It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Great Gun Rush

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 07:50 AM

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
I see... so since the constitution says that it's our born right to have a fire arm, under no exception shall their be any conditions?

For those who lost their life or a loved ones due to the ignorance of not knowing how to properly care and handling a gun, i want to present some findings that suggest we may have a problem in how we relate to our guns. This laissez faire approach written down at the time of our founding fathers made perfect sense at the time, it was a very different world... but a lot has changed since. We have 300+ million people, drugs in the streets, and more stresses/pressures in peoples lives then ever before. Introducing some sort of a mandatory class that covers proper shooting technique, safety, cleaning and storage... to at least help prevent accidental adult and child deaths. Much like a driving test but more comprehensive. A psychiatric background check should also be conducted, so that people with chemical imbalances will be required to show record of being under a physician's care before being issued a gun.

I don't disagree with the need for mandatory firearms training, in fact I would like to see it.

However, as someone who has worked for government in a capacity where firearms training is mandatory, I can say that any such program ran by government that would be mandatory for all citizens would be no doubt be ineffective as well as prohibitively expensive.

But still, it would not prevent idiots from killing people without good cause.

You cannot legislate intelligence or sanity.

All the reasons where you state the need for "conditions" are reasons where firearms are not the root of the problem.

Fix the root of those problems and there will be no firearms issues.

Don't fix the root problems, take away the guns, and realize there are countless other ways to kill.

I stand by my unconditional right to bear arms.

posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 08:58 AM

Originally posted by slimpickens93
You cannot legislate intelligence or sanity.

Yes ... a shame isn't it?

Though what i am proposing is a system put in place that filters out the obtuse and delusional among us. A screen similar to the hoops you are required to hop through in law enforcement to be entrusted with the lives of others.

The financial burden on the government you foresee, i see as a potential money maker. The more lives we can save, also comes down to dollars saved in emergency services... as well as having these services more readily available for those deaths that could be prevented by the filter/screen.

As for the dollars and cents of training ... that could be handled by private educational services ... gov would only have to create a licensing body for these certificate/accredited programs... this in turn would pay for itself... as well as create many new jobs in the private and public sector.

posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by The All Seeing I

Yes, those games would PROBABLY help in gaining a sense of strategy, and probably assist in eye-to-hand coordination. I've never been very adept at video/computer games, so I'm probably not qualified to judge that.

One has to keep in mind that a real world situation will occur in 3 dimensions, not the two dimensions of a video screen. Yes, that's right, THREE dimensions. You'd be amazed at how few people (and deer) actually ever look UP. Or behind themselves. I reckon that's the reasoning behind tree stands, although I've never hunted from one. I prefer to go to them, rather than sit and wait, when at all possible.

Also, the way one reacts in an emergency is to a large degree dictated by the way the body is trained. Some call it muscle memory, I prefer to think of it as auto-pilot. I doubt that video-gaming will allow for that sort of training. Arm, hand, finger and leg movements are mostly autonomic, when TSHTF, and buttons aren't required to make 'em do what you want. Thus, one can concentrated more on trigger control and the next bit of cover, rather than trying to remember which key gets the character to do that.

I hope that was helpful.

nenothtu out

posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 04:12 PM
reply to post by The All Seeing I

You see a need for firearms training and your right. As a matter of fact, it used to be taught in our schools in many parts of this country. Many schools actualy had shooting ranges built in the school buildings. What Dooper said about useing different tools for differant jobs applies to all sports including sport shooting events. I shoot in 4 diferent styles of shooting sports, Bullseye, Bench Rest, Trap, and Cowboy Action Shooting. Each one of them require different types and calibers of firearms. Kind of like golf in that you need many types of clubs to hit that little cup. Its the same with shooting. It takes many types of firearms to hit that bullseye or target!


posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 05:01 PM
reply to post by The All Seeing I

Speaking of training.

Our military men, those who actually carry rifles and do the shooting are frequently not as well prepared as they should be.

I would never speak for Zindo, but I feel confident that he could verify that to be a good shooter requires lots and lots of practice. This requires lots of time, patience, and significant money.

Our commanders do not provide the basics for our soldiers to be the best shooters within reason, that they can be.

Every soldier loves and cherishes his "down time." No one really wants to go out on the range in the heat, dust, rain, mud, wind, or cold and practice, practice, practice. Which takes time, time, time, and costs money, money, and more money.

But each soldier, though he'll bitch until the sun goes down, will be thankful for a commander who drives his men in honing their skills, with the purpose of enabling combat survival.

Our military, more specifically the infantry related men, are basically gunfighters. And if you're going to be a gunfighter, you better be good with your weapon. Which will take a lot of time, patience, training, practice, and of course money.

This will likely piss off a lot of people, but to me a mother is to teach her children many things that will enable them not only to survive, but to excel in the many challenges they'll find in life.

I would suggest that a mother should by hook or crook, ensure that one way or another, her children, boys and girls, be thoroughly taught how to handle firearms of all kinds, and to continue that training until they become proficient.

Life doesn't always go the way it should. Actually, rarely. They'll not always be able to rely on others for their protection, and should be prepared to take care of themselves.

To me, to do less, is to fail to meet your obligations as a parent.

posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 05:47 PM

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
Though what i am proposing is a system put in place that filters out the obtuse and delusional among us. A screen similar to the hoops you are required to hop through in law enforcement to be entrusted with the lives of others.

God forbid the government gets to start deciding who among us is obtuse and/or delusional.

Point of fact is the 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution states that the people's right to bear arms will not be infringed. The right to bear arms applies to each and every person born on this planet, regardless. The 2nd amendment applies to U.S. citizens.

The U.S. government cannot change these facts without a constitutional convention, and even if they did change the 2nd amendment, it would only mean they no longer recognize our rights according to the 2nd amendment, at which point, we cease to be the United states of America (in my opinion) and I would still have the right to bear arms and defend myself against whoever attempts to deprive me of that liberty.... WHOEVER.

posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 06:34 PM
On average, I fire between 8 and 12 thousand rounds in one year if I participate in all my diciplines every time they are held. Thats sometimes twice every weekend. The average soldier is lucky to fire 50 rounds a week, unless he's in one of our special forces. Then those lucky guys get as much range time and ammo they feel they need! Practice, practice, practice with all the safety you have learned and concentration you can muster.


posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 06:52 PM
A man who competes, and shoots 8,000 to 12,000 rounds per year is not a man you want to irritate. Even at distance.

And yet if I recall, shooting is not his full-time chosen profession.

For those in the infantry/combat arms/special ops, they do have a full time job that in part is determined by their shooting ability.

Once or twice a year qualifying is some bean counter's idea of preparation.

Our men should be on the line for hours each and every week.

It saves their lives, and if our commanders gave a tinker's damn, they'd see to it.

posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 09:14 PM
reply to post by dooper

In my last gig, I went through 'range qualification' once a year. That's ONCE a year. Since it was MY butt in the grass, I didn't find that to be enough. Luckily, I lived in a rural area from most of that time, and could shoot as much as I wanted, whenever I wanted, and I took advantage of that opportunity. Probably as a result of that, I consistently shot in the mid to high 90's at range qualification time. Strangely, I always shot higher scores (usually 2 to 4 percent higher) in the night/low light portions of the qualifications. Go figure.

Anyhow, my main point is PRACICE, PRACTICE, PRACTICE! And when you're done with that, go out and PRACTICE.

nenothtu out

posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 09:03 AM
Fear is quite the motivator...

Interesting to note from the tail end of this newscast, Connecticut requires lessons... so i did a little digging and found the following through the state:

You are required to complete a handgun safety course, which must consist of no less than the NRA's "Basic Pistol Course," prior to submitting the application. The NRA's "Home Firearms Safety Course" and "First Steps Pistol Orientation Program" are not approved courses.

Live fire is also required. Computer-generated programs, dry-fire, other simulated shooting tools, plastic bullets, air guns or any other alternatives are not acceptable. Students must fire a semi-automatic pistol or revolver.

...and here's a description of the course from NRA's website:

The NRA Basic Pistol Shooting Course teaches the basic knowledge, skills, and attitude for owning and operating a pistol safely. This course is at least 10-hours long and includes classroom and range time learning to shoot revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. Students learn NRA’s rules for safe gun handling; pistol parts and operation; ammunition; shooting fundamentals; range rules; shooting from the bench rest position, two handed and one handed standing positions; cleaning the pistol; and continued opportunities for skill development.

Students will receive the:
Basics of Pistol Shooting handbook,
NRA Gun Safety Rules brochure,
Winchester/NRA Marksmanship Qualification booklet,
take a Basics of Pistol Shooting Student Examination,
and course completion certificate.

Based on what you guys have been saying, this doesn't sound good enough ...but would you agree that it's better then nothing?

[edit on 29-4-2009 by The All Seeing I]

posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 09:31 AM
reply to post by The All Seeing I

Yes I can only imagine what the government would "teach" about firearm safety, with what is taught to law enforcement today. And government screening I am sure is not much better. Have you seen all the uproar about police overreaction? Watch some of the videos, read some of the articles. Look at Ruby Ridge, Waco and the recent attempt to serve a warrant at of all places a firing range? I don't think the government does a very good job at supplying the right training or finding the people with the right temperament for the job. I would hate to think of what would be proposed for the average joe blow civilian.
Just my opinion.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 09:37 AM
reply to post by The All Seeing I

I taught those lessons in CT before fleeing to freer pastures.

Because the classes are mandated by the state you get to charge just about whatever you want and nobody can do anything about it. The best they can do is find another instructor who might be charging $10 less.

I got $100 a pop to hang out with some people at the range for a day. These classes dont teach anything the lowest common denominator basic competent doesnt already know. If you dont already know pointing a gun at anyone is a bad idea or that the muzzle is where the bullet comes out of you most likely are incapable of learning it.

Only once was a "student" so horrifically idiotic did I not pass him. Basically, if your check clears and you arent an overt psychopath or moron you pass.

It's a complete scam and a sham. The moment something becomes mandated its value is lost.

I am an NRA certified instructor and I oppose CT's system of mandated instruction as a requirement for practicing your 2nd Amendment affirmed natural right to keep and bear arms.

Toward the end when I decided to leave CT I stopped charging for the state required class too. I had recouped my instructor training fee and just wanted as many permits out there as I could get so I stopped charging.

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:12 AM
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

Thank you for your invaluable key insights guy. It never ceases to amazing me how our government manages to mess up just about every good intention/program... from education and employment to welfare and social security... a real shame/embarrassment. We always seem to be left with the short end of the stick while doing all the work and taking all the risks.


Thought you guys might find the following current thread of interest

No guns allowed for right-wing 'extremists'

[edit on 10-5-2009 by The All Seeing I]

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 01:16 AM
You know after reading this thread I was going to point out that the Second Amendment is not about shooting ducks, or even some almost physcotic ‘fetish’ to collect bright shinny metal objects that make up for some perceived masculine deficiency, but then I realized these are old and well worn arguments, so I’ll spare you.

However, I will say that when My Grandfather came over from France in 1932 (he realized the Maginot Line was the defense of idiots) he immediately planted LOTS of corn (Not yet available widely in Europe, traded wine in for real America whisky, brought a Confederate Flag (as he settled in Virginia), a Ford pickup truck and a 30/30 Winchester (which my son now has). I remember how funny it was to hear him complain about those "dang Yankees" with his French Southern accent and how he NEVER again spoke French – ONLY Southern English allowed. Even though he had the Stars and Bars he FLEW the American flag on the pole at our farm in Blacksburg and told his grandkids how blessed they were to be Americans.

On those nights when the corn whiskey had caught up with him after coming in from the fields, he would set us down, while he carefully cleaned the 30/30 and Colt 45 single action army pistol, and would tell us “Ya see these!? These are the difference between Americans and French surfs! Here NO ONE bows to the government! Here we are free to take a stand against Nazi’s, even when they wear the uniforms of our government! As long as I have these I am no one’s slave!” I grew up seeing how he carried that 30/30 & 45 as the badge of a truly free man; these are the lessons I never forgot.

posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:52 PM
reply to post by SGTChas

Yes thank you for sparing me the 'old worn out arguments'

I appreciate the story about you and your grandfather much more... for your experience in being introduced to firearms was most insightful. I can see by your example how for many guns are woven into the very fabric of their being and their identity as an American. This is really powerful stuff. Thank you for opening my eye to this reality... it's a shame we can't mandate the same level of care and purpose in firearms education to every man, woman and child... or can we? Seems to me that the most effective form of gun control is through education.

...on a related note, i recently came across this provocative pic, that puts a lot of what we have been discussing into proper perspective.

and another loose association comes to mind...

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves from the tyranny of government.
~ Thomas Jefferson

[edit on 3-6-2009 by The All Seeing I]

posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 08:12 AM
All the classes, certifications, training, licenses, permits, regulations, taxes, practicing, teaching, familiarization in the world still isn't going to stop people from murdering one little bit. It might prevent a few firearms accidents here and there, but it will never stop crime.

People need to take responsibility for themselves and stop depending on the government to take care of every single aspect of life, further encouraging the "nanny state".

If you don't feel comfortable/qualified with firearms.... go get some training if you want it. Don't be demanding everyone else be subject to it.

The criminals don't care about any of that stuff, and they won't be subject to it for sure.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 10:06 AM
reply to post by slimpickens93

Good point. Laws, Rules and Regulations only apply to those who are civic minded with a will and wish to live in a civil society. When the animals rule the streets and those in a position they are elected too takes the citizens to task rather than the criminals ignoring the laws, you leave those regulated citizens to the status of victim. It's easier to regulate those that have scruples than those who do not! It also generates large profits for those in the legal profession which most of our lawmakers have a vested interest in!


new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in