[immoceefe]

Interestingly,we have the right

of free travel in this country too...but still require training to opperate a motor vehichle or fly an aircraft.When

an issue requires the use of a piece of equipment,and that equipment when misused constitutes a danger to the

general public...establishing reasonable minimum requirements for the use of said equipment makes sense.It is a

logical and reasonable method of providing for general public safety.Notice the words "general public." A synonym

for "public" or "public safety." Police agencies are NOT required by law to even give you the time of day when you

call 911 and report a burgler with a weapon in your home!They literaly "voulunteer" to help you.Because you and your

home do not consitute "the public" and your individual safety does not constitute "public safety," there is a very

resonable argument to allow individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

Many lawsuits have been filed all over

the country for a police agencies lack of response to a deadly threat against an individual.And the plaintifs ALWAYS

loose.The police are NOT required to help YOU.If the standards of use and marksmanship used in testing for the carry

of a firearm are too high,we inadvertently end up slashing nine out of ten police officers from the force.Most cops

are at best poor marksmen(I have been on the range with these men and women many times and can attest to the fact

that thier weapons skills are not all that and a bag of chips.)

As for grandma and her .38 snub nosed

revolver...thats a tough one.What are the odds of her getting shot with her own handgun after she has it ripped from

her grasp?Quite high in fact,as that sort of thing happens.It happens not only to the weak,infirm and elderly,but

here in Seattle a young man was just convicted in the shooting death of a police officer in which he disarmed the

officer and shot him with his own sidearm.A veteran police officer with both size and training on his side.And he

had the suspect on the ground and was cuffing him when the situation turned,so the officer had all the advantages

and was killed with his own weapon anyway.

None of these things come with easy answers.But I would rather err on

the side of allowing people the opportunity to at least try to have a fighting chnace that to run off willy nilly

screaming about the dangers of firearms.

Oh...BTW...My grandmother was an excelent shot.She grew up in a logging

camp and married a firearms trainer and national marksmanship competitor.Frankly,she was a better and quicker shot

than most of the police officers I have met.And she was also the sweetest,most humble and unassuming woman of God

you could have ever met.

[domeffire]

Biohazard::

I'm sorry but I should have addressed this in the previous post. You mention

first and second ammendments. Under the fiirst ammendment you have the right to assmbly, speech etc. Under the

second you have the right to bear arms. If we look at the first amendment, it does not give you the right to intrude

upon a person's private property to practice that right, does it. If you exercise freedom of speech and slander a

person, there is legal recourse. There are legal protections that come with those rights.

Is the public

entitled to legal protection from lead objects being carelessly fired in their general direction? Are they entitled

to a reasonable expectation of freedom from personal injury or damage to property by a person exercising their

second ammnedment rights? Certainly, a gun owner can be arrested and jailed for misuse of a firearm. That does not

undo the serious personal harm or death that was done to an innocent person? In my personal opinion, the primary

first function of any government is to protect the citizens from harm by others. Failure to create some means of

assuring legal gun owners are safe to use those guns is a failure to protect the citizens.

I agree.

Sticks and stones can break bones, but words often do worse. There are legal guidelines that specify what you can

or cannot do with your first amendment right. Such is the same with your second amendment right. Still, there is

no licensing or training procedure for individual speech/expression. In some cases you need a permit to assemble in

public, but I think that's more of an issue of interfering in public commerce such as blocking a sidewalk, road,

etc, than it is about expression. For the most part, you're allowed to express yourself with no formal training or

licensing, and are punished only when you have done something harmful.

Requiring a class

in firearms safety might be a good idea, but not testing procedures.

[HcMkOKiz]

A word thrown at you may hurt

your feelings but rarely draws blood and even more rarely can kill an innocent bystander. A requirement to show

competence to use a device that could very easily result in serious injury, disfigurement or even death to an

innocent bystander is not unreasonable. Tim makes a good point in his comparison of freedom to travel but competency

testing is required to use a motor vehicle.