October 22, 2010, 10:53 AM | #151 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
You were probably thinking of Baron Von Steuben, who really introduced the idea of military discipline to the Continental Army. But don't worry. I make many mistakes myself, including in spelling, which others here have kindly brought to my attention.
I take special interest in the thinking of George Mason, who was a local boy, and who was also one of my wife's direct ancestors. George Mason's daughter or granddaughter married Samuel Cooper, later general and adjutant general of the Confederate Army (although he was from New York). He was my wife's grandmother's grandfather. However, Paris Hilton is also a direct descendent of George Mason, so I guess it really isn't all that special a thing. I've been married to this same woman for over 30 years and I still don't have all the relations down pat. Anyway, central to George Mason's thinking on this subject was that the militia was to be subject to the government and entirely so. I don't know exactly what caused him to be worried about private armies, as he put it, but lately there seems to be some good cause. All this business about well regulated meaning to be a good shot is so much fantasy and nonsense. As this topic has discussed, your right to own a firearm is not dependent on your being a good shot--or a big shot.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. Last edited by BlueTrain; October 22, 2010 at 11:13 AM. |
October 22, 2010, 03:19 PM | #152 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,971
|
Quote:
So to put this in perspective, the items I outlines should be enough, if a person wants to go further, he can but to say it is needed by all, well that isnt right at all. To put another blockade in the way of people getting the permit to carry isnt being helpful to them as there are enough hoops to jump thru now. I have said before I was at a store awhile ago, lady in front of me was looking for her wallet in her purse, she pulls out a hog leg, puts it back then rummages thru till she finds her cash. She was old, like 65 old, do you think she should have to take these courses to have that gun? This isnt lets go out and get some bad guys, this is I have this thing here in case someone trys to take what is mine or do me harm. Period. nothing else, I feel some have this confused. Be careful. |
|
October 22, 2010, 03:37 PM | #153 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
You may think so. If you do (1) I disagree; and (2) many people with guns apparently can't even meet that minimal qualification. Last edited by Frank Ettin; October 22, 2010 at 03:43 PM. |
|||
October 23, 2010, 04:19 AM | #154 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: the object towards which the action of the sea is directed
Posts: 2,123
|
BlueTrain states:
Quote:
And continues: Quote:
Glenn E. Meyer states: Quote:
Quote:
The minute that someone states that there "should" be a "moral obligation" to obtain training, they have opened Pandora's box. They have created an "Us" and "Them" mentality. "Us" being morally superior, "Them" being those who have just not got it right. That person is attempting to set a standard, pronounced or not, that will be seen as such, a standard. And believing that the governing bodies will not notice if a "professional standard" has been suggested and possibly even established in some areas, helping to open the door for state/federal regulation, is a bit optimistic in my opinion. And if we look at the negative of pax's statement, we see that if I do not spend as much as I can afford on firearm training, I am not the type of person who would act to save the lives of my family members; or another way of looking at it is that I am not moral enough. Some arguments are lost the second an inch is given; inalienable is not compromisable. In my opinion, this is such an argument. Glenn E. Meyer you call, "sophistry". I call what I am reading in this thread as differing points of view. Please note: again, there has not yet been anyone on this thread who has argued that training is negative. And again, I myself value training, and additional training. However, I do not believe that myself or anyone else "must" feel "morally obligated" to pursue training.
__________________
The lowest paid college major/degree in this country after graduation... Elementary Education. Now, go figure... |
||||
October 23, 2010, 05:21 AM | #155 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 4,209
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 Quote:
|
|||
October 23, 2010, 06:46 AM | #156 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
Sad to say but AZAK has me convinced as far as moral obligations are concerned. But just in case he's wrong, you all have a moral obligation to stop eating meat, zeroscape the lawn, and sign up for ongoing advanced auto driving courses.
How bout my practice regimen, how many trips per week to the practice range and how many Rhodesians are required to meet obligations? Dry fire time? Is that based on your experiences or whose? The thread is OK it doesn't bother me at all, but the push to the nth degree is something else. Makes sense to get some training.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by alloy; October 23, 2010 at 07:01 AM. |
|
October 23, 2010, 06:58 AM | #157 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 14, 2009
Location: Sunshine and Keystone States
Posts: 4,461
|
I believe you have a moral obligation to understand your limits and do your best not to endanger the lives of innocents while preserving your own life and those of your dependents. If you want to obtain training to expand those limits so that you will be ready and able to handle more complex situations then that is all good.
|
October 23, 2010, 09:07 AM | #158 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2008
Location: midwest
Posts: 4,209
|
Quote:
however if you think your skill set is lacking and would likely put the public at large in peril and you refuse to train/practice because you don't care or your oppositional defiant disorder won't allow you to because so and so said it was a good idea then I beleve your moral compass is in dire need of adjustment. Nobody here is trying to set a bar for your level of training or proficiency. I'd suggest you do it yourself.
__________________
rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6 Quote:
Last edited by mavracer; October 23, 2010 at 02:58 PM. |
||
October 23, 2010, 02:05 PM | #159 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Location: Northeast Alabama
Posts: 2,580
|
Quote:
|
|
October 23, 2010, 02:57 PM | #160 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
So, AZAK, if I understand you, it is not "politically correct" for some of us to suggest that it would be a conscientious and responsible thing for a gun owner to seek out training, because it may appear elitist and may have undesirable political consequences.
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
October 23, 2010, 03:34 PM | #161 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: the object towards which the action of the sea is directed
Posts: 2,123
|
Quote:
Once we introduce the idea that morality has anything to do with it, what about the FACT that if we did not own guns there would be zero danger of an innocent bystander being harmed by "incompetent gunowners"; after all this is more moral, the moral high ground as it were. Sure you can argue this premise; however, don't introduce "moral obligation" and you don't open Pandora's box, or attempt to compromise an inalienable right.
__________________
The lowest paid college major/degree in this country after graduation... Elementary Education. Now, go figure... |
|
October 23, 2010, 03:43 PM | #162 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
An inalienable right has nothing to do with a voluntary moral obligation.
We will differ on whether a guntoting incompetent or an incompetent voter is moral. They may have the right to do such but they are not acting morally. Just as a doctor has the obligation to keep up when he or she attempts a procedure or give you a new Rx, if you put people at risk - you should know what's up. If you don't want to consider that consequences to others as part of your moral constellation of behaviors, then that's not defensible with Pandora's box, RKBA posturing. The voluntary nature of our discussion negates the black heliocopter rhetoric.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
October 23, 2010, 03:51 PM | #163 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
|
|
October 23, 2010, 04:22 PM | #164 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: the object towards which the action of the sea is directed
Posts: 2,123
|
I will leave you fine gentlemen and ladies to continue this discussion to your hearts content. I have said what I have to say on this subject.
And leave you with this parting thought: "If you suppose that good intentions justify intruding on the lives and properties of your fellow citizens: Do you appreciate being the target of somebody else's good intentions, or haven't you had that particular dubious pleasure yet?" Cat Farmer
__________________
The lowest paid college major/degree in this country after graduation... Elementary Education. Now, go figure... |
October 23, 2010, 06:05 PM | #165 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,969
|
An interesting thought, perhaps, but it's not relevant to pax's assertions.
Suggesting that responsible gun owners have a moral obligation to learn to use their guns competently does not intrude on people's "lives and properties". It might make them think a little bit and could even make them feel guilty and irresponsible if they choose not to do the right thing, but that's the extent of it.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
October 24, 2010, 06:16 PM | #166 | |||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
October 25, 2010, 03:20 PM | #167 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,971
|
Quote:
Once again we are talking about carring a gun concealed for personal protection. Not going after criminals, not breeching a doorway, not to protect every person in the immediate area. I know I am not a rambo. nor do I intend to ever be. |
|
October 25, 2010, 03:37 PM | #168 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
The reality is that since you don't know what will happen, or how, you have no idea how good you're going to have to be. The better prepared you are, the more likely you'll be successful. Quote:
|
|||
October 25, 2010, 03:54 PM | #169 | |||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Better: Know the laws, know when to use, and be able to draw and hit the targets quickly enough under stress and to do so without unduly endangering innocent persons. That takes training and it takes practice. Best: Know the laws, know when to use, be able to draw and hit the target quickly enough under stress and to do so without unduly endangering innocent persons, and be able to recognize and address potential danger without drawing a gun. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
October 26, 2010, 04:15 PM | #170 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 27, 2005
Location: Crescent Iowa
Posts: 2,971
|
Quote:
Understand this, I have trained long ago and practise often. I am against making it mandatory for a person to take advanced training to achieve a permit to carry a concealed weapon. That stipulation will keep folks from getting a permit, so as I understand it, all of you think folks should have to take classes to get the permit. Advanced classes like you suggest cost a bit more than the 100.00 most are paying in Nebraska for their training. Get training after the permit is an option now, it is not madatory. I say leave it that way. Why put more road blocks in place? or are you just anti gun and trolling here? |
|
October 26, 2010, 04:22 PM | #171 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 9, 2004
Location: Northeast Alabama
Posts: 2,580
|
Quote:
|
|
October 26, 2010, 06:26 PM | #172 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
... and fiddletown and I weren't among those few.
pax |
October 26, 2010, 07:13 PM | #173 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
And her experience doesn't change the simple fact that: Quote:
|
||
October 27, 2010, 05:31 AM | #174 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
It occurs to me that most people in the armed forces aren't trained well enough with small arms to qualify according to some people's standards. But then, on the other hand, most training, initially at least, is merely familiarization anyway, not advanced training. However, I have also seen it stated that the advanced training is only the basic training but the trainees are paying more attention. Then on top of that formations sometimes establish battle schools if there is a need, because when the need for men is high, they tend to rush the troops through.
That is all gun handling and doesn't even begin to address legal aspects, which the armed forces call "rules of engagement."
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
October 27, 2010, 07:22 AM | #175 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Training recommendations vs training requirements
markj and AZAK, you seem to think that "recommending training" = "requiring training" (markj) or else leads to a slippery slope that will ultimately require training (AZAK).
I don't agree with either viewpoint. Instead, I look at it kind of like I look at flying. A private pilot does not need to get instrument certified. Most private pilots will only fly on days with very good weather, during daylight. Very few will fly at night, even in the best of weather. They are not required to pay the extra money, nor take the extra time, to learn to fly in instrument conditions. Nor do I think they should be required to do so. However, as a professional pilot pushing 6000 flight hours, I would very strongly recommend that all pilots who can afford the time, effort, and money should learn to fly solely on the instruments, for those days when the weather doesn't develop as forecast. Seeing clouds move into the area all around you, or losing reference to the horizon due to sudden formation of haze, or finding oneself running a bit late and then returning to a coastal airport on a starry, moonless night (when it's really hard to tell stars in the sky from the reflections of lights in the water) - those are all situations that will pucker the butt of any pilot who can't swiftly transition to a full instrument scan. Are those situations particularly likely, for a pilot who doesn't fly far from home, and who only flies on clear, sunny days? No, but they have still been known to happen. One glaring example of this would be JFK, Junior. He did have some instrument training, but not much, and not enough for the hazy conditions he ran into over the Long Island Sound. (Which brings up the argument that confidence out of proportion with actual training and ability can, and does, kill.) So, I don't think IFR certification should be required for private or recreational pilots, but I do think such training would be extremely valuable to those people. And I don't think training should be required for the exercise of a Constitutional right, but I think training would extremely valuable to most CCW types. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|