Do you oppose Senate Bill 13-195? If so, why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHC

Your responses seem to cast things in a very narrow frame of reference. Ex. your explanation of a generational difference to explain the POV's different from your own seems, well, a bit simplistic - IMO, of course.

As I read BG's response to your post, he was (I believe) merely carrying your argument to a further point in your own logic path. For there to be a mandate for universal gun training, there would need to be universal acceptance of gun exposure. i.e. using cstone's procreation reference - the very reason there is now a universal mandate for sex education (under the euphemism of 'health' education) is due to the universal acceptance that our youth are going to be exposed to sex. Your argument follows that example as a direct parallel - EXCEPT - there is no universal acceptance of gun exposure. If there were such universal acceptance - then your suggestion of mandated training in school makes sense - as does BG's comment about M4 issuance.

Make sense now?

---

I would just like to say.... Teen pregnancy is a much bigger problem than gun control right now.... We need more sex ed in schools.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JM Ver. 2.0

I would just like to say.... Teen pregnancy is a much bigger problem than gun control right now.... We need more sex ed in schools.

---

LOL. . .

A perfect example of thread drift.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHC

LOL. . .

A perfect example of thread drift.

---

Hey... You pointed it that way, I just pushed it along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cysoto

I understand the opposition to most of the Bills being debated in the Senate but there is one which I thought that people on both sides of the gun debate would embrace.

---

How can a person connected to a business that offers firearms training be the least bit objective about this?

It reminds me of a gun shop owner who told me he thought the universal background check law was good as it would benefit his business...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DHC

Your responses seem to cast things in a very narrow frame of reference. Ex. your explanation of a generational difference to explain the POV's different from your own seems, well, a bit simplistic - IMO, of course.

As I read BG's response to your post, he was (I believe) merely carrying your argument to a further point in your own logic path. For there to be a mandate for universal gun training, there would need to be universal acceptance of gun exposure. i.e. using cstone's procreation reference - the very reason there is now a universal mandate for sex education (under the euphemism of 'health' education) is due to the universal acceptance that our youth are going to be exposed to sex. Your argument follows that example as a direct parallel - EXCEPT - there is no universal acceptance of gun exposure. If there were such universal acceptance - then your suggestion of mandated training in school makes sense - as does BG's comment about M4 issuance.

Make sense now?

---

I don't get the issuing point... no. While it would be awesome... I don't see it necessary or plausible. There are lots of classes we take in school, like the two I mentioned (shop and home ec) that require a physical hands on presence with the items without schools having to issue you those items for you to keep afterwards. You don't get a car to keep in shop, you don't get a stove to keep in home ec, you don't keep your Bunsen burners and beakers in chemistry, you don't keep your M4 from firearms class. You have to have them in the classroom for class... but they don't pay for and give you these things to take home with you to keep. That is your own responsibility. Not everyone who takes home ec may want a stove... don't force one on 'em. Not everyone who takes firearms classes in school may want an M4 (though I sure would) so don't force it on 'em. It doesn't make economic sense to issue them. The whole lifetime supply of ammo? BG was just being a smart ass... not furthering my argument. I'm sure you can see that. I was trying to make a serious point and have a serious discussion. That is tough for some people to do, apparently.

Homeschooling for the win! Math, Reading, History, Firearms, Science [Flower]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hatidua

How can a person connected to a business that offers firearms training be the least bit objective about this?

---

I own a firearms training company and I'm a strong proponent of Constitutional carry. I think that's pretty objective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

Homeschooling for the win! Math, Reading, History, Firearms, Science [Flower]

---

I'd be on board with that! Make it part of the curriculum!

I'm very torn on this bill. For many reasons. Too much to type, really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hatidua

How can a person connected to a business that offers firearms training be the least bit objective about this?

It reminds me of a gun shop owner who told me he thought the universal background check law was good as it would benefit his business...

---

Acknowledging the power of profit motive, I submit it is disrespectful to accuse others of acting out of self-interest in these matters - UNLESS AND UNTIL those motives are demonstrated in their actions.

I've known an awful lot of business owners who actively lobby in a direction based on principle while knowing full-well it will negatively impact their bottom lines and result in them taking a different direction with their businesses.

Just my POV. FWIW