Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ron on April 22, 2013, 09:09:51 AM

Title: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Ron on April 22, 2013, 09:09:51 AM
What exactly do we make of "well regulated"?

It seems to me from understanding it as meaning properly functioning or in conjunction with militia "properly trained armed populace" that there is implied in the amendment a certain competency assumed or maybe even required!

How have training requirements held up in court in regards to our gun ownership rights? Have the training requirements for CCW ever been challenged?

We're all chomping at the bit here in Illinois to take our training classes so we can carry. Unless we go constitutional carry and don't even need a class [popcorn]  =D

Is this an infringement on my rights making me take a class?

  
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 22, 2013, 09:13:27 AM
"To keep and bear arms" is a human right. How could it therefore be valid to limit that right to those who take state-mandated training?
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Ron on April 22, 2013, 09:28:49 AM
"To keep and bear arms" is a human right. How could it therefore be valid to limit that right to those who take state-mandated training?

Is the exercise of the right tiered?

You can own (keep) but not carry (bear) without training?

It just seems funny to me how geeked we all are to take our state mandated classes so we can exorcise our right to bear arms.

Does well regulated just mean properly armed vs organized or trained?
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Fitz on April 22, 2013, 09:42:59 AM


It just seems funny to me how geeked we all are to take our state mandated classes so we can exorcise our right to bear arms.


THE POWER OF GLOCK COMPELS YOU
THE POWER OF GLOCK COMPELS YOU
THE POWER OF GLOCK COMPELS YOU!


Unless you meant "exercise"

:-D
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Ron on April 22, 2013, 09:45:14 AM
THE POWER OF GLOCK COMPELS YOU
THE POWER OF GLOCK COMPELS YOU
THE POWER OF GLOCK COMPELS YOU!


Unless you meant "exercise"

:-D

LOL 

I'm leaving it now because it is funny.  :laugh:

Just for you know though, I'm a 1911 guy  :P
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Tallpine on April 22, 2013, 09:51:31 AM
Go out with your buddies and do some militia training and then see how well regulated Illinoise thinks you are  ;)
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Ron on April 22, 2013, 09:54:36 AM
Go out with your buddies and do some militia training and then see how well regulated Illinoise thinks you are  ;)

Great idea! My local forest preserve will make a great training ground for us to work on our tactics!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_Glen_Forest_Preserve

Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Fly320s on April 22, 2013, 09:55:04 AM
I think well regulated means well prepared. Prepared with arms, ammo, equipment to maintain, knowledge, and skill. Prepared, but not trained. Prepared is a voluntary action, as oppossed to trained which could be an involuntary action.
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Stand_watie on April 22, 2013, 10:00:40 AM
I think that there is more historical constitutional authority for the state to compel ALL citizens (of a certain age, ablebodiedness etc) to militia training than to compel that training as a prereqisite of a civil right.
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: zahc on April 22, 2013, 10:12:40 AM
If this is hard to understand, consider a 1st-ammendment parallel.

What requirements are "reasonable" before someone should be allowed to exercise the first ammendment? Should he have to prove literacy? Prove a certain typing speed, take some basic English classes/qualifications, etc. etc. before he is "covered" by the first ammendment? If not, why not? Why are you against "reasonable" restrictions?

Infringed means infringed.
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 22, 2013, 10:14:45 AM
I think that there is more historical constitutional authority for the state to compel ALL citizens (of a certain age, ablebodiedness etc) to militia training than to compel that training as a prereqisite of a civil right.

Not a civil right. A natural right. The distinction is important.

You're on to it, though. The amendment mentions the importance of a well-regulated militia, but it nowhere states that the RKBA is conditional on regulation, or anything else. In fact, it suggests that the well-regulated militia depends upon unfettered access to arms, by the people.
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Tallpine on April 22, 2013, 10:33:52 AM
Not a civil right. A natural right. The distinction is important.

You're on to it, though. The amendment mentions the importance of a well-regulated militia, but it nowhere states that the RKBA is conditional on regulation, or anything else. In fact, it suggests that the well-regulated militia depends upon unfettered access to arms, by the people.

Even fistful can understand that  =)
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: birdman on April 22, 2013, 10:39:33 AM
Also, the burden of knowledge in the proper operation and maintenance of ones firearms was the responsibility of the owner.  Remember, COTUS and BOR were written when personal responsibility was -assumed-, so well regulated meant well prepared and knowledgable (able to wield their personally owned equipment effectively), putting the responsibility on the state to ensure it is just like every other slip in personal responsibility to the responsibility of the state.  Once we started down that path (education, retirement, poverty, etc) of course the argument would be made for arms as well...the push toward it is a result, and not unanticipated
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Monkeyleg on April 22, 2013, 01:25:52 PM
All shall-issue or discretionary-issue laws are unconstitutional. That said, we've taken what we could get in order to be able to carry. That includes jumping through the hoops and satisfying training requirements.

One would think that anyone carrying a gun for protection would learn how to use it properly. Otherwise he might as well carry a frying pan to beat the perp with. That doesn't mean that we should mandate training.

I get tired of hearing this from politicians, and even more tired of hearing it from gun owners. I just had this conversation with a customer this morning who's from Wisconsin, and just got his carry permit. He's carrying a gun for the first time, and thinks that everyone should be required to get training. He also was upset about a guy who had brought a full-auto to the range at his club and fired in full-auto mode (at a secluded part of the range, separate from the main range) while there were other shooters present doing a metallic silhouette match. He thought it gave a bad impression of gun owners to have someone shooting a machine gun.  ;/
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Waitone on April 22, 2013, 10:40:52 PM
As I recall, the term "well-regulated" at the time of its usage meant "well trained".  Has nothing to do with oversight by some governmental authority. 

Regarding training, I'm not much for shooting skills training.  It seems to be self-evident that one needs to learn how to effectively use a firearm, the purpose of which is to save one's life.

Howsomeever, I do think training in the law regarding use of lethal force should be required.  As much BS is out there about the mechanics of shooting, the ignorance of the law is profound.  Laws are created like sausage with the same appeal.  Logic has nothing to do with the process or the result.  Applying logic to a shooting situation is a guaranteed fail because logic and common sense was not part of the process by which laws were derived. 
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Scout26 on April 22, 2013, 11:11:51 PM
Great idea! My local forest preserve will make a great training ground for us to work on our tactics!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_Glen_Forest_Preserve



They have a great Orienteering course (or at least used to). Good training. 

I don't think that they be able to pass anything in time.  Both sides are playing chicken only the Chicago D's think that what the 7th Circuit said was simply "Advisory".   I'm looking forward to "Court Carry".  And there's a bunch of folks that, if we go off the "Constitutional Cliff", will file suit if they try to retroactively try to pass a carry law.   Plus lots of good discussion about 1983 suits against any lesser .gov entity that tries to pass any carry restirctions.  (Also keep in mind that only the state can establish felonies.  Counties, towns, villages, etc. can only write ordinances for Misdemeanors at the most and usually just fines, but such laws will be in violation of the 7th Circuit ruling, so every petty politician/bureaucrat that votes to restrict carry will immediately be hit with a 1983 suit, and there's lots of good Civil Rights case law out there.

Less then 50 Days to 9 June.   ;)
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Hawkmoon on April 22, 2013, 11:14:38 PM
What exactly do we make of "well regulated"?

It seems to me from understanding it as meaning properly functioning or in conjunction with militia "properly trained armed populace" that there is implied in the amendment a certain competency assumed or maybe even required!

Grammatical analysis shows that the militia clause is a non-binding prefatory clause that does not affect the main body of the sentence, which unambiguously states that the RKBA shall not be infringed. Justice Scalia specifically noted this in the Heller decision.

Once we have established that "well regulated" is not a prerequisite to the RKBA, we can then speculate as to what it means. It might have meant (at the time it was written) "well trained" in the sense of marksmanship. Or it might have meant nothing more than that the militia should be "regular" in regard to the type of firearms and ammunition they carried, and that the militia should be organized. And that's more or less what was enacted in the original Militia Act of 1792:

Quote
The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

II. And be it further enacted, That the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years.

III. And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade, and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers of the Adjutant-General's office in the state; and when in the field, or in serviced in the state, such division, brigade, and regiment shall, respectively, take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first and lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment or two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division on Major-General, with two Aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-major, with the rank of a major; to each company, one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four serjeants, four corporals, one drummer, and one fifer and bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of one adjutant, and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon's mate; one serjeant-major; one drum- major, and one fife-major.

IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled as is herein directed, there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword or hanger, a fusee, bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private of matoss shall furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps. Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse, at least fourteen hands and an half high, a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State, not exceeding one company of each to a regiment, nor more in number than one eleventh part of the infantry, and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.

V. And be it further enacted, That each battalion and regiment shall be provided with the state and regimental colours by the Field-Officers, and each company with a drum and fife or bugle-horn, by the commissioned officers of the company, in such manner as the legislature of the respective States shall direct.

VI. And be it further enacted, That there shall be an adjutant general appointed in each state, whose duty it shall be to distribute all orders for the Commander in Chief of the State to the several corps; to attend all publick reviews, when the Commander in Chief of the State shall review the militia, or any part thereof; to obey all orders from him relative to carrying into execution, and perfecting, the system of military discipline established by this Act; to furnish blank forms of different returns that may be required; and to explain the principles of which they should be made; to receive from the several officers of the different corps throughout the state, returns of the militia under their command, reporting the actual situation of their arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, their delinquencies, and every other thing which relates to the general advancement of good order and discipline: All which, the several officers of the division, brigades, regiments, and battalions are hereby required to make in the usual manner, so that the said adjutant general may be duly furnished therewith: From all which returns be shall make proper abstracts, and by the same annually before the Commander in Chief of the State.

VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules, as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of the Act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the Commanding Officer as every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained, agreeably to the said rules of said discipline.

VIII. And be it further enacted, That all commissioned officers shall take rank according to the date of their commissions; and when two of the same grade bear an equal date, then their rank to be determined by lots, to be drawn by them before the Commanding officers of the brigade, regiment, battalion, company or detachment.

IX. And be it further enacted That if any person whether officer or solder, belonging to the militia of any state, and called out into the service of the United States, be wounded or disabled, while in actual service, he shall be taken care of an provided for at the publick expense.

X. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the brigade inspector, to attend the regimental and battalion meeting of the militia composing their several brigades, during the time of their being under arms, to inspect their arms, ammunition and accoutrements; superintend their exercise and maneuvres and introduce the system of military discipline before described, throughout the brigade, agreeable to law, and such orders as they shall from time to time receive from the commander in Chief of the State; to make returns to the adjutant general of the state at least once in every year, of the militia of the brigade to which he belongs, reporting therein the actual situation of the arms, accoutrement, and ammunition, of the several corps, and every other thing which, in his judgment, may relate to their government and general advancement of good order and military disciple; an adjutant general shall make a return of all militia of the state, to the Commander in Chief of the said state, and a duplicate of the same to the president of the United States.

So ... "regulated" simply meant "ordered" or "organized."

Link: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: lee n. field on April 22, 2013, 11:17:41 PM
What exactly do we make of "well regulated"?

It seems to me from understanding it as meaning properly functioning or in conjunction with militia "properly trained armed populace" that there is implied in the amendment a certain competency assumed or maybe even required!

How have training requirements held up in court in regards to our gun ownership rights? Have the training requirements for CCW ever been challenged?

We're all chomping at the bit here in Illinois to take our training classes so we can carry. Unless we go constitutional carry and don't even need a class [popcorn]  =D

Is this an infringement on my rights making me take a class?

  

Just as an aside here, on Illinoiscarry "MollyB" (aka Valinda Rowe, IC spokesperson) says:

Quote from: Molly B.
The cost of training will be competitive and plans are already in the works in several cities to offer low cost/free training to those who cannot afford to pay for training. I expect affordable training opportunities to spring up all over the state for senior citizens with fixed incomes, inner city areas, and more.
 (http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=36998#entry459521)

Welfare I can stand behind!
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: roo_ster on April 22, 2013, 11:23:54 PM
All shall-issue or discretionary-issue laws are unconstitutional. That said, we've taken what we could get in order to be able to carry. That includes jumping through the hoops and satisfying training requirements.

What simianlimb wrote. 
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 22, 2013, 11:37:34 PM
Less then 50 Days to 9 June.   ;)


http://www.illinoisconcealedcarrycountdown.com/
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: kgbsquirrel on April 23, 2013, 12:36:47 AM
What exactly do we make of "well regulated"?

It seems to me from understanding it as meaning properly functioning or in conjunction with militia "properly trained armed populace" that there is implied in the amendment a certain competency assumed or maybe even required!

How have training requirements held up in court in regards to our gun ownership rights? Have the training requirements for CCW ever been challenged?

We're all chomping at the bit here in Illinois to take our training classes so we can carry. Unless we go constitutional carry and don't even need a class [popcorn]  =D

Is this an infringement on my rights making me take a class?

  


The phrase "well regulated" in the late 18th century conveyed an idea that could best be described today as "properly equipped and trained."

However it has no bearing on the right to keep and bear arms as it was merely the preamble to the second amendment giving one of the compelling reasons why a free person's right to own and carry weapons should not be abrogated in any manner.
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: gunsmith on April 23, 2013, 01:17:16 AM
I wasn't regulated, so I started eating moar fiber.


I despise training requirements personally and feel that people who insist on them fail to understand the history and origins of rights in general.

I do wish however that since we have a frustrating tax code anyway, why we couldn't deduct firearms training.
I was once at a city meeting and proposed that a drive by shooting range be opened so local gang bangers wouldn't accidentally shoot non gang bangers.... somehow my proposal didn't make it.

Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Tallpine on April 23, 2013, 11:04:28 AM
Quote
Grammatical analysis shows that the militia clause is a non-binding prefatory clause that does not affect the main body of the sentence, which unambiguously states that the RKBA shall not be infringed. Justice Scalia specifically noted this in the Heller decision.


Or to put it another way, everyone needs to own and be familiar with guns, so that they can be ready to join up into a militia at any moment.

 =)
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 23, 2013, 11:56:33 AM
Didn't Adam Lanza take a state-mandated course from the NRA?
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: birdman on April 23, 2013, 12:55:18 PM
Didn't Adam Lanza take a state-mandated course from the NRA?

Mom did, don't know about perp.

They were NOT members.
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Scout26 on April 23, 2013, 03:29:08 PM
Just like there are training requirements prior to being allowed to vote, speak, assemble, petition the .gov or exercise your religion.
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Fly320s on April 23, 2013, 05:45:13 PM
Just like there are training requirements prior to being allowed to vote, speak, assemble, petition the .gov or exercise your religion.

Win.
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: RoadKingLarry on April 23, 2013, 08:10:38 PM
I've got a novel idea.
Lets punish people for misdeeds they've actually done rather than pre-emptively restrain everyone because of what someone else might do.
If someone does something criminal and/or stupid and causes harm to another, punish them accordingly. Make it real, make it hurt and make it public.
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Tallpine on April 23, 2013, 09:45:31 PM
I've got a novel idea.
Lets punish people for misdeeds they've actually done rather than pre-emptively restrain everyone because of what someone else might do.
If someone does something criminal and/or stupid and causes harm to another, punish them accordingly. Make it real, make it hurt and make it public.

You just want to put young black men in prison  =D
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Hawkmoon on April 23, 2013, 09:48:27 PM
Didn't Adam Lanza take a state-mandated course from the NRA?

No.

He apparently took some NRA course, because the police listed an "NRA Certificate" among the things found when they executed a search warrant at the mother's home, but the kid was 20 years old and couldn't get a permit until he reached 21, so there was no mandate for him to take anything. And, unless there's been some additional info released that I missed, we don't know what NRA course it was that he took.
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: RoadKingLarry on April 23, 2013, 10:01:38 PM
Quote
I loved the sound of that 235, and Dad showed me how to adjust the valve lash while the engine was running.  Pretty neat!

Any bets on some kind of Eddie Eagle stuff?
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: birdman on April 23, 2013, 10:07:02 PM
No.

He apparently took some NRA course, because the police listed an "NRA Certificate" among the things found when they executed a search warrant at the mother's home, but the kid was 20 years old and couldn't get a permit until he reached 21, so there was no mandate for him to take anything. And, unless there's been some additional info released that I missed, we don't know what NRA course it was that he took.

They did not identify whose certificate it was.  Since the firearms found obviously belonged to the mother, among other things, we can't assume it was the perp's certificate.
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Stand_watie on April 24, 2013, 09:46:53 AM
No.

He apparently took some NRA course, because the police listed an "NRA Certificate" among the things found when they executed a search warrant at the mother's home, but the kid was 20 years old and couldn't get a permit until he reached 21, so there was no mandate for him to take anything. And, unless there's been some additional info released that I missed, we don't know what NRA course it was that he took.

In Michigan in the 1980's when I first got a hunting license, the state mandated some sort of gun safety course as a prerequisite to getting a hunting license under a certain age (16?, 15?), that conveniently was offered by the NRA. It was a good class. Grumpy old Walt Kowalski types just like my driver's ed instructors except with guns instead of cars.
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Hawkmoon on April 24, 2013, 03:19:50 PM
In Michigan in the 1980's when I first got a hunting license, the state mandated some sort of gun safety course as a prerequisite to getting a hunting license under a certain age (16?, 15?), that conveniently was offered by the NRA. It was a good class. Grumpy old Walt Kowalski types just like my driver's ed instructors except with guns instead of cars.

No hunting on the instructor's lawn, eh?
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: gunsmith on April 24, 2013, 03:43:31 PM
I think a good way to handle the problem is to insist that you do not get a high school diploma without a gun safety course
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Tallpine on April 24, 2013, 04:27:28 PM
Would be nice if the cops got some of that so-called gun training, also  :P

I hear they just spent $4.2 million on the training budget out in LA  =D
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Perd Hapley on April 24, 2013, 11:47:29 PM
I think a good way to handle the problem is to insist that you do not get a high school diploma without a gun safety course


Well, yeah. In any reasonable country, every kid would learn how to shoot accurately and safely.
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: Tallpine on April 25, 2013, 05:34:50 AM
I think a good way to handle the problem is to insist that you do not get a high school diploma without a gun safety course

My guns are safe.  They are all wearing condoms.  :angel:
Title: Re: Training requirements and gun ownership.
Post by: gunsmith on April 25, 2013, 11:40:27 PM
My guns are safe.  They are all wearing condoms.  :angel:
Awesome!
I wear one when I'm online, I hear it helps prevent computer viruses