Well we can scratch Wilshire gun off the list...

[A5Sooner]

I feel like having my lifetime hunting license should qualify for the 'training'. We went thru a class that was more in depth than the 'classes' that advertise on Craigslist, armslist, road signs these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sanford]

Hypothetical non-/anti- gun person conversation:

"Hey, did you see that news story where they're trying to ram through a new gun law?" "No, what was it?"

"Some of the state representatives and senators are trying to make it so everyone can carry a gun around." "Really?"

"Yeah, and they want to do away with the training! There were even some people from Wilshire Guns talking about how bad an idea it is for people to get guns without training."

I don't think any of that is false, but there certainly appear to be some conclusions being drawn that may not have been intended. My point is that it's not about the reality of who said what, it's about the perception of what they said. If it's unclear to some of us who have at least a passing familiarity with the current law and what's being proposed there's a much higher likelihood that it's unclear to those with little to no familiarity beyond what they see on the evening news.

 

[Burk Cornelius]

This is wearing me out. Just say "Wilshire sucks" or move on

posted via Tapatalk

 

[SMS]

Hypothetical non-/anti- gun person conversation:

"Hey, did you see that news story where they're trying to ram through a new gun law?" "No, what was it?"

"Some of the state representatives and senators are trying to make it so everyone can carry a gun around." "Really?"

"Yeah, and they want to do away with the training! There were even some people from Wilshire Guns talking about how bad an idea it is for people to get guns without training."

I don't think any of that is false, but there certainly appear to be some conclusions being drawn that may not have been intended. My point is that it's not about the reality of who said what, it's about the perception of what they said. If it's unclear to some of us who have at least a passing familiarity with the current law and what's being proposed there's a much higher likelihood that it's unclear to those with little to no familiarity beyond what they see on the evening news.

I can agree with that, but I'm putting the rope away.

 

[Sanford]

This is wearing me out. Just say "Wilshire sucks" or move on

That's just it - they don't. But all too often we as shooters are unintentionally our own worst enemies when it comes to how we're perceived in the public eye, and when we do that we should be the first to clarify and correct ourselves.

 

[grwd]

Where did they say anything about it being "mandatory"?

on the news9 web article.

 

[grwd]

from the news9 article.
this is what I referred to, yukon glocker
Firearm Instructors Speak On Controversial Gun Bill Passing Senate

Instructors said the training requirement does not infringe on our constitutional rights and without the training requirement, the gun owner could hurt themselves and/or hurt others.

YG, what does this mean to you?

if you want to argue so much, perhaps, go to a lib/progressive website and take up the 2a cause there, where your skills could be better used.

Your recent interest in internet arguing against gun supporters baffles me

 

[Burk Cornelius]

But all too often we as shooters are unintentionally our own worst enemies when it comes to how we're perceived in the public eye, and when we do that we should be the first to clarify and correct ourselves.

I don't disagree with that but I don't think Wilshire Gun or HH has anything to do with it

posted via Tapatalk

 

[YukonGlocker]

from the news9 article.
this is what I referred to, yukon glocker
Firearm Instructors Speak On Controversial Gun Bill Passing Senate

Instructors said the training requirement does not infringe on our constitutional rights and without the training requirement, the gun owner could hurt themselves and/or hurt others.

YG, what does this mean to you?

if you want to argue so much, perhaps, go to a lib/progressive website and take up the 2a cause there, where your skills could be better used.

Your recent interest in internet arguing against gun supporters baffles me

There it is. Thank you for pointing that out. If the instructors indeed said that, that is an issue I agree with. According to their Facebook clarification, they didn't say that, and it was a mis-interpretation by the news staff. Two years later, I still can't get the New York Times to correct their major mis-interpretations of my research, so it happens frequently and is definitely a possibility. That all being said, I can see a possible issue here; and wonder why nobody pointed this out before. I certainly missed it myself.

I take up the 2A cause on plenty of lib/progressive sites. I'm not trying to argue here, just understand what the issue was, and you @olyeller were the first to point this out. All the folks that were bent out of shape about the "need" usage will be really tied in knots when they discover this. Thanks man!

 

[Jwryan84]

from the news9 article.
this is what I referred to, yukon glocker
Firearm Instructors Speak On Controversial Gun Bill Passing Senate

Instructors said the training requirement does not infringe on our constitutional rights and without the training requirement, the gun owner could hurt themselves and/or hurt others.

YG, what does this mean to you?

if you want to argue so much, perhaps, go to a lib/progressive website and take up the 2a cause there, where your skills could be better used.

Your recent interest in internet arguing against gun supporters baffles me

SMS get that rope back out.