No Firearms Training = No God Given Rights in Wisconsin

[jgreiner]

No Firearms Training = No God Given Rights in Wisconsin

I keep hoping these d*mn politicians will run into an armed mugger that may wake them up sometime. this isn't rocket science. When you prohibit guns...you only prohibit them from the folks that are will to FOLLOW THE LAW. D'oh!!!!!!!!!

 

[Spinaltapls1]

No Firearms Training = No God Given Rights in Wisconsin

I keep hoping these d*mn politicians will run into an armed mugger that may wake them up sometime. this isn't rocket science. When you prohibit guns...you only prohibit them from the folks that are will to FOLLOW THE LAW. D'oh!!!!!!!!!

+1 on that. When will the learn laws only hurt responsible gun owners!!

 

[jgreiner]

+1 on that. When will the learn laws only hurt responsible gun owners!!

I fear THEY will never "learn" on their own....it's our job to educate them...with our voices and our votes.

 

[Bill B]

It is, however, a step in the right direction...

 

[Jay]

Too bad that training is mandated, but training is a good thing. Unless, of course, a given individual has nothing left to learn.

 

[iChokePeople]

Too bad we can't discuss the notion that the right to own guns is "God Given"... Makes no difference, because in this country it's supposed to at least be "Constitution-given", but interesting.

 

[finity]

Too bad we can't discuss the notion that the right to own guns is "God Given"... Makes no difference, because in this country it's supposed to at least be "Constitution-given", but interesting.

Close but not quite.

The Constitution doesn't "give" any Rights. It only protects the Natural Rights we already have from government infringement. Well, in theory, anyway.

 

[iChokePeople]

As I said, it would be an interesting discussion, if not prohibited.

 

[ultraspec]

It is better than what WI residents have been dealing with.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Too bad we can't discuss the notion that the right to own guns is "God Given"... Makes no difference, because in this country it's supposed to at least be "Constitution-given", but interesting.

Our Founders were clear in the DoI that "...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." It is not a violation of INGO rules to discuss that our rights come from our Creator, nor that many of our members (and I count myself among them) choose to call our Creator by the name of "God". Our rules do prohibit discussion of individual religions, simply because people can't seem to keep those discussions to respectful disagreements when they disagree, but quickly devolve to namecalling and animosity. In addition, this is a board for Indiana gun owners. A discussion of founding principles and their origins is relevant. A discussion of our Founders' beliefs and stated intentions for us does not usually invoke the level of anger and personal investment that our beliefs in our chosen (man-made) religions usually does. It's impossible to completely separate their beliefs from the historical events and writings, nor, IMHO, should we try, but if those discussions do devolve as described, I think it should be expected that at a minimum, the posts will be removed.

I hope that clarifies, to some extent.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[s&wluvr]

Well, as a relative newbie, I'd like to express my worth. I happened to be a firm believer in training and education. I'm sure that many people who apply for their license/permit to carry will also be newbies and in many cases have never even handled a gun. Shouldn't they at least learn the basic issues of carrying, shooting, the law in their locale and foremost GUN SAFETY!

IMHO, I think that all states should have some prerequisite for gun ownership. Don't forget that all of these "registered" owners represent the entire gun community, and their lack of ability will only hurt this community's ability to prove that we are RESPONSIBLE AND LAW ABIDING PEOPLE and not crazy, paranoid people who want to carry a gun. Enough said.

 

[Jay]

IMHO, I think that all states should have some prerequisite for gun ownership.

I'm in favor of training. I'm not in favor of mandated training. I am most certainly NOT in favor of any prerequisite, of ANY sort, simply for gun ownership

What if the State's prerequisite is that a prospect be 35 years old, post a million-dollar bond, and pass a proficiency test in front of a State Police officer, using a gun that has been inspected by the police?

Nuts to that.

psssst... "shall NOT be infringed"

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

It would be nice if you could think people would be as conscientious and interested in training as some of us are, but some n00bs always have to **** in the sandbox like it's a litterbox, so the nannies in the government can't think of anything but to put onerous requirements on all of us. Perhaps there should be standards; pass a written test and prove you can put a few holes in a piece of paper, but you should be able to achieve that level your own way. But no, one size has to fit all, and it has to cost money, too, doesn't it?

 

[s&wluvr]

Well, I kind of equate it this way. In order to drive an automobile, you must get a license to drive. That means that you have to pass a written test and a driving test. This is going to require some sort of education and training. That is to make sure that you REALLY DO know how to drive and just don't go out and injure or kill either yourself or anyone on or near the roadways that you will be driving on.

And yes, I understand that driving a car is NOT a constitutional right, however both examples benefit us all. IMHO

 

[Bunnykid68]

Well, I kind of equate it this way. In order to drive an automobile, you must get a license to drive. That means that you have to pass a written test and a driving test. This is going to require some sort of education and training. That is to make sure that you REALLY DO know how to drive and just don't go out and injure or kill either yourself or anyone on or near the roadways that you will be driving on.

And yes, I understand that driving a car is NOT a constitutional right, however both examples benefit us all. IMHO

First, I do not think you should be tested to qualify for any rights.
Second, do you know when driving ceased being a right and became a privilege? It hasn't always been a privilege and it shouldn't be. I need a truck to get to work.

 

[s&wluvr]

AJ, I respect your opinion on this issue. I am an old timer and have experienced much in my lifetime. When I was younger, many people told me that my style and my views on an issue were intimidating. After many long years, I have softened my outlook and my style. I truly believe in the art of compromise, ESPECIALLY if it will further the cause for which I am seeking.

I have read many of the threads and posts in this forum, and it appears to me that many of our members have drawn a line in the sand, especially with regard to Second Amendment issues, and are not willing to give some serious thought to the other side of the issue. And yes, many people just don't understand the issue of gun ownership and carry. But, isn't it in our best interest to educate them, however slowly, to our way of thinking rather than jamb our views down their throats? Wouldn't some degree of compromise lead us faster to our goals here?

Please believe me when I say that I am not critical of your or anyone else's views here. I am just looking at this from what a perceive as a common sense point of view.

 

[Bunnykid68]

AJ, I respect your opinion on this issue. I am an old timer and have experienced much in my lifetime. When I was younger, many people told me that my style and my views on an issue were intimidating. After many long years, I have softened my outlook and my style. I truly believe in the art of compromise, ESPECIALLY if it will further the cause for which I am seeking.

I have read many of the threads and posts in this forum, and it appears to me that many of our members have drawn a line in the sand, especially with regard to Second Amendment issues, and are not willing to give some serious thought to the other side of the issue. And yes, many people just don't understand the issue of gun ownership and carry. But, isn't it in our best interest to educate them, however slowly, to our way of thinking rather than jamb our views down their throats? Wouldn't some degree of compromise lead us faster to our goals here?

Please believe me when I say that I am not critical of your or anyone else's views here. I am just looking at this from what a perceive as a common sense point of view.

Did not take any criticism from your post at all. But like the ole saying goes. give em an inch... And by conceding to that inch by requiring training will more often than not just lead to more infringements. We already do not have a 2nd Amendment right.

 

[ATM]

...I truly believe in the art of compromise, ESPECIALLY if it will further the cause for which I am seeking...

Compromise on an infringement to our protected right to keep and bear arms?

What good could possibly come of that?

What is this cause you speak of, exactly?

 

[Bill of Rights]

AJ, I respect your opinion on this issue. I am an old timer and have experienced much in my lifetime. When I was younger, many people told me that my style and my views on an issue were intimidating. After many long years, I have softened my outlook and my style. I truly believe in the art of compromise, ESPECIALLY if it will further the cause for which I am seeking.

I have read many of the threads and posts in this forum, and it appears to me that many of our members have drawn a line in the sand, especially with regard to Second Amendment issues, and are not willing to give some serious thought to the other side of the issue. And yes, many people just don't understand the issue of gun ownership and carry. But, isn't it in our best interest to educate them, however slowly, to our way of thinking rather than jamb our views down their throats? Wouldn't some degree of compromise lead us faster to our goals here?

Please believe me when I say that I am not critical of your or anyone else's views here. I am just looking at this from what a perceive as a common sense point of view.

That line in the sand is our reaction to continued infringements. Yes, educating those who are on the fence or even on the other side of it would be ideal. Our rights have been subjected to their views being jammed down our throats for many, many years. I can't speak for anyone else, but I have given serious thought to the anti-gunners' positions... I find them to be puerile and shortsighted, not to mention presented with dishonesty and disingenuousness.

Speaking for myself, if my words and attitudes are considered fiery and/or intimidating, I consider myself in good company with such men as Mr. Patrick Henry. The problem I see with your stated approach of compromise is that you do what you do with the goal of advancing our ability to exercise our rights, and such compromises might actually do that in the short term, but in the long term, they actually short all of us as well as our children and grandchildren. Sure, it's a great idea for everyone to be properly trained in the use of a firearm. Few if any of us would argue that point, and that's to our credit, but it's also our Achilles' heel: If we agree that it's a good idea, then it's taken as the same thing that we agree it would be a good idea to make it required.

For many years, I've used the example that it's a good idea to tip your servers when you eat at a restaurant, but few people (I thought) would support making that good idea a requirement. In fact, apparently, some places not only make it a requirement of the restaurant, some cities are making it a law that servers be tipped at a rate of 25%. Not all good ideas should be mandated by law.

I would support incentivizing training: If we must have licenses to carry our handguns, then let's reduce the cost of them on proof of training being shown: For every dollar I spend on training or for every hour I spend in training, reduce the cost of my LTCH by some amount.

Our rights should not be subject to licensure or permission. That the exercise of a right might include dangerous elements does not excuse allowing those it is meant to keep under control to control it instead, a la the fox guarding the henhouse.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bubba]

Yet again I say the State has every right to encourage training but that to require it is too close to a bar to exercising the right to self defense. What if a state mandates a 40-hour retaining class with at least 500 rounds of live fire? Wisconsin could easily have gone there as they already have the training model in place at Regulation and Licensing. When I became an armed guard in Wisconsin in 2002 my training was mandated at 40 hours of mixed classroom and live fire. I don't recall the round count but it was in the 300-500 range. A handgun is a huge expenditure for a low income family, why compound it with hundreds of dollars more in training costs?

If we must have a licensing process, I say if the state was concerned about safety instead of revenues they would offer a license without training requirements and give a discount to those people that show proof of completing an approved training course. (I'm aware I was scooped by a long shot by BoR on this. I guess I need to type faster.)