Should there be mandatory training before you can purchase a firearm?

[Hossfly]

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

What would the requirements be for a veteran who spent up to 30 years in the military, especially in combat arms? Or even a National Guardsman or Reservist who completed basic training and received extensive firearms training?

 

[easyt65]

There is no mandate to receive driver's training before buying a car, only to get your license to drive it.

'Require gun carriers / users to have a license...when hunting, at the shooting range, etc....'

Of course some will consider the requirement to have such a license 'infringement'.....

 

[OKTexas]

...No Moon Bat you are confused. It is time to adhere to the Bill of Rights. **** gun control.

Thank you for your insightful feedback, Princess; however, mandatory training is coming, and sooner than you think.

When it DOES come, you will obey the laws of the United States, just like everybody else; piss-and-moan all you like.

Just teach gun safety in all schools, your perceived problem is solved and it won't cost anyone a dime. I'm sure the NRA would be happy to supply qualified instructors for free.


.

 

[OKTexas]

That would be an infringement

Would you consider it an infringement to require a driving test before you can operate a vehicle?

An infringement of what? Driving isn't a right.

Furthermore, you don't require a license to operate a vehicle. You require a license to operate one ON PUBLIC ROADS. And most places still require a permit to carry a weapon in public places, so there you go.

It’s really easier then that C.

You are not required to have a license unless you drive a car on a tax payer funded highway.

So, if we take this to it’s logical conclusion, only those using a gun at a tax payer funded shooting range must have a license.

Until you take it outta your house onto the taxpayer funded sidewalk.

Most sidewalks are private property. Dip.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Question. Do you believe that someone who has never used a firearm should be allowed to purchase one without any kind of training? If you do, then you are a fool. Guns are dangerous in the hands of the incompetent. A short class on gun safety does not infringe the rights of anyone.

You can buy a car without any training. They are dangerous. They Kill.

What’s you point exactly? Saying someone is a fool is not an answer.

Do I think? Yes. You?

So, do you think anyone should be allowed to buy a gun? Even if doing so would make them a danger to others? We're talking about a short gun safety class here. That's all. How could anyone have a problem with this? It doesn't even need to be a graded test. Just show them how to safely use it.

Dude, you are looking for a solution to a non existent problem.

Most gun deaths are the result of:

A. Criminal activity. And if you think criminals give a rip about laws, then I can’t help ya Son.

B. Suicide. If someone is hellbent on killing themselves, you think that training will stop them? Really?

C. The rest have almost zero statistical relevance. And even with these, you would save only a insignificant number that it’s nearly zero.

Thanks

So, you're saying my sisters death is not statistically relevant? It's relevant to me. It's relevant to her mother, her father, her brother and sisters, aunts and uncles, cousins. The simple fact is that hundreds of people die each year due to carelessness with guns. Proper training would reduce that number. If it saved just a single life, it would be worth it. It might have saved my sisters life.

I ask, again. Why would anyone have a problem with demonstrating basic safety and competency, before buying a firearm?

So we don't require doctors to demonstrate basic safety and competency but how many people do they kill by making errors in medication?

About 400,000 per year.


.

 

[OKTexas]

That is what makes you an asshole. The Bill of Rights means nothing to you.

That is what makes you an asshole. The Bill of Rights means nothing to you.

Would you want a gun owner, who knows nothing about gun safety, living next door?

Who cares?

When they are negligent and shoot someone, they will go to jail!

What if they went to jail before they accidentally shoots you? Wouldn’t that be even better?

Unfortunately, we don't send people to jail for crimes they haven't committed yet. You should stop watching Tom Cruise movies and get some fresh air.

I’m still using the drivers license as a parallel. If it was a crime to be running around with a gun without proper training people would be sent to jail for that crime. Before they managed to accidentally shoot someone.

Except they normally just issue a ticket for driving without a license.


.

 

[OKTexas]

...Any government control is an infringement, dumbass!

Regulating the Militia, well, is not an infringement, it is a Constitutional requirement.

And here we are dealing with the weaponry of the Militia As A Whole - the citizenry of the Republic.

It's a requirement for the State, not the feds.


.

 

[OKTexas]

You can buy a car without any training. They are dangerous. They Kill.

What’s you point exactly? Saying someone is a fool is not an answer.

Do I think? Yes. You?

So, do you think anyone should be allowed to buy a gun? Even if doing so would make them a danger to others? We're talking about a short gun safety class here. That's all. How could anyone have a problem with this? It doesn't even need to be a graded test. Just show them how to safely use it.

Dude, you are looking for a solution to a non existent problem.

Most gun deaths are the result of:

A. Criminal activity. And if you think criminals give a rip about laws, then I can’t help ya Son.

B. Suicide. If someone is hellbent on killing themselves, you think that training will stop them? Really?

C. The rest have almost zero statistical relevance. And even with these, you would save only a insignificant number that it’s nearly zero.

Thanks

So, you're saying my sisters death is not statistically relevant? It's relevant to me. It's relevant to her mother, her father, her brother and sisters, aunts and uncles, cousins. The simple fact is that hundreds of people die each year due to carelessness with guns. Proper training would reduce that number. If it saved just a single life, it would be worth it. It might have saved my sisters life.

I ask, again. Why would anyone have a problem with demonstrating basic safety and competency, before buying a firearm?

So we don't require doctors to demonstrate basic safety and competency but how many people do they kill by making errors in medication?

We only require a college degree. I wasn’t thinking the gun education to be that extensive, more in the line of... well a drivers license?

Yet people with medical licenses and drivers licenses kill about 43 times the number of people with guns. Sounds to me like you don't have your priorities straight if you're really interested in saving lives.


.

 

[OKTexas]

[ ...We only require a college degree. I wasn’t thinking the gun education to be that extensive, more in the line of... well a drivers license?

Yep.

Commodity-caliber context-specific training.

Gotta pass the Rules-of-the-Road -type written exam to get ANY kind of firearms license.

Gotta take one Rules-of-the-Road -type refresher class and subsequent exam once every 6 or 8 or 10 years.

Gotta take specialized training for specific categories of weapons...

For the basics...

Pistols 101...

Rifles and Shotguns 101...

< basic background check and periodic updates re: criminal convictions and specific mental health diagnoses or treatments or hospitalizations >​

For more sophisticated stuff...

High-rate-of-fire Weapons 201

High-rate-of-fire Weapons 202​

< deep background check, more hoops to jump through, more frequent renewals and auditing >
​

Every firearm is centrally registered...

Every transaction ( sale, gift, inheritance, etc. ) is centrally vetted by AI and approved or rejected; with an ability to appeal.

Upon felony conviction, advent of dangerous mental health condition, or indictment for crimes of violence, you lose your guns.

With full compensation or pre-approved transfer to a recipient of your choice, or temporary storage before resorting to such a process.

If you're indicted, and you're cleared, you get 'em back, and the interim seizure and storage are expunged.

Who did you steal that insanity from?


.

 

[OKTexas]

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

Would they be willing to remove some of the current restrictions on the types of guns and accessories in exchange for the training? My guess is no, they would want more restrictions plus the training.

People should be allowed to own any non military firearm. I don't believe in any other restrictions...Other than knowing how to use them safely. Are you saying that gun safety classes should not be required? Do you honestly believe that anyone should be allowed to own a firearm, even if they are a danger to themselves and others? Is that what you want?

I had a 12 ga. shotgun when I was in the Navy. That makes it a military firearm. Are you sure you want to go there? Dumbass!

A shotgun is not a military weapon, dumbass!

Really, they were used by the military long before ARs were ever thought of, and still are.


.

 

[OKTexas]

...Well, all right, that sound a bit too complicated...

No more complicated than...

Class A license for automobiles

Class M license for motorcycles

Class C license for buses and straight-jobs and some panel trucks

Class D license for semi tractor trailers and above​

... along with the various training and testing and renewals and auditing and registrations required for each.

You're a liar, I renewed my drivers license on the internet. Of course I did my CHL the same way. No test for either.

BTW in TX class C is a standard MV license, class A is commercial.


.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

Yes I agree with this......here in Washington state it's required to take a 'Hunter Safety Course' before getting a hunting license. It includes several things and if I remember correctly is like a 6 day course over a 2 week period(?) It's not that far of a stretch to do the same or similar with guns & license/permits. It would be like a graduated step.....first the safety course, then get your permit, then buy your guns.

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

What would the requirements be for a veteran who spent up to 30 years in the military, especially in combat arms? Or even a National Guardsman or Reservist who completed basic training and received extensive firearms training?

Military should be exempt for obvious reasons

 

[Crepitus]

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

Would they be willing to remove some of the current restrictions on the types of guns and accessories in exchange for the training? My guess is no, they would want more restrictions plus the training.

What restrictions? There really aren't any.

There are a lot of guns you can't buy, and now accessories are being targeted.

So, what can you not buy? Especially if you go through the trouble to get your FFL?

 

[Crepitus]

All our rights have reasonable limits .

Shall not be infringed....the Founders were explicit on that

a well regulated militia.

yep they were.

The amendment does not say that a militia has the right to keep and bear arms, however. It says the people do. Basically it is a compound sentence in which because the first part is true (a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state), the second part is true (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed). It does not specify that the militia is a requirement for someone to have the right to bear arms.

Creative parsing.

So why are they mentioned in the same sentence then?

The first part of the sentence is explaining why the right to bear arms in the second part of the sentence was being enshrined in the amendment. If the amendment read "Alexander Hamilton, being a ninny who likes to get into duels, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," it would not mean that only Hamilton was allowed to keep and bear arms, or only that those who engage in duels have the right to keep and bear arms. It would be explaining that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and the reason that right was put into the Constitution is because Hamilton likes to get into duels.

Certainly there was a very different dynamic involved at the time of the second amendment's writing/ratification. And as I've stated in this thread, I don't like the way it was written. It is written the way it is, however. The Supreme Court has ruled in Heller that being part of a militia is not a requirement to keep and bear arms: specifically "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia."
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

I am aware that an activist court reinterpreted the amendment in 2008. You supposed constitutionalists should be up in arms about that.

 

[Crepitus]

Think about it. This is not a gun rights issue. It all about safety. Would you really want your neighbor having a gun and no clue how to use it safely, or even hit what he's aiming at? We require drivers to take a driving test and get a license. Why should guns be any different?

BTW, I am totally pro 2nd amendment. I just want the ones who own those guns to know what they are doing.

I have no problem with training. The NRA offers a fabulous set of training videos on DVD. Make an expert out of you. But as guns are a god-given right, so should be the training. Every American by dint of his tax dollars should have a portion of that go into government-paid guns and training. You should get tax credits for added training. Kids ought to get college credit for gun training. Time to put down their idiot-cellphones and start learning firearm skills and discipline. Time to build a stronger, safer, better-prepared America with disciplined, moral, responsible people again instead of all of the sick, pathetic, weenie psychos the Left has produced!

Lol, guns are a god given right? What planet are you from anyway?

Oh, the sorry fool. It's called 'Planet America,' and you ought to try visiting it sometime. Why don't you read down through this article on human rights:

Human rights - Wikipedia

In it, you will see mention of free speech, protection from enslavement. These are considered basic (inalienable) human rights. An inalienable right is one that cannot be taken away, ie, God-given. Any right given by man (government) can be taken away by the same, therefore, an inalienable right by definition must be god-given. And if freedom of speech (1st in the Bill of Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) is a guaranteed right, then so must be the 2nd, for unless you are guaranteed the right to self-defense, you can never guarantee the freedom of speech or protection from enslavement.

Ummm..... I don't know how to break this to you, but America isn't a planet, it's a Continent, and I'm pretty sure the current interpretation of the second amendment came from the suoresu Court and not god.

Wise up.

 

[OKTexas]

Who gets to certify the "mandatory training"? Would an 80 year old person in a crime infested area have to shell out $100 or $200 or even $500 for "training" when they could figure out how to load and aim a shotgun or a .22 in five minutes?

There is much to the decision on when and where to fire

Many innocent people have been killed

Yeah, by cops, their more likely to make the wrong call after arriving on a scene cold. CHL holders are usually there when it starts and know who the bad guy is.


.

 

[OKTexas]

The courts made it clear that it was not the amount of the tax, but that a tax existed in the first place.

It's not a tax. Demonstrating your proficiency with a firearm before you buy one is not a tax.

It's just something I'm not going to do, because you have no right to demand it.

Let's not get overly dramatic, OK? I haven't demanded anything to begin with however if the government made this the law then yeah..you'll ******* do it if you want a gun.

But the criminals won’t.

And you solved nothing

Except looking like a pinhead.........




















Again

It's not really about criminals, but you go ahead with that.

So you want to impose your will on law abiding citizens and not criminals, talk about screwed up priorities.


.

 

[OKTexas]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how requiring a gun safety course for buying a gun infringes anyone's rights?

Let's say what you want comes to pass and the powers that be decide to severely curtail the availability of guns. They can charge extensive fees for the course, limit the number of instructors, slow-walk the paperwork any time anyone applies for the course. They can offer the course only during most people's working hours, charge a high cost for the training, put restrictions on who can take the course, who can teach it, or make the entire process so expensive no one can afford it. They could also "lose" the records showing people completed the training.

There are literally hundreds of wys this could be used as an infringement. just think about it for a minute.

Nobody is proposing anything close to this. This is a ridiculous 'slippery slope' argument that depends on some pretty obviously unconstitutional tactics to include breaking the law.

Yeah, kind of like Seattle putting additional taxes on gun and ammo sales. The slope has already been greased.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Shall not be infringed....the Founders were explicit on that

a well regulated militia.

yep they were.

The amendment does not say that a militia has the right to keep and bear arms, however. It says the people do. Basically it is a compound sentence in which because the first part is true (a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state), the second part is true (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed). It does not specify that the militia is a requirement for someone to have the right to bear arms.

Creative parsing.

So why are they mentioned in the same sentence then?

The first part of the sentence is explaining why the right to bear arms in the second part of the sentence was being enshrined in the amendment. If the amendment read "Alexander Hamilton, being a ninny who likes to get into duels, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," it would not mean that only Hamilton was allowed to keep and bear arms, or only that those who engage in duels have the right to keep and bear arms. It would be explaining that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and the reason that right was put into the Constitution is because Hamilton likes to get into duels.

Certainly there was a very different dynamic involved at the time of the second amendment's writing/ratification. And as I've stated in this thread, I don't like the way it was written. It is written the way it is, however. The Supreme Court has ruled in Heller that being part of a militia is not a requirement to keep and bear arms: specifically "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia."
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

I am aware that an activist court reinterpreted the amendment in 2008. You supposed constitutionalists should be up in arms about that.

Show me in the Constitution where they use the federal government, the States or the People synonymously. The 2nd says the right of the PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms, not the feds, not the States, THE PEOPLE. Heller didn't go far enough to be in full compliance with the Constitution.


.

 

[JustAnotherNut]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how requiring a gun safety course for buying a gun infringes anyone's rights?

Let's say what you want comes to pass and the powers that be decide to severely curtail the availability of guns. They can charge extensive fees for the course, limit the number of instructors, slow-walk the paperwork any time anyone applies for the course. They can offer the course only during most people's working hours, charge a high cost for the training, put restrictions on who can take the course, who can teach it, or make the entire process so expensive no one can afford it. They could also "lose" the records showing people completed the training.

There are literally hundreds of wys this could be used as an infringement. just think about it for a minute.

Nobody is proposing anything close to this. This is a ridiculous 'slippery slope' argument that depends on some pretty obviously unconstitutional tactics to include breaking the law.

Yeah, kind of like Seattle putting additional taxes on gun and ammo sales. The slope has already been greased.




.

Yeah, Seattle likes to tax everything.......damn greedy buggers