Should Training Be A Requirement For Carrying Concealed?

[RJT CCW]

Required - NO!

As a level of responsible gun carrying I believe training is essential (what ever form that training comes from).

 

[BluesStringer]

It would be much more productive if we can converse as civilized gentlemen;

If answering something in a direct manner that was addressed specifically to me sans any anger, name-calling or cutting sarcasm is considered uncivilized nowadays, then one of us is clearly not prepared to participate on an open forum where discussion about important, and sometimes controversial, subjects is encouraged.

it is not necessary to emphasize your distaste for government in each of your posts, anyone reading this forum for even a modicum of time is surely aware of your position.

Thanks for the advice, but I prefer to answer posts directed specifically to me in my own words and expressing my own thoughts on the subjects being discussed. When we're talking about what government might or might not require, it is not off-topic in the least for people opposing such requirements to voice the opinion that they shouldn't be thusly forced for whatever reasons they might have.

Training has a wide range of applicable meanings in the context under discussion.

While generally-speaking that might be true, we're talking about "training" in the context of what can potentially be squeezed into classroom and range sessions in four to eight hours total between them, depending on which "training"-mandated state we're talkin' about. My contention is that virtually nothing of substance can be imparted, understood and retained by anyone who is totally unfamiliar with guns, self-defense and/or use of force laws in that short amount of time, and regardless of whether or not you agree with my contention, I contend it because I believe it, and believing it leads me to conclude that such inadequate "training" is a total waste of time. People who are familiar with guns, self-defense and/or use of force laws don't need it, and people who aren't won't retain much, if anything, after being forced to comply with the requirement, so what is accomplished by placing the requirement upon them in order for them to be *allowed* to exercise their God-given rights?

Making sure one knows the basic laws for use of deadly force and the basics of safely handling a firearm is certainly ‘training’ that would be useful to someone carrying a gun, and this interpretation of ‘training’ is within the range of reasonable interpretations of the word as used within the OP’s post.

There are people who spent the same 12 years in school that most of us did who can't do long division, can't name the three branches of government or tell you how many justices sit on the Supreme Court. Many get graduated with less than a sixth grade reading level. What do you imagine is going to get forced into their brains and stick there after a four-hour course that they're taking begrudgingly because the government mandates it before they can exercise their God-given rights? Yet and still, if they comply, the same people who can barely read and won't retain anything even as "basic" as basic math, will be issued those permits as long as they can answer some arbitrary number of questions and manage not to kill someone during the range session. You call that passing "training." I call it a total waste of time, as well as being an unnecessary expense that amounts to a tax on a fundamental right.

And just to be clear, nothing I say above is intended to be critical of people who didn't do well in school. I believe wholeheartedly that they were born with the same inherent rights as any of the rest of us, and if their brains aren't wired to excel in an environment created to teach to the "average" learning abilities of young citizens, then that shouldn't be a reason to deny them their rights. But mandated "training" like what you're advocating for is all that's necessary for government to pick and choose amongst citizens who's "smart" enough to be *allowed* to carry a weapon for self-defense. That's just one more in a long line of reasons why I don't trust government to be in charge of who gets to exercise their God-given rights, and who doesn't.

The alternative is to propose to allow someone with no understanding whatsoever of how to safely handle a gun and with no knowledge of when lethal force is legally justified to carry a deadly weapon with no idea of what he or she is doing. Advocating that position is irrationally irresponsible, and I would expect that upon reflection a reasonable person would have difficulty doing so.

Nonsense. The "alternative" is to operate under the same rights of passage "system" that youngsters have excelled in since the beginning of time. Another "alternative" is to encourage kids towards the shooting sports, demystify guns in schools and the wider society, quit punishing them for eating a piece of pizza into the shape of a gun, all these things and more we, as gun-owners, can demand of our government right this second. But demanding that I jump through even more hoops in my state that doesn't require the type of "training" you're talking about before I can be issued a permission slip is not an "alternative" that I'm willing to consider, or willing to wish on anybody else in any other state.

If you re-read my first post in this thread you will note that I am not in favor of governments requiring training, but I do concede that the issue is not cut and dried, it is a multi-faceted issue, and it is not as clear as simply taking the stand that ‘The government can’t tell me what to do’ implies.

See, here's a glaring example of how you and I differ. There are very few issues confronting my life that I haven't been able to look closely at and determine which side is right, and which side is wrong. Absolutely anything that is in the Constitution and spelled out in as plain of language as the Second Amendment, doesn't take more than a cursory review before I decide which side of the argument I will fall on. I do not concede that the issue being discussed here is multi-faceted, because we're talking about requirements, and that word, when applied to anything having to do with keeping and bearing arms, is always in the context of it being forced down our throats by government. It is so not multi-faceted, so clearly black-and-white of an issue, that the Founders based every single right they deemed important enough to enumerate, plus a nearly infinite number more, on rights endowed to us by our Creator that comply with the laws of nature and of nature's God, and it was on that basis that they wrote, "shall not be infringed" at the end of the Second Amendment.

It's not me saying the government can't tell me what to do on this issue that we're discussing, it's God first, The Founders second, reduced to writing within the Constitution third, and my state's compliance with at least that little bit of founding principles fourth.

I am not a fence-sitter when it comes to The Constitution, and if the issue of keeping and bearing arms is being discussed, I will always, 100% of the time, stand firmly on the side of the argument that most closely aligns with the very plain language of the Second Amendment. There's nothing "multi-faceted" or nuanced about the words, "shall not be infringed."

Blues

 

[TrapperBob]

All language is nuanced, except for simple declarative sentences. And rest assured, that first sentence was not implying you are not civilized.

 

[Hatchetman]

I am utterly astonished at the level of infringements most so called 2nd amendment supporters wish upon others. It is really telling how absolutely outright stupid most people are.


Here is a clue for you dumbasses: UNTIL my exercising my rights actually do infringe on you being able to exercise yours, leave me and mine the **** alone.... You havent a damn clue what rights are UNTIL you get that through your ignorant heads.

 

[BluesStringer]

All language is nuanced, except for simple declarative sentences.

The Second Amendment is a simple declarative statement. It's only when agenda-driven hacks get their hooks into the simple language of the 2A that "nuance" is manufactured in pursuance of their agenda(s).

And rest assured, that first sentence was not implying you are not civilized.

Really?

It would be much more productive if we can converse as civilized gentlemen....

That was a very simple declarative statement without much room for "nuanced" implications either. It's apparently considered by you to be lacking civility to maintain 100% consistency in being critical of government when a discussion about government-imposed restrictions on the simple declarative prohibitions on government of same in the Second Amendment is being engaged in. I don't pretend to get it, but it's pretty clear to me that that's what you were implying.

Blues

 

[TrapperBob]

That was a very simple declarative statement without much room for "nuanced" implications either.

Blues

Ah yes, well that is rather the problem, isn't it? This has been amusing and all, but I must go. Afraid we shall continue to disagree, but best wishes Blues!

 

[BluesStringer]

Ah yes, well that is rather the problem, isn't it?

No, the "problem" in the context of this discussion is an overreaching government placing restrictions on people who are legally, morally and rightfully protected from those restrictions by the very plain, simple and declarative language of the Second Amendment.

This has been amusing and all, but I must go.

No, this hasn't been amusing at all, and you are not being honest when you say you "must" go, you're just bailing because you'd rather not explain why you clearly implied that I was being uncivil when I wasn't.

Afraid we shall continue to disagree, but best wishes Blues!

Well, we agree that you're afraid of admitting to implying that anything I've said to you was uncivil, but beyond that you're probably right. I will never agree with you that the Second Amendment wasn't intended to mean what it clearly says, up to and including that it was intended to restrict government from imposing obstacles to our free exercise of the full width and breadth of rights stated within it. That would mean no taxation of the right through permission slips. That would mean no government-imposed requirement to pay for and attend classes and range sessions that are so shallow in content or "training" value as to render them wholly meaningless.

Like I said before, I believe everything I say. Why you're afraid of more disagreement in light of the fact that you yourself said you already know what I think about government in general is a mystery to me. Did you think you were up to the task of changing my belief system? Your arguments are hardly that compelling.

You responded to me. In fact, your first post in reply to me disagreed with me. Not that it matters to me, but now coming and saying you're afraid that we might continue to disagree seems rather a cop-out to me. But whatever, if you "must" avoid the issues I've raised, buh-bye.

Blues

 

[Wild Dog]

I say "NO" to training, registering, and restrictions of any kind. As an American I should have the right to go to a gun store, purchase a weapon, and then leave with it strapped on my hip ready to address the wrongs I witness day to day.

 

[TrapperBob]

No, the "problem" in the context of this discussion is an overreaching government placing restrictions on people who are legally, morally and rightfully protected from those restrictions by the very plain, simple and declarative language of the Second Amendment.



No, this hasn't been amusing at all, and you are not being honest when you say you "must" go, you're just bailing because you'd rather not explain why you clearly implied that I was being uncivil when I wasn't.



Well, we agree that you're afraid of admitting to implying that anything I've said to you was uncivil, but beyond that you're probably right. I will never agree with you that the Second Amendment wasn't intended to mean what it clearly says, up to and including that it was intended to restrict government from imposing obstacles to our free exercise of the full width and breadth of rights stated within it. That would mean no taxation of the right through permission slips. That would mean no government-imposed requirement to pay for and attend classes and range sessions that are so shallow in content or "training" value as to render them wholly meaningless.

Like I said before, I believe everything I say. Why you're afraid of more disagreement in light of the fact that you yourself said you already know what I think about government in general is a mystery to me. Did you think you were up to the task of changing my belief system? Your arguments are hardly that compelling.

You responded to me. In fact, your first post in reply to me disagreed with me. Not that it matters to me, but now coming and saying you're afraid that we might continue to disagree seems rather a cop-out to me. But whatever, if you "must" avoid the issues I've raised, buh-bye.

Blues

Ok, here's the deal. I was wasn't implying you weren't civil. With a careful reading you will perhaps note that 'civilized' is only one of the words in the sentence. If I then say "And rest assured, that first sentence was not implying you are not civilized", it is logically inferred by anyone of moderate intelligence that I was implying that you aren't a gentleman. (The fact that you clearly missed that was the 'amusing' part to which I was referring)

As I learned growing up, gentlemen converse between themselves in nuanced language, it is an insult for one gentleman to flat out say exactly what he means when discussing something with another gentleman, except in trivial or common place discussions. Since you are apparently completely unfamiliar with the concept, I'll give you an example. I loaned my neighbor a wood plane. He accidentally broke it, and offered to buy me a replacement, as one does. I said Don't worry about, no need to get me replacement. He then when and bought me a replacement anyway, which I fully expected him to do. I said don't worry about it, because it is the expected response between gentlemen. Of course I wanted him to buy me a replacement. And of course he knew when I said that, that I did expect a replacement. A conversation between gentlemen. An overly simplified example of course, the point being that discussions between gentlemen involves nuance and subtlety, not blunt force and bombastic statements.

You sir, clearly have no concept of nuance and subtlety. Your understanding of the English language is unbelievable shallow: words mean exactly what they say. My cat has a deeper understanding of the English language. The constitution, including the second amendment, is not a giant declarative sentence. It is full of nuance and subtlety, that's why there are constant legal battles about what it means.

My last response was intended as a polite way of ending an argument that is utterly pointless. Clearly even that low level of respectful communication escapes your unimaginatively literal mind. It was apparently too subtle for you.

So here it is. Flat out. I bow out because there is absolutely no point in my attempting to explain my views to you. You are not listening, you are just waiting for someone to say something you can argue about. Nothing I could possible say would make any difference to your views. It it an utter waste of my time to communicate with you at all. I can have, and in fact DO have, more intelligent conversations with my cat. I can see some validity in your view, but you don't care, ALL you want to do is argue and rail against the government ad nauseam. It gets old.

I am not going to continue communicating with you because I don't care if you agree with anything I say. It wastes my time, and clearly it wastes yours.

 

[Blueshell]

Ok, here's the deal. I was wasn't implying you weren't civil. With a careful reading you will perhaps note that 'civilized' is only one of the words in the sentence. If I then say "And rest assured, that first sentence was not implying you are not civilized", it is logically inferred by anyone of moderate intelligence that I was implying that you aren't a gentleman. (The fact that you clearly missed that was the 'amusing' part to which I was referring)

As I learned growing up, gentlemen converse between themselves in nuanced language, it is an insult for one gentleman to flat out say exactly what he means when discussing something with another gentleman, except in trivial or common place discussions. Since you are apparently completely unfamiliar with the concept, I'll give you an example. I loaned my neighbor a wood plane. He accidentally broke it, and offered to buy me a replacement, as one does. I said Don't worry about, no need to get me replacement. He then when and bought me a replacement anyway, which I fully expected him to do. I said don't worry about it, because it is the expected response between gentlemen. Of course I wanted him to buy me a replacement. And of course he knew when I said that, that I did expect a replacement. A conversation between gentlemen. An overly simplified example of course, the point being that discussions between gentlemen involves nuance and subtlety, not blunt force and bombastic statements.

You sir, clearly have no concept of nuance and subtlety. Your understanding of the English language is unbelievable shallow: words mean exactly what they say. My cat has a deeper understanding of the English language. The constitution, including the second amendment, is not a giant declarative sentence. It is full of nuance and subtlety, that's why there are constant legal battles about what it means.

My last response was intended as a polite way of ending an argument that is utterly pointless. Clearly even that low level of respectful communication escapes your unimaginatively literal mind. It was apparently too subtle for you.

So here it is. Flat out. I bow out because there is absolutely no point in my attempting to explain my views to you. You are not listening, you are just waiting for someone to say something you can argue about. Nothing I could possible say would make any difference to your views. It it an utter waste of my time to communicate with you at all. I can have, and in fact DO have, more intelligent conversations with my cat. I can see some validity in your view, but you don't care, ALL you want to do is argue and rail against the government ad nauseam. It gets old.

I am not going to continue communicating with you because I don't care if you agree with anything I say. It wastes my time, and clearly it wastes yours.

I had this same problem with him on another thread.

 

[AmericanHero!]

Short answer, no.

What people mean when they say "should training be required to own a firearm?" what they mean is state sponsored training that you are going to have to pay for and fill some pockets with your money. What if I started shooting at 8 years old with my grandfather and know more about firearms than any instructor could hope to teach me? I think proficiency should be shown in order to get a ccp but it should be a nominal fee of $10 or something similar. Everyone just wants to grab their chunk of your money.

Don't get me wrong. I highly encourage training and have been to training classes 6 or 7 times, by choice and to learn more about things like drawing from a holster. It shouldn't be forced on someone who is already proficient with the skill at a cost of $150 or more.

 

[Blueshell]

Short answer, no.

What people mean when they say "should training be required to own a firearm?" what they mean is state sponsored training that you are going to have to pay for and fill some pockets with your money. What if I started shooting at 8 years old with my grandfather and know more about firearms than any instructor could hope to teach me? I think proficiency should be shown in order to get a ccp but it should be a nominal fee of $10 or something similar. Everyone just wants to grab their chunk of your money.

Don't get me wrong. I highly encourage training and have been to training classes 6 or 7 times, by choice and to learn more about things like drawing from a holster. It shouldn't be forced on someone who is already proficient with the skill at a cost of $150 or more.

As long as you can document that training. Many of my general ed classes in collage had a 'test out' option where you can take the final immediately for full credit and never have to attend the class.

 

[Ringo]

Open or concealed carry, my answer is NO.

 

[BluesStringer]

Ok, here's the deal. I was wasn't implying you weren't civil. With a careful reading you will perhaps note that 'civilized' is only one of the words in the sentence. If I then say "And rest assured, that first sentence was not implying you are not civilized", it is logically inferred by anyone of moderate intelligence that I was implying that you aren't a gentleman. (The fact that you clearly missed that was the 'amusing' part to which I was referring)

I didn't miss the word, it's just that it was meaningless because I had not been either uncivilized or ungentlemanly to you, just direct and truthful about what I think about what's being discussed. But your idea of gentlemanly or civil is as convoluted as anything I've ever read about any subject on any forum, as you describe next....

As I learned growing up, gentlemen converse between themselves in nuanced language, it is an insult for one gentleman to flat out say exactly what he means when discussing something with another gentleman, except in trivial or common place discussions. Since you are apparently completely unfamiliar with the concept, I'll give you an example. I loaned my neighbor a wood plane. He accidentally broke it, and offered to buy me a replacement, as one does. I said Don't worry about, no need to get me replacement. He then when and bought me a replacement anyway, which I fully expected him to do. I said don't worry about it, because it is the expected response between gentlemen. Of course I wanted him to buy me a replacement. And of course he knew when I said that, that I did expect a replacement. A conversation between gentlemen. An overly simplified example of course, the point being that discussions between gentlemen involves nuance and subtlety, not blunt force and bombastic statements.

Well, that's rather the problem, isn't it? Your neighbor accidentally breaks something you loaned him. He offers to replace it as any gentleman would, but the gentlemanly thing on your part to do is lie about what your actual expectation is about replacing the plane? Lying to him is more gentlemanly than just saying, "Yeah, no big deal that you broke it, and no hurry replacing it, but I would appreciate having it replaced at your convenience"?

You're right, I have no concept of lying about what I think at any given time. There is no reason on Earth why I would adapt my desire to always be thought of as honest and above-board just to fit into some weird "Marquess of Queensberry Rules" box concerning verbal sparring. You fancy yourself a gentleman, when what you really are is a liar who would rather put the onus on your neighbor to fulfill your expectations and boundaries of your relationship or "friendship," whatever you call it when you lie to your neighbor, than to just politely accept his gentlemanly offer without hammering him for a simple accident. Your expectations of me are no different, as demonstrated by your scoffing towards me not knowing the rules (expectations and boundaries) you expect me to converse under, as if your rules apply to anyone but you to begin with.

So fine, go away liar. No skin off my teeth.

Blues

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by TrapperBob View Post
As I learned growing up, gentlemen converse between themselves in nuanced language, it is an insult for one gentleman to flat out say exactly what he means when discussing something with another gentleman, except in trivial or common place discussions. Since you are apparently completely unfamiliar with the concept, I'll give you an example. I loaned my neighbor a wood plane. He accidentally broke it, and offered to buy me a replacement, as one does. I said Don't worry about, no need to get me replacement. He then when and bought me a replacement anyway, which I fully expected him to do. I said don't worry about it, because it is the expected response between gentlemen. Of course I wanted him to buy me a replacement. And of course he knew when I said that, that I did expect a replacement. A conversation between gentlemen. An overly simplified example of course, the point being that discussions between gentlemen involves nuance and subtlety, not blunt force and bombastic statements.

My exwife expected me to read her mind and decipher what she really meant when she said something because, after all, if I loved her I would know what she meant regardless of what she actually said.

So now I'm supposed to read someone's mind and decipher what they really mean when they post something because, after all, if I were the gentleman they expect me to be then I should know what they meant regardless of what they said?

Real men say what they mean and mean what they say although gentlemen understand there is a polite way to say it.

 

[Paco]

Washington, Alaska, Vermont, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, and a few other states have no requirement for training before legally carrying concealed - so I have to ask - exactly what problems in these states do you think need fixing by requiring training? Show me the blood running in the streets from no training requirement here. Like my signature line says - "Those who say they support the 2nd Amendment, BUT"...don't.

This.
PA is another state that has no training requirement, and…….NO blood running in the streets here, either.

I think everyone who has a ccw does have a responsibility to become educated on the subject, but that is the individual's responsibility, NO ONE ELSE'S!
It is not the responsibility of the State, nor should the State set up "gate keepers" or "hoops" for citizens to jump through.
These things invariably involve costs. Citizens should be required to bear NO unneeded costs to exercise their Constitutional rights.
And it is in no one's interest to entrench a layer of bureaucracy, of "trainers", who then get to suck on the teat of State mandates to enrich themselves buy offering mandatory training courses.

"Those who say they support the 2nd Amendment, but…..DON'T"….Indeed!!

 

[Bikenut]

The purpose of requiring training isn't to insure folks are trained but is for the government to be in control of who ISN'T allowed to carry concealed using the training criteria to deny the ability to exercise the right to bear arms in a concealed manner to anyone who doesn't meet the criteria the government itself instituted.

And all that is necessary to deny more and more people is to change the criteria of the required training... and to constantly increase the costs of that training.

 

[Blueshell]

The purpose of requiring training isn't to insure folks are trained but is for the government to be in control of who ISN'T allowed to carry concealed using the training criteria to deny the ability to exercise the right to bear arms in a concealed manner to anyone who doesn't meet the criteria the government itself instituted.

And all that is necessary to deny more and more people is to change the criteria of the required training... and to constantly increase the costs of that training.

Article 1 Section 8 authorizes Congress to require training for the militia, and the militia everyone.

A list is useless when everyone's on it.

 

[BluesStringer]

Article 1 Section 8 authorizes Congress to require training for the militia, and the militia everyone.

A list is useless when everyone's on it.

Both Heller and McDonald were decided outside the congressional authority to regulate disciplining and training in a military (or "militia" if you prefer) context. Both cases upheld the individual right as-stated in the Second Amendment, that being that, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Article 1, Section 8 is specifically excluded in both those cases as applying the way you're trying to apply it here.

Blues

 

[Blueshell]

Both Heller and McDonald were decided outside the congressional authority to regulate disciplining and training in a military...

I wasn't talking about McDonald or Heller.

This isn't about keeping and/or bearing.

This is about training.