Originally Posted by lukeisme
I would be the first to agree that training is an absolute must. But three hours?? Give me a break!!! I am seeing these jackrabbit courses here where they never even go to the range. Is that training? Well in my opinion it isnt anyway. Another issue I have developed is the need to pay for constitutional rights. Hum that sticks with me. I have no problem with the background check but I also know that when you buy a firearm you have to have one then. Also a few weeks, what they can do a background check in minutes to purchase one but not to carry one. I think it really is just another way to make it a pain in the butt to exercise the 2nd ammendment.
Agreed...Training is a good thing. The more the better. Most the permit holders I know get much more training than any LEO in this area does to qualify. And for that reason I'd more often than not prefer one of those permit holders having my back. Now I do know plenty local and state LEO that train more than anyone could consider necessary. But it's not the standard. I'm all for anyone that carries a weapon getting tons of training. They just might need it. My problem lies in the idea that to be allowed to flex your rights you need to give money to the government to take a class that is all to often not near what the state regs. require and if they do run it right once Billy Bad A$$ gets out with his shiny new card and a copy of Soldier of Fortune goes out to intimidate people or other stupid things. There's a guy on my wife's side of the family that the idea of him even having access to a weapon is a scary thought to say the least. This guy passed his course but is nothing short of a waste of human sperm. And I know others just as bad.I'm sure we all know at least one of these type of people. So I just don't see where putting these regulations in place. My wife's idiot family member can carry a weapon but another guy can't because he's behind on his child support but actually might have done more training, been trained in military but who cares?
Without the regulations the idiot still has his weapon. But we don't hinder a man or woman that is denied for some reason that has nothing to do with their ability to use their weapon.
It's supposed to be a right, so why are there stumbling blocks? Why are we required to pay off the government for what was given to us by our creator (As per the Constitution)? I really don't think the weeding out is doing near what we're supposed to believe it is. So the only reason for it has to be income. Simply we are being taxed to carry a weapon. A tax that need be paid again each time we renew.
A rose by any other name...
I guess this is one of the bigger reasons when at a public range I look for those that might need a little insight to proper handling of a weapon. If for no other reason just to try and plant the seed of responsibility. The test(s) try to instill this but we all know that you have to go into it with the right mind set or it's going to be like that class in high school that you really didn't care much about. Sure you can pass the exam but what did you learn? Maybe I'm wrong but I really don't think so. We will see how it pans out in Az. If it don't go crap house crazy then I"m sure other states will follow suit. And I don't see that as a bad thing.