View Single Post
Old November 23, 2011, 10:52 AM   #85
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,208
Quote:
Frankly of we can have minimal tests for a driver's license, a license for concealed carry should have similar requirements of minimal competence.
Zincwarrior, can you or anyone else give me an ideal what "YOU" consider a "mimimual Competence test"??

Everyone is different. Alaska use to have standards for Armed Security Guards where as they had to attend a course for Armed Security Guards and pass a written and shooting test before they could be certified to be armed while working.

I conducted these classes but I would not sign off or certify anyone unless they scored at least 85% on both written and practiacl portions.

Some people have differernt standards, who's right. Who is going to write those standards, The guy who doen't want anyone to carry or the guy who wants everyone to carry.

Another point, everyone relates shooting to driving, Driving is not a protected right under the constitution, the right to carry is.

I'm all for training, but not mandentory training, a person has to WANT TO LEARN, and we should provide a zero or low cost venue so they can get that training.

Guess what? We do, the Civilian Marksmanship (then the DCM, or Division of Civilian Marksmanship) was started in the early 1900s to do just that. Then it was funded by the Dept of the Army with tax dollars, Since 1996 the DCM was changed to the CMP, and its totally funded by the sales of surplus arms and equipment, they use zero tax dollars. Its there, its free or low cost, available to every citizen of the US, but how many take advantage of it.

Some people don't care, some people do, testing and training isnt gonna make people care. Training and testing wont make one shoot better, it only makes them take the reqired training to pass the test, but without follow up accomplishes NOTHING.

You can't make people care, and trying so you want to violate the constitution. You want to make it mandantory then change the constitution.

If one watches the news you'll see there is going to be an up coming USSC case dealing with whether the Federal Government can force one to pay for something he doesnt want. Most of us agree with the states who are suing the feds to prevent forcing us to buy something, Yet we set here and try to push the same thing.

We gun owners want to protect our rights the constitution protects and then demand we have to pay for those rights.

I just don't understand this.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04743 seconds with 7 queries