David E
Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 7,459
I think it should be a requirement,
I don't. Is it a good idea? Absolutely. Tell me, what other inalienable rights require training before you can exercise them?
people think I'm going against the 2nd amendment here just because I'm saying this one thing. It's odd..
What's odd is that you don't see the huge can of worms you want to open. To repeat: who sets the standard? To spell it out more for you, let's say the anti-gun crowd (who are art enough to not call themselves that, understand they can't repeal concealed carry in your state, so instead, they try to regulate it "for the safety of the children." they'll cite some shooting where no CCW license holders were involved and recruit you, a "pro-gunner for responsible carry," to pitch their shtick. "You should have enough training to put your bullets where they should go, etc. it's the responsible thing to do." The law passes, thanks in part to your tireless efforts. The antis set the qualification standard high, after setting an exorbitant fee for this extra "responsible training." Fewer people want to cough up the money, fewer still are able to pass. Those that do must prove they maintain their proficiency by practicing once a week shooting 100 rds of factory ammo. Then, in one year, they'll need to recertify at another high priced "class" that inexplicably raised the qualification standard.
It's an old tactic of the antis: don't be against something, just make it cost more or make it more of a hassle than people think its worth.
but what is the issue with people having more training?
The issue is, you want to REQUIRE it