KillingtonZone.com

Coydog wrote: ↑Oct 29th, '21, 07:02 I see, so in MooseSpeak, when you openly question the firearm training of actors with:

”Mister Moose” wrote: Why isn't it standard ║production company║ protocol for every actor who will fire a prop gun be personally responsible, to be trained to inspect firearms, be trained in the dangers associated with blanks, and be required to personally check each gun he is given to shoot, each time, each scene?

it actually has nothing to do with ║government mandated║ training and translates to "Did Alec Baldwin exercise ordinary care when handling the firearm?"

My bad.

If you insert my bracketed italic clarification above, it might be clearer to you. You are trying to characterize my comments as gun control and government mandated training, which usually involves licensing (A license being evidence of having successfully passed the training) and laws regulating or prohibiting such. Whether laws exist on training or not in New Mexico, the production company still needs to operate without a reckless lack of care. They need their own procedures, policies and training. With a lack of care, they can be found to be negligent.

Your above quote of mine refers to an example of the ordinary care needed to be exercised by the movie production company when asking inexperienced actors to handle live firearms. Live meaning a real gun. The actor as a responsible adult, also bears responsibility when holding a live firearm. Neither of these standards of ordinary care necessarily enter into the province of gun control legislation. In your latest attempt you are trying to conflate training, briefing, and inspecting by a private company or individual with something that is government mandated. You can twist this further Coydog style, and say that case law on criminal negligence effectively is a mandate, but it is not firearm specific, and it is not situational specific. You must prove negligence, which would involve all of the circumstances of the accident, and those circumstances vary with every accident.

Training is part of ordinary care. Procedures are part of ordinary care. Chain of custody is part of ordinary care. Each company's method of care may vary.

If your point is "Can I find any parsable language in any of Mr Moose's posts?" then let's cut to the chase and agree that yes, you will always be able to do that.

Baldwing caught shopping in VT How pathetic

Alec, the plaid flannel shirt doesn't camo the sock-less loafers in VT, you're still sticking out like a sore thumb. Try again.

Both signs to his right are prescient

If proper training is required to handle a firearm with ordinary care, then it would seem negligent not to mandate proper training.

Without mandatory training, we rely on negligence laws to assess a gun owner’s level of training only after some unfortunate incident has occurred. With mandatory training, the public is assured that every legal gun owner is at least aware of ordinary firearm care since proper training was required to legally obtain the firearm in the first place.

So it seems in the gun advocate’s world, training is required to exercise ordinary care with a firearm, but the government requiring gun owners to actually receive this training is an undue burden on the right to keep and bear arms. Presumably, gun owners will voluntarily seek firearm training because they accept this personal responsibility.

Of course, 40% of legal gun owners in the US are untrained and we dare not unduly burden them.

No you dems hate the NRA the NRA trains people on how to handle a firearm

You lose

Bigjohnski wrote: ↑Nov 2nd, '21, 12:22the NRA offers training to people on how to handle a firearm

Fixed it.

Allowing people to purchase firearms without proper training seems pretty stupid. Allowing people to walk around with fully loaded assault rifles on public properties where your elected leaders meet seems extremely stupid. These are not the responsible exercises of Constitutional rights. With freedom comes responsibility, not the right to act irresponsibly.

I don't think this has anything to do with Alec Baldwin's shooting, though. That's just an issue of negligence, and it turns on facts that we don't really know and may never find out.

JIBBER FIXED IT CAN'T FIX STUPID WITH YOU DEMS

Just curious, can you buy a car without a drivers license? And then operate it on private property?

Not really a fair comparison because buying a car is not a constitutionally protected right. However, cars are very heavily regulated, from production through purchase, much moreso than firearms. I don't really care what people do on their own private property. I do care what they do on public property, highways and byways. Perhaps above I should have said training should be a requirement for a license to carry a firearm outside your private property rather than to purchase one.

But guns are not like cars. Guns can be concealed, carried on to public property and used to kill dozens of people at a distance. It seems like a dangerous instrumentality like that should require a bit more regulation than an automobile.

To broach the heart of the matter - the ideological notion that the right to keep and bear arms is necessary to support our freedom from a tyrannical government is an outdated romantic notion that hasn't been true for a long time. As a practical matter, a successful armed revolution in modern times would require weapons that you can't buy at a gun store. In any case, the much more successful strategy for overthrowing a tyrannical government in modern times has been civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance. See for example the 2011 Tunisian, Egyptian, and Yemeni revolutions. There are many other successful examples of nonviolent resistance, and comparatively few successful examples of armed resistance in modern times.