eye95
Well-known member
“Had”.
Moving on from this nit moronically being picked.
Moving on from this nit moronically being picked.
“Had”.
Moving on from this nit moronically being picked.
Ok, now you're just trying to push buttons, the immature antithesis of good conversation and the epitome of troll-like behavior.
You're back on ignore.
No. You've stated what you think it is, but you've not been consistent.
Where you stated your opinion, I've cited the actual written law.
BIG difference.
'Bye.
Thanks I'm much happier being on your ignore list.
If one is going to use a firearm as part of their governmental duties, then training is a reasonable requirement.
Mutual grooming, nit picking, is the essence of primate social interaction. Chimp-out!!!“Had”. Moving on from this nit moronically being picked.
I agree with that statement, which does not disagree with mine.If one is going to use a firearm as part of their inalienable fundamental & enumerated right to self-defense, then training is NOT a reasonable requirement.
Self-defense against a wacko school shooter is not a government duty, it is a human right!
Guns in schools/school zones did not become an issue until Nov. 29, 1990 - Pub. L. 101–647, title XVII, § 1702(b)(5), 104 Stat. 4845.I agree with that statement, which does not disagree with mine.
If a teacher is appointed by the administration to carry as a duty, training is a reasonable requirement.
If a teacher carries to exercise his Right, requiring training would infringe on that Right.
I agree with that statement, which does not disagree with mine.
If a teacher is appointed by the administration to carry as a duty, training is a reasonable requirement.
If a teacher carries to exercise his Right, requiring training would infringe on that Right.
For Ohio have a read.Do police need training before the carry and use firearms on behalf of the government?
I think that they do. I believe that anyone who carries a firearm as an agent of the government, as an assigned duty, should be trained. But, hey, that’s just me.
I agree.
The question at hand seems to be whether and when training can be mandated by the government for the carry and use of firearms.
The standard I have been advocating is that training must be mandatory when one will be required to carry—and possibly use—a firearm as an agent of the state. I believe that, except in those circumstances, mandatory training is an infringement on the RKBA.
However, not getting training voluntarily to exercise the Right is foolish—and should be a consideration at any civil or criminal trial when a firearm is misused.
No, I am saying that it is a reasonable question to be answered, during a civil or criminal trial resulting misuse of a firearm, whether or not the defendant was trained in the use of the firearm.
If the defendant had no training at all, that fact is relevant when determining negligence.