Bignugget

You seem like an intelligent guy. You don't see a difference between the police officer and the civilian walking down the street armed? Police receive training, they receive screening both psychological, and background. Random citizens with guns do not have any of the requirements of a police officer..... What may be the most effective killing weapon in close quarters is irrelevant. What is relevant is who is qualified to possess such weapons. Joe down the street isn't. Which is why this report doesn't say that DHS needs 7,000 guns to hand out to homeowners on the border. It does say it needs some guns for the trained, evaluated, qualified, officials.

Can you imagine him trying to use a computer. Its like watching my dad with the TV remote. You would think the thing was written in ancient Mayan.

I just wish you owned my local DZ so I coulda skipped the damn class. Your point that mandatory training has no use, is valid. I got it and agree.

Texas has a law that will cause criminal charges to be brought against a gun owner whose firearm was not "reasonably secured" and is taken by and fired by a minor. (resulting in injury) It's a very specific statement of one responsibility, but it is there. Also much of the Texas CHL class is about when you are allowed to use deadly force, what constitutes deadly force (less than you might think) and where you are not allowed to carry your gun. Much of the optional training Dave referred to has, as a prerequisite, possession of a CHL so that they know they don't have to cover this. Sadly the same can be said for everything. drivers, skydivers, gun owners, students, professors, journalists, politicians... the list goes on... The problem I see with mandatory training is that it will devolve to the bare minimum and the cheapest classes will be the ones most attended. Also likely the ones of less quality. I saw this in my CHL renewal class 5 years ago as it felt like high school gym with several videos to watch. I don't attend that instructors classes anymore. Couldn't agree with this more. I imagine you were probably 3-4x less safe after attending that class in the gym and watching the movie. I know thats how I felt after my "mandatory" skydiving training. I was like SERIOUSLY??!!? Just gimme the thing and let me go wtf is the DEAL WITH MANDATORY CLASS???? I demanded they name a single possible advantage to this mandatory training. They couldn't as I suspected. They were super anal though and made me sit through the ENTIRE thing. Bunch of donkeys if you ask me but what can you do. Gotta dance to the tune the man plays.

A link showing how Obama has instituted all kinds of tariffs on the import of bullet making materials would be much better evidence he had done something to drive the prices up. Go for that instead of fear mongering. The dude has been around 5 years, you can still get all the guns n ammo you could get when Bush was around. I'm sure hes (about) to make his move (to take all guns).....but he hasn't yet. As long as people keep believing ^^^ that, the price will artificially inflate, and you guys can feed your own unhappiness.

John said after Obama was elected the FIRST time.that was over 4 years ago.....people are STILL out buying the bullets and guns legally (so it sure doesnt look like he has done much to make it impossible)....just bitching about the prices they willingly pay.... and I didn't realize that was a bill Obama was proposing. Why is it linking through some senators website?

And he hasn't even done anything, lol the comedy is gold.

Lol. I find a lot of comedy in this. Guys making bullets gotta love it.

The training isn't what you think it is. The majority of the single week out of the 17-weeks of an academy was spent on firearms. The majority of that deals with the legal aspects and the use of force ideals, not actual time on trigger. We spent more time in the dojo learning PPCT. We spent considerably more time on learning all the laws and how they apply. Ever wonder why some cops can fire 15rds and hit nothing but bystanders? The legal system has driven the training away from actual hands on practical training. That's why guys like me spend a considerable amount of money on our own training out of our own pocket. Thanks for that. It makes more sense now why you don't think mandatory training is a good idea. Sounds like a waste of a week to me.

SOME LEO have good training, some do not. I have spent a significant amount of my own money out of my own pocket to equip myself with the tools I need and the additional training I felt necessary. All of that is available to anyone who wants it. For instance, the last tactical rifle course was taught by Jim Smith (Spartan Tactical). It cost me some money for travel, for vacation time, for the course costs, etc.; however, it was well worth it. If you're interested about Jim Smith, read Blackhawk Down, he was one of the Delta fighters there. Sorry, I think you misread my post. I was not asking about the quality of the mandatory training. I was asking if to become a law enforcement officer assigned a weapon, you were required to first receive training on the weapon and aspects related to possessing one?

I grabbed an alti-2 off the classifieds as well. Bang for the buck it seemed the best bet. I was comfortable with the way it fit on my hand during AFF and just felt no reason to add new things right away. I only have 17 jumps.

I don't like the idea of mandatory training. Part of the reason is that your analogy doesn't work in that driving is a privilege, not a right as defined. It also implies that if you are unable to complete the training for whatever reason, you will be denied your 2nd Amendment right. What's my reasoning behind calling driving a privilege and not a right? The Texas Transportation Code 521.457 gives a really great example that I know of off the top of my head (google it). LEO has mandatory training....I think....you said you are LEO so maybe you can speak to if they made you get trained to use the weapons they gave you. This is another distinct difference between LEO, and Joe down the street.

No you misunderstand. I am worried about my safety. I am worried about a prick like you (to use your words) having a gun. Not what LEO thinks they need to use in their job. And since this report from the DHS does not speak to what (pricks like you) need to do their job.....it really is irrelevant.

Is this a serious question? They are 2 completely different entities. What LEO needs to safely do their job is completely irrelevant to what Joe down the street needs. Come on now.

We need more, we are in agreement. Make a graph and figure out how many we are gonna need total. Then lets get to work arming everyone.

Oh cool, I missed that part of the quote from the DHS report, what section was that under?

I don't think that is likely to be true. We have seen more guns not necessarily translate to more deaths here in the US. In the States that have enacted shall issue CHL the crime has gone down. When citizens are able to arm themselves it makes crime more dangerous for the criminals. I agree. We already have the most guns in the world but it is not enough. We still have firearm homicide rates in line with Yemen. We need more people carrying more guns, that will drive the rate down.

Lol I liked this part "This RFP is not for the traditional armed forces. This solicitation is specific to law enforcement who almost exclusively work within and along the borders of the United States. Certainly the threats ICE officers may be subject to are the same exact threats law-abiding residents could be subject to." I guess thats true if law-abiding residents are randomly out patrolling the border in the middle of the night, or undercover in some sort of ICE sting operation they put together themselves.

Did you forget to quote the part talking about private citizens needing them for home defense? All I saw in the parts you quoted was providing weapons for Law Enforcement?

As you know, Chicago has the strictest gun control (does that mean they're leading in civility?) in the nation yet it ranks at the top in violent crime and deaths. The problem areas in this country can easily be identified and isolated using a simple arcGIS analysis, and then by tightening policing and enforcement of laws in those areas. Unfortunately that takes money, and resolution, especially by police chiefs and sherifs, and the risk of losing their officers. For politicians and elected law enforcement officials it is far easier to pass a bill that makes it look like you're attacking the problem rather than actually isolating and fixing the issue. They pass a bill, and bam all of a sudden, we have done something! Everyone cheer and now we are more civil! Then next week 20 more kids die in suburban Chicago. Why isn't that on the news? If human life is important, if we cherish children, why don't we focus on ending gang crime and shootings in areas that we know they occur? Criminals will be criminals and it doesn't matter to them what laws are passed. A person with the resolution to take another human's life wouldn't be thinking 'man, i sure don't want to add another felony misdemeanor to this crime' when he loads or raises his 'illegal' weapon to take another life. But laws do matter to law abiding citizens like you and I. When those laws begin reducing your rights, especially to protect yourself, then that becomes troublesome (at least to me). Again, this is not correct. Criminals do care what laws are passed. If meth was made legal for instance, plenty of criminals would care about that. They would no longer be criminals. Conversely, if laws were passed making whatever guns you possess, illegal to possess, you would be a criminal. And as you very much indicate, you care what laws are passed. Does becoming a criminal deter people from doing whatever they were going to do? I don't know, and make no claims on the matter. But you once again misunderstand the way laws work and their effects on people.

Of course, I just wouldn't delude myself into thinking I had the power to decide it wasn't constitutional and go jump outta planes with no consequences. You have the power to ignore laws, that's really it. I'm interested in the gun issue because we kill the same level of people with guns as 3rd world war torn nations, instead of 1st world leaders. I don't pretend to have the magic bean cure to the issue, I just think fear mongering and ignorance of the process of law in the country are some of the major barriers to a constructive discussion on how to lead the world in civility towards each other, instead of in murdering each other.

Ok. They are all challenges to the legality of gun right restrictions. That was close enough for me to get a feel for how they stand on the issue. Restrictions are fine. As Cronus said just no all out banning. Restrict it to people 95 and older who can run marathons.

Quite literally that is what it means. Until declared unconstitutional by the Judicial Branch, laws passed through the legislature ARE constitutional and legally binding in this country. That is why YOU don't get to decide and say "this isn't constitutional, I'm not following it" You can try to challenge the constitutionality of a law..... in the Judicial Branch.

They seem to uphold pretty much any and all restrictions placed. Her law "banning all guns" if thats what it said might not pass the test. But you can make it damn near impossible for anyone to legally purchase and possess them, and it will pass the test from the looks of it. You don't take away anyones rights, you just restrict them. SCOTUS is fine with that. Don't shoot me (literally, plz dont), im just a simple googler on the road.

Since ignorance is never good. I googled. Apparently they have heard the issue. http://rense.com/general17/supremecourtrejects.htm http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf Several State Supreme Courts have also ruled on the issue http://www.denverpost.com/politics/ci_22219025/denvers-assault-weapons-ban-withstood-test-time-court