just a little rant

[chances R]

4 hours ago, E4 No More said:

So how many trainers have shot either themselves or others on accident, or have simply had negligent discharges? Answer: Numerous. 

Good point.  So those are trained, experienced gun owners, some which garner headlines. No telling how many instances have occurred with the general public that one will never hear about.  I don’t want myself , family or friends to be the recipient.

[E4 No More]

1 hour ago, chances R said:

Good point.  So those are trained, experienced gun owners, some which garner headlines. No telling how many instances have occurred with the general public that one will never hear about.  I don’t want myself , family or friends to be the recipient.

And that's my point: training does not guarantee safety 100% of the time no matter how much you train. I would argue that under combat conditions the five basic rules of firearms safety is not in the forefront of anyone's mind. Under a true case of fight-or-flight, your true instincts take over. Now, you can train yourself to have some of those things be instinctual, but how often does someone actually train for safety like they do to actually survive the fight? What I'm getting from you is that you think that professional training will drive that from someone and thus entitle their selves to somehow be more qualified to carry a gun outside the home than someone else, and that simply isn't true.

Luckily, I have never had to shoot someone, but I have come within a half a trigger pull on a revolver, (cylinder turned and hammer about to drop), from shooting someone. I experienced the tunnel-vision of fight-or-flight. The only thought that I can recall having was seeing a brick wall behind the suspect so I was clear to shoot if I had too, but that was more of an observation than a cogitative thought. I was not thoughtful of keeping my finger off the trigger. Quite the contrary, I'd bet that I very much so had my finger on the trigger as I brought the gun out of the holster. As I was concentrating on the threat I was completely unaware of whether or not my barrel was pointed in a safe direction or if I swept someone else. What I do recall the most, however, is how angry I became at the suspect for making me come so close to taking his life over something so stupid as to him trying to lay a baseball bat against someone else's head over a parking squabble. I wanted to beat the every lov'n  out of him!

[E4 No More]

On 9/18/2020 at 9:07 AM, Cruel Hand Luke said:

True...but factually and historically at the time that the Constitution was written all able bodied males actually DID train with their arms for militia duty. The militias actually drilled and trained. 

The garbage that most people were taught in history class is that the militias of the British colonies were a bunch of bumbling hayseed hicks that couldn't line up and march down the road without falling off into a ditch. That is part of the "Myth of the Revolution" that a bunch of untrained farmers, on their own, armed with rifles, beat the mightiest military in the world. Nice story to tell the kids but it is not exactly true.

  In fact the "militia system" in the colonies was well established and had been around for about 150 years when the Revolution happened and those state militias had a fair amount of actual combat experience fighting Indians and the French and Spanish. Who here is familiar with King William's War? King Phillip's War? Queen Anne's War? War of Jenkin's Ear? Yamassee War?  Tuscarora War? Anglo Cherokee War?  Seven Years War ? Lord Dunmore's War? Anyone?   ALL of those took place East of the Mississippi between about 1650 and 1775. Also add in an innumerable number of Indian raids. There was A LOT of fighting that the state and town militias engaged in before the Revolution .  And they actually trained. Now their training was not as often or as intense as the British regulars and they were not held to the same fanatical level of discipline (and the British regulars held the militias in disdain due to that) but make no mistake about the fact that from the 1600s through when the Constitution was written able bodied males of military age did receive training with their firearm and got follow on training and drilling as part of their militia duty.  The concept of gun ownership devoid of any and all responsibility to society was a foreign concept to people at that time. 

 

 

I don't see the relevance to safety or right to carry arms safely. Might I remind everyone the Stonewalll Jackson was accidentally shot by one of his own, very trained and experienced men?

[leroy]

The truth of the matter is that you do, in fact, have the right to keep and bear arms... That said, it is on you to learn how to handle firearms safely and use em effectively if need be. 

One of the baser things about our capitalist system and the gun community and certain of those populating it is the tendency of " experts " to try to feather their business nests by proclaiming that " you aint responsible nor trained enough to handle a gun "... The inferred point us that they, in fact, are and they can help you for a FEE... This is called " salesmanship "  and is OK... I say, in the old latin proverb:  " Let the Buyer beware "...

What aint OK is when those same " experts " lobby trashy polititians, local and otherwise, to enact laws restricting a constitutional right under the guise of " making us all safer "... 

I heartily join Brother Dave in his opinion that there are folks out there who need protection from thugs n predators now; many of whom aint overrun with extra dollars for " mandated training "...

" Mandated training " is a crock in today's atmosphere and the Tennessee political class well knows it.  Personal safety is the supreme thought on every citizen and citizen gun owner's mind now.   Welcome to Dodge City, where everybody is armed and edgy.

That is all...

leroy

Edited September 21, 2020 by leroy

[Cruel Hand Luke]

1 hour ago, E4 No More said:

I don't see the relevance to safety or right to carry arms safely. Might I remind everyone the Stonewalll Jackson was accidentally shot by one of his own, very trained and experienced men?

The relevance is that some people want to argue that the Constitution was written to guarantee people being able to own and carry a gun devoid of any training or responsibility to society at large. "It is my right and no one should not be able to MAKE me do anything I don't wanna do" is how they look at it now. But that was NOT a thing back then when it was written.

Able bodied military aged males (which is who made up the Militias) not only got compulsory (which means they HAD to) military training, but they also had to meet and drill regularly.....because they were constantly in a state of war or under threat of war.  And that was the case in the British/American colonies in North America from the mid 1600s all the way through 1787 when the Constitution was written. The British colonies were not "safe" by any means and there was constantly the threat of not only Indians but also other European powers (France and Spain). And pretty much everyone that owned a gun (and some that didn't) were FORCED to train and drill. So the argument that the right was written devoid of any responsibility is not historically accurate and would have been as foreign a concept to them as the internet or supersonic flight. And carrying pistols concealed was not common. Hell, for that matter  PISTOLS were not common in the colonies and you probably didn't have one unless you were a cavalry man , an officer , a sailor or were very well to do. 

The last 200 years though have left us with a standing army,  professional police forces and relative peace for most people (at least east of the Mississippi ) since the 1870s and a gun culture more centered around leisure and entertainment than around sustenance and defending your settlements from attack. It is a different world from when the document was written. We no longer have to meet for militia duty every month so since that is not a thing for us we forget that it is a different world than when the document was written. Some folks don't like it but there is the ..."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," 

part and that was part of the rationale for the amendment. A well trained and armed (that's what the word regulated meant back then) Militia was needed for the security a free state (both form external and internal enemies) and the people needed to be able to provide their own weapons in order for it to not be controlled by the government. And the government could not come and take them like they had during the English civil war (1642-1651). Back then if the army of the king came through your town they could confiscate any weapons they wanted from you. The 2A was also intended to protect against that. 

And Stonewall Jackson was shot INTENTIONALLY (mistakenly but intentionally) by his own troops DURING A WAR while returning to his lines in the dark from scouting out ahead of his lines during the battle of Chancellorsville....not in downtown Chattanooga on a summer evening stroll at the park by someone carelessly handling a gun. There is a huge and obvious difference . 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Cruel Hand Luke

[E4 No More]

19 minutes ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

The relevance is that some people want to argue that the Constitution was written to guarantee you being able to own and carry a gun devoid of any training or responsibility to society. "It is my right and no one should not be able to MAKE me do anything". But that was NOT a thing back then when it was written. Able bodied military aged males (which is who made up the Militias) not only got compulsory military training, but they also had to meet and drill regularly.....because they were constantly in a state of war or under threat of war.  And that was the case from the mid 1600s all the way through 1787 when the Constitution was written. The British colonies were not "safe" by any means. And pretty much everyone that owned a gun (and some that didn't) were FORCED to train and drill. So the argument that the right was written devoid of any responsibility is not historically accurate and would have been as foreign a concept to them as the internet or supersonic flight. 

 

And Stonewall Jackson was shot by his own troops DURING A WAR while returning to his lines in the dark from scouting out ahead of the lines during the battle of Chancellorsville....not in downtown Chattanooga on a summer evening stroll at the park. There is a huge and obvious difference . 

I disagree. If forced training were a requirement then it would have been written as such. You can't convince me that the same Founding Fathers who wrote such well thought-out documents designing our government had a brain-fart when it came to that part of the 2nd Amendment. And while militias were prevalent you cannot convince me, without evidence, that the 16-year old male in New York City had the same expectations as the 16-year old male on the frontier facing the Shawnee. You also seem to forget that Washington had a hell of a time whipping his "militia-trained" citizen soldiers into fighting shape. If they were so well-trained they wouldn't have needed any further training.

And during a war has absolutely NOTHING to do with getting shot by accident regardless of the fact that his people knew he was out scouting. You're suppose to 1. Identify your target before shooting, and 2. Challenge people approaching the sentry line. According to some "trainers" that shouldn't happen. 

Again, I don't fault someone for making a living out of training those who want to purchase your service, but that doesn't entitle anyone to try to change the constitution to fit their belief system. 

[Cruel Hand Luke]

2 hours ago, E4 No More said:

I disagree. If forced training were a requirement then it would have been written as such. You can't convince me that the same Founding Fathers who wrote such well thought-out documents designing our government had a brain-fart when it came to that part of the 2nd Amendment. And while militias were prevalent you cannot convince me, without evidence, that the 16-year old male in New York City had the same expectations as the 16-year old male on the frontier facing the Shawnee. You also seem to forget that Washington had a hell of a time whipping his "militia-trained" citizen soldiers into fighting shape. If they were so well-trained they wouldn't have needed any further training.

And during a war has absolutely NOTHING to do with getting shot by accident regardless of the fact that his people knew he was out scouting. You're suppose to 1. Identify your target before shooting, and 2. Challenge people approaching the sentry line. According to some "trainers" that shouldn't happen. 

Again, I don't fault someone for making a living out of training those who want to purchase your service, but that doesn't entitle anyone to try to change the constitution to fit their belief system. 

The word "Gay" in 1895 had a very different meaning than it did by 1995. And the people in 1895 viewed the word and the connotations differently than someone in 1995 because over time the meaning changed in popular culture. The people in 1895 had a completely different understanding of the word, its meaning and the nuance of it. Just like the culture of America has changed since 1787. Things change and we lose the original meaning and nuance of words because no one is still around from then and all we have is the written word left behind by folks in letters and documents. The subordinate clause of the amendment IS them mentioning trained and well armed citizens (not a standing army) being the best way to maintain the security and freedom of the state . They didn’t have a brain fart....they wrote it into the amendment but we don’t use the word “regulated” they way now as they did then and it does not have the same connotation it did back then. 

Militias who fought Indians in the woods of western Pennsylvania were not at all well suited to fighting using European battlefield tactics. It wasn't that they were not necessarily  functional as fighting units it is that you don't fight the British on Bunker Hill like you fight the Cherokee in western North Carolina. Your western NC militia attached to Washington’s regulars needed to know how to work WITH the regular troops and know how to maintain formations and maneuver. My 5th greatgrandfather was one of the Watauga settlers and fought under John Sevier at Kings Mountain . And they didn’t fight anything like Washington’s regulars did . So the militia units that Washington complained about had to be retrained to fight the way Washington needed them to fight in European style engagements. 

Jackson was shot by soldiers who had just been shooting enemy soldiers that day and were on the lookout for more enemy soldiers to shoot. They were expecting enemy soldiers to come from that direction. Even with the riots we are not yet to the point we are manning checkpoints waiting to shoot folks. So that's a bit of a stretch to compare the intentional but mistaken identity shooting of Jackson to any kind of CCW or even at home gun ownership negative outcome. 

Look I'm not arguing that you should be compelled by anyone to do anything. Do what you want. In a perfect world I would just prefer that people know how to safely handle guns before they be carrying them on their person in public when I and my family might be down range from them. And do people who have had training occasionally make bad decisions? Some times.  But I see far more unsafe gun handling and negligent discharges happen at public ranges among untrained folks than I do among folks who have been exposed to some education in safe gun handling. So I think it is a bit fallacious to argue that because in SOME instances trained people have made mistakes that it somehow negates the benefits of training altogether. 
 

I'm merely giving historical context to an argument that we make now, that would have been foreign to the people who lived back then. I’m not saying they didn’t see it as an individual right either. The militia is made up of individual citizens using their personally owned MILITARY GRADE firearms in order to come together and fight enemies of the state both foreign and domestic.  It absolutely is an Individual right. I'm not in any way arguing against the 2A. I personally believe that you should be able to own ANY firearm (machine guns, SBR , SBS, etc. ) you can afford and shoot it on your own property. Just like you can buy any car you can afford and drive it on your own property without having to even have a tag or registration. But if you are going to carry it on the street (or drive it on the street) then you need to know how to safely operate the car or the gun. And don't even throw up the tired old "driving is a privilege not a right " argument. I'm saying that we all agree it is a good idea to teach people how to drive before they get on the interstate and cause potentially fatal wrecks because it is the smart thing to do . But then we say they should be able to buy a gun and carry it while remaining willfully ignorant of best gun safety practices and marksmanship training ? Does that even make sense? 

And before anyone tries to question my bona fides as far as 2A support I am a long time NRA member, have carried a gun on my person essentially every day for over 25 years. I have voted for pro 2A candidates in every election since I turned 18. I bought my first machinegun before I bought my first car. I have worked in the shooting industry for over 20 years and have been a professional firearms instructor for 20 years. I have attended and been a presenter at national level training conferences and have been a world championship level competitor in IDPA. I have used a gun to defend myself.  I'm pretty well educated in history and politics of the 2A but I also see the difference in theory and reality. So I'm not someone who is late to the party. Again I'm not arguing against the 2A or arguing to limit freedom.....I'm merely clarifying that what a lot of people think they know about the 2A is not always exactly correct when put in its correct historical context.   

Edited September 22, 2020 by Cruel Hand Luke

[chances R]

7 hours ago, E4 No More said:

I don't see the relevance to safety or right to carry arms safely. Might I remind everyone the Stonewalll Jackson was accidentally shot by one of his own, very trained and experienced men?

but it was accidently on purpose...

[JunkiCosmonaut]

I don't think anyone is saying that people should be denied their constitutional rights so I'm not even arguing that anyone is, but I've run into some people that really think that if you aren't on the range every weekend and doing drills then you have no business having a gun on you at all. I always hated this gate keeping attitude. The irony is that most of those people are usually pretty terrible shots and would rather take a cheese grater to their face then jog a mile. I've met people (and none locally thankfully) that are e a "safety instructor^TM" and they're always super excited to throw criticism at you. Had one guy tell me that I'm destroying my pistol because i'm using the slide release. But you can't argue with him.... hes the "safety instructor". What I hate more is how overbearing these guys become to new shooters and piss them off or intimidate them away. Most guns safety, I would say, is good common sense. You get people that have it and you get those that don't. I'm not a certified anything, but I tell most friends new to firearms that they should spend time and money on training, and just be very conscious to put good safety practices forth, Get a good holster, just assume that it's always loaded..etc and as long as they do that they're more likely to die in car accident than shoot themselves or someone else. A lot of people don't have any childhood experiences that ingrained the safety practices so they just have to be extra cautious. 

[Cruel Hand Luke]

6 hours ago, Mseals22 said:

 A lot of people don't have any childhood experiences that ingrained the safety practices so they just have to be extra cautious. 

And that's kind of the point. In the past a large section of the population grew up hunting and shooting and had been taught early on about safe gun handling. But as the country became more urbanized it becomes less the case. Since they are not learning it at home then they need to learn it somewhere especially if they are going to be carrying guns in public.    

As to "range nazi" safety instructors...there are some people that simply do not have the education , personality or temperament to be good at teaching other people. Some of those folks apparently look at being an instructor as simply  an opportunity to exert power over others instead of as an opportunity to help someone . On the other hand some of us actually care about teaching others to safely and conscientiously handle their firearms, to help them improve their shooting skills and to prevail against criminal assault should that arise. And we do it without belittling or criticizing the students. And there are several members here on TGO that I know for a fact that are excellent instructors that I would send friends or family to train with knowing they would get excellent education with no attitude. But as you say that is not always the case especially with some lower level "safety instructors". But as with all things there are varying levels of competency. 

[E4 No More]

14 hours ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

The word "Gay" in 1895 had a very different meaning than it did by 1995. And the people in 1895 viewed the word and the connotations differently than someone in 1995 because over time the meaning changed in popular culture. The people in 1895 had a completely different understanding of the word, its meaning and the nuance of it. Just like the culture of America has changed since 1787. Things change and we lose the original meaning and nuance of words because no one is still around from then and all we have is the written word left behind by folks in letters and documents. The subordinate clause of the amendment IS them mentioning trained and well armed citizens (not a standing army) being the best way to maintain the security and freedom of the state . They didn’t have a brain fart....they wrote it into the amendment but we don’t use the word “regulated” they way now as they did then and it does not have the same connotation it did back then. "Gay" had a different meaning in just 1960- just ask my cousin Gay, but this is the argument that the liberals use to justify changing the Constitution to fit their whims. We can't have it both ways. It either means what it says or it's trash. No matter what any historian tries to tell you, the closest way to truly know what was meant was to be there talking to the Founding Fathers at the time of writing. Phycology has taught us that even people in the same meeting will interpret what was said by another person differently. Even a college freshman's basic psychology class teaches us that people cannot even repeat exactly what was said to them just seconds before. So even a Founding Father's separate writings can only express his understanding at the time.

Militias who fought Indians in the woods of western Pennsylvania were not at all well suited to fighting using European battlefield tactics. It wasn't that they were not necessarily  functional as fighting units it is that you don't fight the British on Bunker Hill like you fight the Cherokee in western North Carolina. Your western NC militia attached to Washington’s regulars needed to know how to work WITH the regular troops and know how to maintain formations and maneuver. My 5th greatgrandfather was one of the Watauga settlers and fought under John Sevier at Kings Mountain . And they didn’t fight anything like Washington’s regulars did . So the militia units that Washington complained about had to be retrained to fight the way Washington needed them to fight in European style engagements. I'm not a history expert, (although I have had collegiate level American history), but I do recall historians crediting American success with defeating the largest army in the world by using Indian fighting tactics and snipers which were wholly not European-style fighting. It could be argued that we won in spite of Washington's insistence on fighting European style.

Jackson was shot by soldiers who had just been shooting enemy soldiers that day and were on the lookout for more enemy soldiers to shoot. They were expecting enemy soldiers to come from that direction. Even with the riots we are not yet to the point we are manning checkpoints waiting to shoot folks. So that's a bit of a stretch to compare the intentional but mistaken identity shooting of Jackson to any kind of CCW or even at home gun ownership negative outcome.  You seem to be trying to justify what I interpret your position to be by rationalizing a huge F-up. This shooter was a trained, experienced soldier who still f-ed up. Training and experience didn't prevent him from shooting the wrong person, and neither will training do so today. Will it reduce the chance of it happening? Sure it will, and I'm not arguing differently. I just don't accept trainers that have a vested interest saying that their service should be a prerequisite to exercise a right to protect yourself or your family on the pretense of public safety. 

Look I'm not arguing that you should be compelled by anyone to do anything. Do what you want. In a perfect world I would just prefer that people know how to safely handle guns before they be carrying them on their person in public when I and my family might be down range from them. I agree with that part; however, that same logic is in fact a slippery slope to regulate other things. It's sort of like the "It's for the children" argument that gun-grabbers use. And do people who have had training occasionally make bad decisions? Some times.  But I see far more unsafe gun handling and negligent discharges happen at public ranges among untrained folks than I do among folks who have been exposed to some education in safe gun handling. So I think it is a bit fallacious to argue that because in SOME instances trained people have made mistakes that it somehow negates the benefits of training altogether. You missed the point entirely - probably because it was in response to the OP. 
 

I'm merely giving historical context to an argument that we make now, that would have been foreign to the people who lived back then. I’m not saying they didn’t see it as an individual right either. The militia is made up of individual citizens using their personally owned MILITARY GRADE firearms in order to come together and fight enemies of the state both foreign and domestic.  It absolutely is an Individual right. I'm not in any way arguing against the 2A. I personally believe that you should be able to own ANY firearm (machine guns, SBR , SBS, etc. ) you can afford and shoot it on your own property. Just like you can buy any car you can afford and drive it on your own property without having to even have a tag or registration. But if you are going to carry it on the street (or drive it on the street) then you need to know how to safely operate the car or the gun. And don't even throw up the tired old "driving is a privilege not a right " argument. I'm saying that we all agree it is a good idea to teach people how to drive before they get on the interstate and cause potentially fatal wrecks because it is the smart thing to do . But then we say they should be able to buy a gun and carry it while remaining willfully ignorant of best gun safety practices and marksmanship training ? Does that even make sense? 

And before anyone tries to question my bona fides as far as 2A support I am a long time NRA member, have carried a gun on my person essentially every day for over 25 years. I have voted for pro 2A candidates in every election since I turned 18. I bought my first machinegun before I bought my first car. I have worked in the shooting industry for over 20 years and have been a professional firearms instructor for 20 years. I have attended and been a presenter at national level training conferences and have been a world championship level competitor in IDPA. I have used a gun to defend myself.  I'm pretty well educated in history and politics of the 2A but I also see the difference in theory and reality. So I'm not someone who is late to the party. Again I'm not arguing against the 2A or arguing to limit freedom.....I'm merely clarifying that what a lot of people think they know about the 2A is not always exactly correct when put in its correct historical context.   

 

[JunkiCosmonaut]

2 hours ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

And that's kind of the point. In the past a large section of the population grew up hunting and shooting and had been taught early on about safe gun handling. But as the country became more urbanized it becomes less the case. Since they are not learning it at home then they need to learn it somewhere especially if they are going to be carrying guns in public.    

As to "range nazi" safety instructors...there are some people that simply do not have the education , personality or temperament to be good at teaching other people. Some of those folks apparently look at being an instructor as simply  an opportunity to exert power over others instead of as an opportunity to help someone . On the other hand some of us actually care about teaching others to safely and conscientiously handle their firearms, to help them improve their shooting skills and to prevail against criminal assault should that arise. And we do it without belittling or criticizing the students. And there are several members here on TGO that I know for a fact that are excellent instructors that I would send friends or family to train with knowing they would get excellent education with no attitude. But as you say that is not always the case especially with some lower level "safety instructors". But as with all things there are varying levels of competency. 

It's really saddens me when I hear how there used to be classes taught by FFA on firearms safety and they even took students out to shoot behind the high school. It gives me a moment where i think "Man, what happened to us!?". I've always used the saw-table as an example when new gun owner safety and experience comes up. I say anyone can buy a saw table no questions asked, but its a very dangerous piece of equipment. I've met a good number of people seriously injured using wood working equipment that either they were operating or someone else in the shop was operating. If you buy this and you hurt yourself then you're hurt. If you buy a gun and hurt yourself or someone else at best you shoot yourself through and have a stupid story at worst you have a court date and a news slot. 

[JunkiCosmonaut]

@E4 No More points out exactly why the argument for historical context for the constitution hasn't derailed the second amendment, but is dangerous to apply. If you apply historical context to the interpretation then you wind up saying free speech doesn't apply to platforms on then internet because there was no foreseeable way the founders could have predicted the impact of the internet from the 18th century. In fact you can derail the whole document by simply saying something exists now that modifies our experience of the world we live in so greatly that they would not have phrased the amendment that way with prior knowledge of future events. 

actually, come to think of it, if you could do that in general then most contracts could be voided that didn't specifically state they couldn't be voided by applying the insight from future events retroactively to say the whole thing should never have been written a certain way of the original drafters intent would have changed....etc

Edited September 22, 2020 by Mseals22
a thought

[Cruel Hand Luke]

3 hours ago, E4 No More said:

 

I'm not sure you are understanding exactly what I'm saying with regards to language. Gay is used now to mean something different than it meant 100 years before. At the time of the constitution the word REGULATED was used to mean well equipped and trained and disciplined. Now it is used as "controlled". The original intent is NOT what the anti gunners want it to mean. BUT it also was not exactly what some pro gun people want it to mean either.  

 

As to the tactics used, yes Washington used snipers and small units to harass the enemy. But you cannot have anarchy and chaos in the ranks and melding it all (volunteer "regulars" and the militia units) into a cohesive disciplined fighting force on par with a professional European military took a lot of work about which Washington complained often. Building an army from scratch is difficult .  Washington had served with the British regulars in the French and Indian war and knew what level of discipline his men would need to face them. 

 

And finally the "I just don't accept trainers that have a vested interest saying that their service should be a prerequisite to exercise a right to protect yourself or your family on the pretense of public safety. " simply does not apply to me. I don't teach HCP classes regularly any more so I'm not saying any of this because of any kind of profit motive. I'm not "gatekeeping" preventing anyone from exercising a right . I'm educating people who choose to come to me to learn higher level skills , mindset, and how to fight with a gun which is a completely different skillset than plinking at the range. I'm not teaching permit classes so your assumption about my motivation is not at all valid. And even if there were constitutional carry and the state offered free training that I did not profit from at all I'd STILL recommend people take the training because remaining willfully ignorant of the law and of safe gun handling practices and marksmanship fundamentals is just irresponsible. If you are responsible enough to exercise your rights you should be responsible enough to be responsible and learn safe gun handling. My vested interest is that I've seen truly dangerous and horrendous gun handling by untrained people simply because they are ignorant of safety protocols and I would greatly prefer that good people not be victims of accidents and prefer that they dominate lethal force encounters they may find themselves in instead of just barely surviving...or worse.  

Edited September 22, 2020 by Cruel Hand Luke

[Smith]

57 minutes ago, Mseals22 said:

@E4 No More points out exactly why the argument for historical context for the constitution hasn't derailed the second amendment, but is dangerous to apply. If you apply historical context to the interpretation then you wind up saying free speech doesn't apply to platforms on then internet because there was no foreseeable way the founders could have predicted the impact of the internet from the 18th century. In fact you can derail the whole document by simply saying something exists now that modifies our experience of the world we live in so greatly that they would not have phrased the amendment that way with prior knowledge of future events. 

actually, come to think of it, if you could do that in general then most contracts could be voided that didn't specifically state they couldn't be voided by applying the insight from future events retroactively to say the whole thing should never have been written a certain way of the original drafters intent would have changed....etc

This ^^^^

Historical context helps to understand application and understanding of a principle at a specific time. Principles transcend dynamic application. In other words, the reason the Constitution transcends time and culture is because the principles are "found to be self evident". What we wrestle with is the "application" of the principle in a changing culture not the principle. However, the leftists are attempting to remove the principle. That is the slippery slope with a cliff into the abyss at the end.

Those on our side who can not apply transcendant principles/truth with changing culture are just as bad as those trying to remove the principle all together.

[chances R]

So E4, because I am a trainer my opinion has no merit.  I don’t train gun owners to make a living.  It is an enjoyable hobby because I discovered one doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.  I was one of those people.  I want to share my experience with others.  Ignorance is one of the leading causes of firearm accidents.  People need experience and training from somewhere, they’re not born with it and now most are not raised in that environment.  I have seen many students that need significantly more training and experience to safely exercise their right.  It is not unusual to have a student arrive in class with a brad new gun still in the box.  Or a student who has never fired a gun before.  Where do you want me to send that student? What is your advice to that person? Can I tell them just carry that gun and do as you see on TV, just point and pull the trigger, it’s your right?  So I have invested my time and money to be reasonably competent as a firearm owner and instructor.  I didn’t make the laws for a permit and even if TN was constitutional carry, there would still be people in need of training.

[E4 No More]

@chances R Because this method of discussion is not the best for conveying ideas clearly, let me put this bluntly:

American citizens have the right to protect ourselves from ANYONE who wishes us harm whether that be from a foreign army, our own government, or a criminal, and that right is not contingent upon receiving training from anyone. Is that reality? No, because we've compromised that with either ignorance or acceptance for whatever reason that sounds good to us.

Although I haven't researched and compiled the numbers, I'd bet that the average driver gets far more safety training than the average gun owner, yet more people are killed with automobiles than guns, (not including suicide like the liberals like to add).

[Cruel Hand Luke]

8 minutes ago, E4 No More said:

@chances R Because this method of discussion is not the best for conveying ideas clearly, let me put this bluntly:

American citizens have the right to protect ourselves from ANYONE who wishes us harm whether that be from a foreign army, our own government, or a criminal, and that right is not contingent upon receiving training from anyone. Is that reality? No, because we've compromised that with either ignorance or acceptance for whatever reason that sounds good to us.

Although I haven't researched and compiled the numbers, I'd bet that the average driver gets far more safety training than the average gun owner, yet more people are killed with automobiles than guns, (not including suicide like the liberals like to add).

More people drive than even OWN guns much less CARRY guns. So there is far more opportunity for traffic accidents to happen.

The "Industry standard" numbers we have is that ABOUT 10% of people have a permit and about 10% of those people with permits actually carry on a regular basis. About 1% of people take another class after the initial permit class . There is no way of knowing how many people carry in constitutional carry states and there is no way of knowing how many people carry illegally. But even with those numbers factored in it is still not anywhere near the number of people who own and drive cars. 

[E4 No More]

25 minutes ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

More people drive than even OWN guns much less CARRY guns. So there is far more opportunity for traffic accidents to happen.

The "Industry standard" numbers we have is that ABOUT 10% of people have a permit and about 10% of those people with permits actually carry on a regular basis. About 1% of people take another class after the initial permit class . There is no way of knowing how many people carry in constitutional carry states and there is no way of knowing how many people carry illegally. But even with those numbers factored in it is still not anywhere near the number of people who own and drive cars. 

That doesn't matter. The pretense of the argument is that training prevents such things. It matters not how many.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

No one in their right mind thinks training prevents ALL accidents (or prevents all negligence). Just like sex Education , or Health Education or whatever they are calling it now does not prevent all pregnancy nor does police training prevent all mistaken ID shootings nor does all military training prevent death in combat. So I guess by that logic we stop training drivers, stop training police , stop training the military and stop telling kids where babies come from because people still wreck their cars????? 

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Cruel Hand Luke

[E4 No More]

4 minutes ago, Cruel Hand Luke said:

No one in their right mind thinks training prevents ALL accidents (or prevents all negligence). Just like sex Education , or Health Education or whatever they are calling it now does not prevent all pregnancy nor does police training prevent all mistaken ID shootings nor does all military training prevent death in combat. So I guess by that logic we stop training drivers, stop training police , stop training the military and stop telling kids where babies come from because people still wreck their cars????? 

 

You can go ludicrous all you want, but a right is not dependent upon training...period.

[Cruel Hand Luke]

No one is saying it is DEPENDANT on training or ever was DEPENDANT on training . I am saying when the document was written it was written not with gun collecting and recreational shooting and hunting in mind it was written to reinforce to the government that the right of the people to own military arms to be used to prevent insurrection, despotism and invasion because the best way to insure freedom was to have an armed and trained ("well regulated") populace not under direct control of a central government. 

And in the 150 years prior to the revolution the colonies were so small population wise that out of necessity pretty much EVERY able bodied male had compulsory militia duty. Philadelphia was the largest city in North America in 1760 and it ONLY had about 19,000 people. That is the size of Tullahoma TN now...... The Indian populations OUTNUMBERED the Europeans by a LARGE margin and because of that people got trained for militia duty whether they liked it or not. THAT was the reality of life leading up to the Revolution. That was the world the framers of our Constitution grew up in. It was not written as a right being dependent on training but in those days all able bodied males received some form of militia training.  

If you don't like it that the Constitution of the state of Tennessee allows the legislature "to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime" then talk to your legislators and get a constitutional convention started to remove that from the Constitution . But as it stands that is the law of the land no matter how much we might want it to not be. So we can either pine for a time that really never existed the way people think it did or we can learn to function in the reality of now ...or you can start a revolution. 

[chances R]

50 minutes ago, E4 No More said:

That doesn't matter. The pretense of the argument is that training prevents such things. It matters not how many.

Your words or summation, not mine.  Training makes one more proficient, lessens the chances for accidents, and in all likelihood decreases the chance of being involved in a gunfight.

[Alleycat72]

I think you should get training before you purchase a Bible or any other religious book. It needs to be government mandated training. The training centers should be next to the training for people that want kids. LOL

[E4 No More]

3 minutes ago, chances R said:

Your words or summation, not mine.  Training makes one more proficient, lessens the chances for accidents, and in all likelihood decreases the chance of being involved in a gunfight.

I don't disagree with that at all. I disagree with it being prerequisite for a right.