Originally Posted by LMTluvr
I don't believe that's an anti 2A attitude at all. I loath and despise the Brady campaign just as much as many on here. However I can loosely agree with his points.
First off, why not? If I owned a school I too would want to make sure we weren't training bangers to be better shots or parolees to be more effective gun fighters. They already have an advantage as they couldn't care less about the laws we have to abide by. Why give them any more? It's bad enough gangs like the nortenos are sending their new recruits to join the corps to learn mout, to them turn around and teach those newly acquired skills.
As far as training resumes, I would view that more of a courtesy thing. It's really frustrating to be in a somewhat " advanced" class that's constantly being bogged down by the guy still stuck in " the bullets go in that way" mode. I'm not knocking this individual, we all were new at one point and I for one much enjoy helping one new to firearms. But with a training resume you can gauge what level that shooter is currently proficient in. Thius, for the most part accurately ascertaining which skill level class he/she should be in.just my .02
Re-read the post from the guy I called an anti.
If that's how you want to run your school, fine. However requiring people to cough up the cash for background checks just to take a class(someone's going to have to pay for it) would just further disenfranchise people as an "extra" thing to do that's really irrelevant. Who would enforce a requirement that all firearm training requires that? The state? Feds? Yeah, that's an anti-2a attitude. Might as well ask for FOID cards like Illinois or some nonsense. Making it even more difficult for regular citizens to get any sort of firearm training is most certainly anti-2a.