responsible gun owners.  Kindly remember, every human has the right to defend himself. 

[bigbob]

I am glad to see this have been civil thus far and hope to keep it this way. Super tucker i agree with what you said. But is that not what sb59 was to do? Trade an aditional class for the ability to carry in PFZ? Is that not what the cpl class does? Trade us going to a class for the right to carry? I am all for Arizona style "the 2nd ammendment is your carry permit". But we dont have that in MI. Every single law we have on guns is a violation of the bill or rights yet there are thousands of them. The Original Post was ment to open a discussion on streamlining it somewhat. Not nessasarily with te exact idea posted but a discussion on what could be done that would help us. Thank you for your thoughts! And i want to stress i am not trying to be argumentative. Just opening a discussion to see what everyone thinks.

[METL]

It's not about how much training you have or how much certification you do via background check or whatever...  for many, MANY anti's it's just YOUR GUN.  They want it.


They don't have to make sense.   They don't have to have reason.   They don't have to use logic or ration.  THEY JUST WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUN.  PERIOD.


I sound like a broken record, but:

1.) it's about sticking it to political rivals.
2.) it's about control.



THat's it.   They don't want you to have guns because they don't want you to have guns.   They have no reasoning or common sense to back that up.  NO statistics, facts, research, studies, NOTHING.  Just that they don't feel safe with YOU having a gun and they're willing to do anything including have you murdered by the govt. to get your gun from you so they can feel safe.


It's their mental illness and there is no reason for us to think they should be sane or make any sort of sense.

[bigbob]

METL that is very hard to argue with. You and i both agree that in light of that, we should not stop trying to fight for our rights. Im not even saying mandate the training. Training is on ur own time. U already have to shoot targets to get a cpl. The above suggestion is not furthering any prohibitions on our rights. It just makes it a bit more meaningful. I am also not suggesting we run to The capitol and beg them to make it harder to practice our rights. I am asking for advice on a hypothetical plan. Maybe something we could get a senator behind. Say we eliminate cpl's all together for instance. As long as you demonstrate u are proficient with your pistol you can carry it anywere however you like and with no further regulations and hoops to jump through.

[METL]

Bob, training after the fact is a great thing...    there are many VERY reputable training orgs in michigan...


Michigan Defensive FIrearms Institute (MDFI)

Liberty FIrearms Training

Many others...     


You are right, it's the reponsibility of people to get training, but it cannot be regulated or forced upon free men.  However, it's a great and valuable thing to do.   I am planning on all the courses I can afford this year.

[bigbob]

We meet at the same page again METL. Like you said it can not be imposed on free men. My issue is that regulation currently is imposed. I think you would be hard pressed to find a gun owner who does not agree training is good. The principal behind making it manditory is the issue. Im not even sugesting the training be mandated, just a qualification that u are proficient. But we already have a lot of regulations that we not only disagree are not favorable, but also the princapal of being regulated at all. We are not going to get a bill through office that says "the second ammendment is good enough" so why not take the same approach the antis do. Take and inch at a time untill u have the whole mile. People will get used to regulation on guns more and more and it is exponentially easier to take them completly down the road. I would rather offer up the regulation we can live with, that will satisfy them enought to have a shot at passsing, in echange for crap we deal with now.

[T3000]

Automobiles, prescription drugs, knives, where do you draw the line? People die everyday using everything I listed because people are irresponsible.

But  the difference is that automobiles, prescription drugs, and knives weren't necessarily designed as a tool to kill (hunting, personal protection, war, etc.). Let's not lie to ourselves and pretend firearms aren't what they really are, tools to kill. Not saying that is there only legitimate use now. Nor am I saying that is justification for banning them or regulating what can be owned. My point is that people should be required to have more training to own them.

Take automobiles for example, there are no requirements for ownership of an automobile, but when it comes to operating one there is extensive training that is involved (weeks worth of classes and hours of practice, mostly under supervision). And the point of this process? Because society has realized that operating a motor vehicle can be a very dangerous activity if the person is not properly trained.

And a side note, prescription drugs are HIGHLY regulated. In fact, you must get permission from a doctor to LEGALLY use them. So should we just make all prescription narcotics over-the-counter so anybody can buy them?

Why not require just a little more training for people who want to own firearms? Would that really be a detriment to society? Whatever your definition of "regulated" is with regards to the second amendment, people should have knowledge of what they are using and how they are using it.

[WilDChilD]

But  the difference is that automobiles, prescription drugs, and knives weren't necessarily designed as a tool to kill (hunting, personal protection, war, etc.). Let's not lie to ourselves and pretend firearms aren't what they really are, tools to kill. Not saying that is there only legitimate use now. Nor am I saying that is justification for banning them or regulating what can be owned. My point is that people should be required to have more training to own them.

Take automobiles for example, there are no requirements for ownership of an automobile, but when it comes to operating one there is extensive training that is involved (weeks worth of classes and hours of practice, mostly under supervision). And the point of this process? Because society has realized that operating a motor vehicle can be a very dangerous activity if the person is not properly trained.

And a side note, prescription drugs are HIGHLY regulated. In fact, you must get permission from a doctor to LEGALLY use them. So should we just make all prescription narcotics over-the-counter so anybody can buy them?

Why not require just a little more training for people who want to own firearms? Would that really be a detriment to society? Whatever your definition of "regulated" is with regards to the second amendment, people should have knowledge of what they are using and how they are using it.

Ok but we all have heard of shady doctors that give pills to people that don't need them. And the drivers Ed teacher in my home town was convicted of touching the girls in class, bet they got any easy pass. There are cpl teachers that just sign people paper. Who's gonna watch the watch men?

[TheQ]

But  the difference is that automobiles, prescription drugs, and knives weren't necessarily designed as a tool to kill (hunting, personal protection, war, etc.). Let's not lie to ourselves and pretend firearms aren't what they really are, tools to kill. Not saying that is there only legitimate use now. Nor am I saying that is justification for banning them or regulating what can be owned. My point is that people should be required to have more training to own them.

Take automobiles for example, there are no requirements for ownership of an automobile, but when it comes to operating one there is extensive training that is involved (weeks worth of classes and hours of practice, mostly under supervision). And the point of this process? Because society has realized that operating a motor vehicle can be a very dangerous activity if the person is not properly trained.

And a side note, prescription drugs are HIGHLY regulated. In fact, you must get permission from a doctor to LEGALLY use them. So should we just make all prescription narcotics over-the-counter so anybody can buy them?

Why not require just a little more training for people who want to own firearms? Would that really be a detriment to society? Whatever your definition of "regulated" is with regards to the second amendment, people should have knowledge of what they are using and how they are using it.

Actually, there is no education requirement to drive. Once you are 18 you can get a license with no education.

[gryphon]

Why not require just a little more training for people who want to own firearms?

What if firearms owners had to take the equivalent of MDFI's Handgun 1, or perhaps Handgun 1 and 2?  With approximately 100 million firearms owners in the United States, how long do you think it would take to train them all?

Let's just look at Michigan's 350,000 CPL holders.  *If* an instructor/company can teach 3,000 people a year (that would require teaching M-F also, and good weather most of the year--and really in MI you can't), that would take 117 instructor years.  How many companies in MI are qualified to teach this, three?  How would you like to be put on a waiting list for 39 years before being licensed to carry?