Man...
What about mandatory classes in order for us to exercise our Freedom of Speech?
What about mandatory classes in order for us to practice/have Freedom of Religion?
See how this works?
If you have mandatory classes for a certain inalienable right, why not institute mandatory classes for all of 'em, right?
Slippery slope, people. A very dangerous slippery slope riddled with broken glass & razor blades and a big pool of rubbing alcohol at the bottom.
-J-
While I get your point and I am not necessarily in favor of mandating gun classes, if you say the wrong thing a bullet doesn't come out and kill someone.
yep his last point doesn't make sense when his whole article is how about non-gun owners and police don't know the laws and the gun owners do. How about we make a required high school class called national firearms law and require everyone to take it.
I don't think they should mandate that people go to a gun class, but it would probably benefit the entire gun community if more people did.
I think this way also. Being from Pennsylvania and older, when I was in what we called Jr. High School 7th thur 9th. in the early 60's. We had the chose to attend a school class called The Conservation Class were one of the subjects taught was Firearm safety. During deer season around November 1st. classmates could bring there non-loaded no ammo in class, HP deer rifles, I had a modifed Ehglish made.303, to class to talk about why they chose that firearm and the safety of using it. In addition, we went hunting in five person groups during hunting season and were graded on how well we performed on safety and hunting skills. That same went for small game season were we used 410, 12,16,20 gage shotguns or 22 rifle.
Just think how a class like that today would send some people onto space.
But speech can be and is used to incite and injure and maim and otherwise damage. There are already laws on the books prohibiting those actions/words that cause harm...
That is true for sure. However, I think there is a difference because typically when someone is using speech or religion as a means to cause damage or harm there is some thought behind what they are doing. They understand what they are doing has the potential to be destructive. In the example of a new gun owner, accidents can happen because they just simply aren't familiar with how things work or proper safety protocol. They could have learned that in a gun safety course.
But again I am not saying I am for the classes, I just think we as the gun community would be far better off if more people did take steps to learn proper safety and training. There would be less accidents and those people could then impart that information on their children and possibly even lessen the deaths of children. Yeah I understand that is all strictly hypothetical.
Whenever I think my kids are bad a trip to walmart reminds me I have little angles.
So you are a-sayin they are a-cute?
(OK. It's a math joke. So sue me....)
I've never negative repped anybody, but you almost got one for that!
As I have said before this would be the Only type of Mandatory Training I would Consider...The solution is mandatory training in government schools.
Mandatory Training always means well, just always delivers poorly...After seeing the way some people handle there weapons, is training a bad thing?.
LMFAO!!!!What about the Texas system of CHL training? What's the consensus on that.
And most definitely the police should know the law.
I think you'd have difficultly finding a lawyer who knows all the law. Our legal code is far too extensive for anyone to be expected to know it all (not nearly as bad on the state level as federally, but still).
Should the police be trained? Yes, of course. Should a ton of laws be repealed? Without question.
To repeat a point others have made elsewhere on INGO, if even a police officer cannot be expected to know all of the law and that is their business; how can a citizen who doesn't cross the law often be expected to know it all? Yet we are often told "ignorance of the law is no excuse"; how can it be allowed as an excuse for those who have more opportunity (and are paid) to know it?
To be clear, I'm not saying that that should be an allowable defense in court, I'm saying that it should not be for either and that LEOs who violate the law should be held as personally accountable as anyone else for violating it, meaning that the officer might lose his job, might be fined personally, might be jailed, or any combination of all three of those, with fines and jail sentences being at a minimum unaffected by, and more likely enhanced for LEOs because of their increased familiarity with the law. In short, that they should not be privileged to break the law with impunity in the name of enforcing it.
With all of the above said, it might be taken that I'm being "anti-cop". I'm not. If an officer has to use some level of force to maintain order, I can accept that. If an officer has to violate the speed limit to respond to a call for help or some other emergent situation, I'm good with that. If a person is detained while the law is sorted out (say, because the person is OCing and the officer doesn't believe it's legal), I'd even go that far. What it comes down to for me is that I want a level playing field. I don't want any more advantage over LEOs than I want them to have over me, nor do I want to be in or to have officers in a disadvantaged position relative to each other.
Some of this is unavoidable, of course namely, the fact that LE has unlimited resources with which to pursue offenders, but the presumption in court that the officer is being truthful solely on his word is ripe for abuse, should a LEO be one of those people without scruples. In place of that, I'd suggest "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" be a fair standard.
Again, I'm not speaking against LEOs here. My ultimate goal is that the people return to a default position of respecting, rather than fearing police. I'm not saying it will be easy. I'm just saying I think it will be worth it.
Blessings,
Bill