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

[Montrovant]

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.

Reinterpreted? Was there a USSC interpretation prior to Heller which made gun ownership dependent upon militia membership?

 

[2aguy]

Your logic is to impose your set of values on law abiding citizens because of criminal actions of others.............Your logic is flawed and your mindset and opinions are your own..............

Kind of like punishing the cows for the actions of a Coyote raiding the hen house.................Our castrating a neighbor of a rapist for the crimes of a rapist.

You want to ENFORCE YOUR VALUES ON OTHERS.............who don't agree with you.........and we will resist you until hell freezes over.

Your logic doesn't work AT ALL. If your logic worked, we would have no laws and no regulations AT ALL. I don't drive drunk or recklessly, but there are laws against doing so. Why am I punished for what others do? Why do I need to buy liability insurance? I don't steal. Why are there laws against doing so? Why are there laws against cheating on taxes: I don't cheat on my taxes. Why am I punished for what others do?

Your logic is the same as a young child's.

Can you outline these punishments?

I am curious

Seriously?

Punishment isn't the correct word. Punishment is the word the poster used to whom I was replying. It's a childish term and a childish way to represent having regulations and laws in respect to civilized behavior.

You apparently seem unable to see the correlation between requirements and regulations in just about every 'right' we have as 'free' citizens and the right to have guns.

Really your question is just too stupid a question for me to bother with. Figure it out yourself, unless you are too retarded. You are obviously too retarded to pick up on irony.

You are frustrated I see.

Can you explain the problem that the OP will solve by his proposal.

99% of all gun related deaths are caused by suicide and criminal activities.

At best, you think that training these two groups will make them less effective in there deeds? How so? Seems training them makes them more effective, not less.

The one percent is due to carelessness. And I’ve seen no argument made that this training will make careless people less careless.

Do you have anything?

Other countries have requirements for training and psychological testing in the ownership of guns. Pro-gun people are always comparing what they think are lax regulations in Switzerland regarding gun ownership. Not true. The government keeps a list of people who have guns but whom the authorities think may not be psychologically competent to have them. Government officials and psychologists regularly check up on these people and remove their guns, and right to own guns, if they think the person shouldn't have them.

The OP is talking about legally owned guns. Suicides are related to mental health: therefore, psychological tests would help prevent suicides. In Switzerland, most gun related deaths are also due to suicides. As far as crime: most guns used by criminals are illegally obtained, most often stolen from legal owners. When the number of guns in circulation is reduced, criminals have fewer guns. In countries with strict gun control, there is less crime. I live in Spain at present. They have very strict gun control laws and very low crime, one of the lowest in Europe. There is correlation between strict gun control and low crime.

If people get training to own firearms, it wouldn't be just about the literal physical safety, but the wise and careful ownership of them, including keeping them out of the hands of thieves. The reason that illegal had a gun which killed the woman in SF is because the legal gun owner left it unsecured under the driver's seat in his car. The car was parked in downtown SF. Even if it was locked, that is not good gun safety because it is not unusual for someone to break into a locked car.

In countries with strict gun control, there is less crime.

Wrong....Britain has more violent crime than the United States does...Norway has more guns than Britain, and less murder.......you don't know what you are talking about....there is a long list of countries with extreme gun control that are far more violent than the U.S..

Does Gun Control Reduce Murder? Let’s Run The Numbers Globally



Let’s look at the countries with the highest concentrations of gun ownership (excluding Yemen and Iraq as active war zones). Guns per murder in those countries are,

1. United States at 20,967,
2. Uruguay at 3,777,
3. Norway at 55,893,
4. France at 19,747,
5. Austria at 59,608,
6. Germany at 35,647,
7. Switzerland at 35,435,
8. New Zealand at 24,835, and
9. Greece at 26,471.

Norway is a particularly interesting example. It has 10 times the gun ownership rate of the United Kingdom, but only half the murder rate.

When one excludes Iraq and Yemen, not one of the countries on the list of the 10 highest rates of gun ownership also appears on the list of the top ten highest murder rates. In fact, the countries with the highest murder rates have markedly low gun ownership rates.

1. El Savador (108.64 murders per 100,000/5800 guns per 100,000)
2. Honduras (63.75/6200)
3. Venezuela (57.15/10,700)
4. Jamaica (43.21/8,100)
5. Lesotho (38/2,700)
6. Belize (34.4/10,000)
7. South Africa (34.27/12,700)
8. Guatemala (31.21/13,100)
9. Trinidad (30.88/1,600)
10. Bahamas (29.81/5,300)

It really doesn’t matter how you slice this data. The conclusion is inescapable: High concentrations of private, legal gun ownership do not correlate positively to increased murders. Indeed, you can look at almost any slice of data and conclude the opposite: Higher private ownership of guns can be strongly correlated to lower murder rates.

The data also exposes some myths I have heard about gun control. For example, I’ve heard activists tout Australia, which supposedly banned all guns. Australia has advanced a number of gun control measures over the years. Nevertheless, according to the data, Australia has a rate of private ownership of guns of 13,100 per 100,000 and a murder rate of .98.

Australia has almost twice as many guns per capita as the United Kingdom, for example, and a comparable murder rate. New Zealand has almost twice as many guns per capita as Australia but a lower crime rate.

Countries with both a low rate of private gun ownership and a low murder rate exist, but they are clearly data outliers. These include the Netherlands (3,900 guns per 100,000, for a murder rate of .61) the United Kingdom (6,200 guns per 100,000, for a murder rate of .92), Japan, and Portugal. Places like Norway, Austria, Switzerland, and Germany overwhelm those examples because they all have high rates of gun ownership and enviable crime rates.

-------

The ratio of murders per gun works as a decent measure for how responsible a country’s citizens are with their firearms. Measured in this light, an owner of a private legal gun in America measures as one of the most responsible in the world. A gun in America is 387 times less likely to be used in a murder than in El Salvador. Even in Japan, which has one of the lowest murder and gun ownership rates in the world, there are ten times as many murders per gun than in America.

 

[2aguy]

The citizens of Alabama want to ban abortions, should they be able to?

And I have the RKBA as a federal citizen, NYC should not be able to infringe, but its because of lawless cucks like you that we have the situation we have now.

The Fed law would probably make the States do the leg work, and States like NY would let more restrictive places like NYC go even further, while making Upstate gun friendly places follow State laws. (which would be onerous)

Rights are not subject to popular vote.

Cry me a river. You lost all credibility when you decided to become a gun nut.

Gun Nut in the eyes of a Gun Grabber mentality...................Why we believe you are a Gun Grabber Nut.

"Gun Grabber" This is an indication of the way

Can you outline these punishments?

I am curious

Seriously?

Punishment isn't the correct word. Punishment is the word the poster used to whom I was replying. It's a childish term and a childish way to represent having regulations and laws in respect to civilized behavior.

You apparently seem unable to see the correlation between requirements and regulations in just about every 'right' we have as 'free' citizens and the right to have guns.

Really your question is just too stupid a question for me to bother with. Figure it out yourself, unless you are too retarded. You are obviously too retarded to pick up on irony.

You are frustrated I see.

Can you explain the problem that the OP will solve by his proposal.

99% of all gun related deaths are caused by suicide and criminal activities.

At best, you think that training these two groups will make them less effective in there deeds? How so? Seems training them makes them more effective, not less.

The one percent is due to carelessness. And I’ve seen no argument made that this training will make careless people less careless.

Do you have anything?

Other countries have requirements for training and psychological testing in the ownership of guns. Pro-gun people are always comparing what they think are lax regulations in Switzerland regarding gun ownership. Not true. The government keeps a list of people who have guns but whom the authorities think may not be psychologically competent to have them. Government officials and psychologists regularly check up on these people and remove their guns, and right to own guns, if they think the person shouldn't have them.

The OP is talking about legally owned guns. Suicides are related to mentalhealth: therefore, psychological tests would help prevent suicides. In Switzerland, most gun related deaths are also due to suicides. As far as crime: most guns used by criminals are illegally obtained, most often stolen from legal owners. When the number of guns in circulation is reduced, criminals have fewer guns. In countries with strict gun control, there is less crime. I live in Spain at present. They have very strict gun control laws and very low crime, one of the lowest in Europe. There is correlation between strict gun control and low crime.

If people get training to own firearms, it wouldn't be just about the literal physical safety, but the wise and careful ownership of them, including keeping them out of the hands of thieves. The reason that illegal had a gun which killed the woman in SF is because the legal gun owner left it unsecured under the driver's seat in his car. The car was parked in downtown SF. Even if it was locked, that is not good gun safety because it is not unusual for someone to break into a locked car.

Wow, such deflection.

Other countries don’t give their children ADHD drugs and SDRIs (antidepressants) at near the rate we do.

Want a real impact on these rates?

Wonder why the suicide rate among teens is so high now (second leading cause of death). Might want to explore that a bit and the link to ADHD and antidepressants

As for it being mental illness? The suicide rate among those with these mental illnesses and not on those drugs is almost non existent.

So no, it’s not the mental illness, it’s the medication, which by the way, studies have shown, those taking these meds are 50% more likely to commit a violent crime, then those not taking them.

And you think additional fire arm training is the answer?

Good one.

Got it. We don't need to worry about common sense gun control. All we have to do is get a quick cure for mental illness. It's so simple. I wonder why nobody ever thought of that before.

You guys don't propose common sense gun control...you put out laws that keep law abiding gun owners from being able to buy and own guns.....

What you don't want is criminal control...the real driver of gun crime....if we controlled the criminals that democrats keep letting out of jail, violent gun offenders arrested for gun crimes.....then our gun crime rate would be even lower than it is now...

 

[Montrovant]

...If you want driver's licenses and gun ownership on a par, legally, you'd need a Constitutional amendment repealing the second. Driver's licenses are not a Constitutionally protected right. Gun ownership is.

Not really.

Otherwise, individual States would not be able to require Firearms Owner Identification Cards, nor to limit automatic weapons.

But if you want to play that game... fine.

The entire citizenry of the United States constitutes a Militia Of The Whole or militia of last resort in defense of the Republic.

Licensing, registration, training, etc., then become the regulating - well - of that militia... not an infringement, but a Constitutional obligation.

Whatever it takes, to establish Federal standards for such things.

You're welcome to try arguing that every citizen is a member of the militia, and that the federal government can therefore regulate that militia by restricting gun rights however it wants, but I don't think it would pass judicial muster.

 

[2aguy]

Your logic is to impose your set of values on law abiding citizens because of criminal actions of others.............Your logic is flawed and your mindset and opinions are your own..............

Kind of like punishing the cows for the actions of a Coyote raiding the hen house.................Our castrating a neighbor of a rapist for the crimes of a rapist.

You want to ENFORCE YOUR VALUES ON OTHERS.............who don't agree with you.........and we will resist you until hell freezes over.

Your logic doesn't work AT ALL. If your logic worked, we would have no laws and no regulations AT ALL. I don't drive drunk or recklessly, but there are laws against doing so. Why am I punished for what others do? Why do I need to buy liability insurance? I don't steal. Why are there laws against doing so? Why are there laws against cheating on taxes: I don't cheat on my taxes. Why am I punished for what others do?

Your logic is the same as a young child's.

Can you outline these punishments?

I am curious

Seriously?

Punishment isn't the correct word. Punishment is the word the poster used to whom I was replying. It's a childish term and a childish way to represent having regulations and laws in respect to civilized behavior.

You apparently seem unable to see the correlation between requirements and regulations in just about every 'right' we have as 'free' citizens and the right to have guns.

Really your question is just too stupid a question for me to bother with. Figure it out yourself, unless you are too retarded. You are obviously too retarded to pick up on irony.

You are frustrated I see.

Can you explain the problem that the OP will solve by his proposal.

99% of all gun related deaths are caused by suicide and criminal activities.

At best, you think that training these two groups will make them less effective in there deeds? How so? Seems training them makes them more effective, not less.

The one percent is due to carelessness. And I’ve seen no argument made that this training will make careless people less careless.

Do you have anything?

Other countries have requirements for training and psychological testing in the ownership of guns. Pro-gun people are always comparing what they think are lax regulations in Switzerland regarding gun ownership. Not true. The government keeps a list of people who have guns but whom the authorities think may not be psychologically competent to have them. Government officials and psychologists regularly check up on these people and remove their guns, and right to own guns, if they think the person shouldn't have them.

The OP is talking about legally owned guns. Suicides are related to mental health: therefore, psychological tests would help prevent suicides. In Switzerland, most gun related deaths are also due to suicides. As far as crime: most guns used by criminals are illegally obtained, most often stolen from legal owners. When the number of guns in circulation is reduced, criminals have fewer guns. In countries with strict gun control, there is less crime. I live in Spain at present. They have very strict gun control laws and very low crime, one of the lowest in Europe. There is correlation between strict gun control and low crime.

If people get training to own firearms, it wouldn't be just about the literal physical safety, but the wise and careful ownership of them, including keeping them out of the hands of thieves. The reason that illegal had a gun which killed the woman in SF is because the legal gun owner left it unsecured under the driver's seat in his car. The car was parked in downtown SF. Even if it was locked, that is not good gun safety because it is not unusual for someone to break into a locked car.

And you are wrong...Britain banned guns....their gun crime rate is going up......more Americans now own and carry guns, our crime rates are going down...

Britain...banned guns....

Yorkshire sees highest number of crimes for any county in Britain according to figures

“In particular we’re shocked to see an increase of nearly 30 per cent in weapon possession offences between 2016 and 2017.”

Crimes covered violent and sexual offences, vehicle theft, public order offences, possession of weapons, shoplifting, personal theft, drug crimes, robbery, criminal damage, bicycle thefts and anti-social behaviour.


========

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Daily Mail Online

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent .


========



Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns.

=========



Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.

Top trauma surgeon reveals shocking extent of London’s gun crime

A leading trauma surgeon has told how the number of patients treated for gunshot injuries at a major London hospital has doubled in the last five years.

----

He said the hospital’s major trauma centre had seen a bigger rise in gunshot injuries compared to knife wounds and that the average age of victims was getting younger.

-----

Last year, gun crime offences in London increased for a third year running and by 42 per cent, from 1,793 offences in 2015/16 to 2,544 offences in 2016/17. Police have seized 635 guns off the streets so far this year.

Dr Griffiths, who also teaches medical students, said: “Our numbers of victims of gun injury have doubled [since 2012]. Gunshot injuries represent about 2.5 per cent of our penetrating trauma.

-----

Dr Griffiths said the average age of gun crime victims needing treatment at the hospital had decreased from 25 to the mid to late teens since 2012.

He added that medics at the Barts Health hospital’s major trauma centre in Whitechapel had seen a bigger rise in patients with gun injuries rather than knife wounds and that most were caused by pistols or shotguns.

Met Police commander Jim Stokley, who was also invited to speak at the meeting, said that handguns and shotguns were the weapons of choice and that 46 per cent of London’s gun crime discharges were gang-related.

He said: “We believe that a lot of it is associated with the drugs trade, and by that I mean people dealing drugs at street level and disagreements between different gangs.”

Violent crime on the rise in every corner of the country, figures suggest

But analysis of the figures force by force, showed the full extent of the problem, with only one constabulary, Nottinghamshire, recording a reduction in violent offences.

The vast majority of police forces actually witnessed double digit rises in violent crime, with Northumbria posting a 95 per cent increase year on year.

Of the other forces, Durham Police recorded a 73 per cent rise; West Yorkshire was up 48 per cent; Avon and Somerset 45 per cent; Dorset 39 per cent and Warwickshire 37 per cent.

Elsewhere Humberside, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Wiltshire and Dyfed Powys all saw violence rise by more than a quarter year on year.


The U.S., 600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense.......

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[Pop23]

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.


.

What makes you think that?

I missed this:

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

He/she is trying to extend a lost argument, that being, why do you need to license a car, but not a gun.

Again, there is no such law. You do not need to have a license to buy a car, nor do you have to register a car. You simply can't legally drive on tax payer funded roads without a license or registration (which is not entirely true either).

 

[2aguy]

The citizens of Alabama want to ban abortions, should they be able to?

And I have the RKBA as a federal citizen, NYC should not be able to infringe, but its because of lawless cucks like you that we have the situation we have now.

The Fed law would probably make the States do the leg work, and States like NY would let more restrictive places like NYC go even further, while making Upstate gun friendly places follow State laws. (which would be onerous)

Rights are not subject to popular vote.

Cry me a river. You lost all credibility when you decided to become a gun nut.

Gun Nut in the eyes of a Gun Grabber mentality...................Why we believe you are a Gun Grabber Nut.

"Gun Grabber" This is an indication of the way

Can you outline these punishments?

I am curious

Seriously?

Punishment isn't the correct word. Punishment is the word the poster used to whom I was replying. It's a childish term and a childish way to represent having regulations and laws in respect to civilized behavior.

You apparently seem unable to see the correlation between requirements and regulations in just about every 'right' we have as 'free' citizens and the right to have guns.

Really your question is just too stupid a question for me to bother with. Figure it out yourself, unless you are too retarded. You are obviously too retarded to pick up on irony.

You are frustrated I see.

Can you explain the problem that the OP will solve by his proposal.

99% of all gun related deaths are caused by suicide and criminal activities.

At best, you think that training these two groups will make them less effective in there deeds? How so? Seems training them makes them more effective, not less.

The one percent is due to carelessness. And I’ve seen no argument made that this training will make careless people less careless.

Do you have anything?

Other countries have requirements for training and psychological testing in the ownership of guns. Pro-gun people are always comparing what they think are lax regulations in Switzerland regarding gun ownership. Not true. The government keeps a list of people who have guns but whom the authorities think may not be psychologically competent to have them. Government officials and psychologists regularly check up on these people and remove their guns, and right to own guns, if they think the person shouldn't have them.

The OP is talking about legally owned guns. Suicides are related to mentalhealth: therefore, psychological tests would help prevent suicides. In Switzerland, most gun related deaths are also due to suicides. As far as crime: most guns used by criminals are illegally obtained, most often stolen from legal owners. When the number of guns in circulation is reduced, criminals have fewer guns. In countries with strict gun control, there is less crime. I live in Spain at present. They have very strict gun control laws and very low crime, one of the lowest in Europe. There is correlation between strict gun control and low crime.

If people get training to own firearms, it wouldn't be just about the literal physical safety, but the wise and careful ownership of them, including keeping them out of the hands of thieves. The reason that illegal had a gun which killed the woman in SF is because the legal gun owner left it unsecured under the driver's seat in his car. The car was parked in downtown SF. Even if it was locked, that is not good gun safety because it is not unusual for someone to break into a locked car.

Wow, such deflection.

Other countries don’t give their children ADHD drugs and SDRIs (antidepressants) at near the rate we do.

Want a real impact on these rates?

Wonder why the suicide rate among teens is so high now (second leading cause of death). Might want to explore that a bit and the link to ADHD and antidepressants

As for it being mental illness? The suicide rate among those with these mental illnesses and not on those drugs is almost non existent.

So no, it’s not the mental illness, it’s the medication, which by the way, studies have shown, those taking these meds are 50% more likely to commit a violent crime, then those not taking them.

And you think additional fire arm training is the answer?

Good one.

The suicide rate in Switzerland is very high, and it is among men with guns. And they aren't on drugs. People who want to own guns should have to take a psychological test. Especially in the US when there are so many mass shootings due to mental illness and when pro-gun people are so excessively intense about their 'right' to own any and all guns and ammo they want: they scream and cry and have mental breakdowns when their 'right' might be regulated in any way: worse than little babies.

The suicide rate of all Japanese, Chinese and Korean people are higher than our suicide rates and they all have extreme gun control, only criminals and cops are allowed to have guns...so you have no rational point.

 

[Montrovant]

...(Makes you look silly)

I'm sure it does... in the eyes of those looking to preserve the Status Quo... and I'm OK with that... so long as the job gets done.

If you want the job to get done, why not push for a Constitutional amendment?

 

[Montrovant]

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.


.

What makes you think that?

I missed this:

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

He/she is trying to extend a lost argument, that being, why do you need to license a car, but not a gun.

Again, there is no such law. You do not need to have a license to buy a car, nor do you have to register a car. You simply can't legally drive on tax payer funded roads without a license or registration (which is not entirely true either).

Oh, I'm not arguing about that, I'm just curious why OKTexas thinks most sidewalks are private property. I honestly don't know whether most are private or public, or even how to determine that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Let's execute you for being a menace to the average IQ level. Surely getting you out of the gene pool would get us back to 100.

Can’t hardly remember the last time someone suggested eugenics.

Then you aren't paying attention.

What do you suppose it is, if not eugenics, that something like 90% of all unborn babies believed to have Down's Syndrome are aborted? Or the trend to mask euthanasia as "dying with dignity"? Not to mention things like the California Department of Corrections being investigated as little as five years ago for illegally performing tubal ligations on female inmates without their consent?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 think that a "one time" basic safety class or proof of military service, in conjunction with the purchase of a firearm would be sufficient. Such a class should be limited to: the proper handling of your choice of firearm, ensuring the weapon is unloaded when cleaning the weapon, its safe and secure storage when children are present in the home and not actively involved in learning gun safety by the gun's owner, the state and local ordinances regarding your weapon and one hour range time with a rented firearm from the range. Any additional time is on your own, but once a month is recommended, but not mandatory. The price of the safety class should fall on the purchaser and not be cost prohibitive.

Again, a solution seeking a problem.

The vast majority of gun deaths are gang bangers ir drug dealers. You think they will care? Really?

A majority of the rest is from suicide. You think training them will change anything?

The remaining few are statistically insignificant. So there really is no problem except for sensationalism

I also am aware that 2/3 of gun deaths are related to suicides and that criminal gangs and an assortment of various criminals make up most of the others, however, I see nothing wrong with a one time safety class. There are people out there that buy a handgun, put some bullets in it, set it on a night stand or on a shelf in the closet and may or may not have kids in the house and think that "now" they are safe. You don't just buy a car and hop out onto the road. You go through a driving school or are taught by your family, then take a test. Again, no harm in a one time safety class. Also, I believe that once you've had your background check, a basic one time safety class and a bit of time at the range, the state should issue you a concealed weapons permit and it should be recognized in all states. I never understood why some states objected to concealed licensed firearms carriers the right to carry across state lines. Such individuals respect the law, keep their weapon concealed and are no threat, yet to listen to those state officials that object to law abiding concealed permit holders entering their state, carrying their firearm, you would think that the same law abiding individuals would somehow, once crossing the state line, would suddenly go berserk and begin shooting up their communities, when the opposite is true.

Dude, just a side note. While you were in school, were you ever introduced to the concept of the paragraph? Y'know, had it explained to you that it makes your words a lot easier to read than just vomiting them out in one giant, dense block?

Just thought I'd ask.

 

[hunarcy]

That would be an infringement

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

operating a vehicle is not a "right". Your question is moot.

 

[hunarcy]

There are no qualifications in the Constitution to the individual right to keep and bear arms.

It says so right in the Bill of Rights. It says that because it is necessary for the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Stupid Moon Bats have a hard time understanding what the words "shall not be infringed" means. They think it means that the right can be infringed, the stupid shithheads.

If you have tests and background checks administered by the filthy ass corrupt government before you get a right then it is really not a right, is it?

It also says you are supposed to be part of a militia. Where did that go?

It does NOT say that, you lying buffoon.

 

[g5000]

Founding fuckers had no problem infringing the right to fly a helicopter. (Unless it’s armed, then it would be considered a weapon, perfectly in order to use without any restrictions)

That's because there's no such thing as a "right to fly a helicopter", Mensa Boy.

And why is that? How come?
How come that we decided to require some sort of training to get to use helicopters, cars and airplanes?

Is it perhaps because they weren’t around at the time? No one could foresee this?

Well, perhaps - just maybe - if the founding fathers knew we would use guns to blow kids to pieces they would actually have entered “but you DO need some training first”.

Guns couldn’t blow kids up in 1776?

Ok, now your just stupid. You realize you could own a canon back then, right? Were the founding fathers unaware of that as well?

Oh, how could any one forget the school shooting scenes from Little House...

Or how kids went to school with cannons hidden in their black coats to take revenge on their bullying schoolmates.

Nothing’s changed.

BINGO!

Damn. He actually went somewhere that can be controlled.

So, since for most of the history of this country, when most weapons were not illegal to own, even fully automatic machine guns, NONE OF THESE SHOOTINGS EVER HAPPENED!

Now to, what changed?

The start of the use of SSRI’s (antidepressants) on children as young as eight

Almost (and it may be all, but some of the info is not released) all of these shooters were on these SSRIs, which were either not available or rarely used on children until roughly 25years ago.

Gee, that’s about the same time these shootings started.

Now, before you blame this on mental illness, consider this:

There are roughly 33% of the country that have an illness that is treated with an SSRI. But only 1/3rd of them take the drug.

The 2/3rds that do not take the SSRI but are mentally ill, RARELY commit a violent crime. It’s almost zero. So no, it’s not the mental illness causing this.

The 1/3rd that do take the SSRI’s are 50% more likely to commit a violent crime than the general population and compromise nearly 100% of these school and other mass shootings.

You want to actually save life’s?

Quit feeding our children’s drugs that turn them into monsters.

You wanted to know what changed? There you have it.

The 11,000+ gun homicides each year are not because of SSRI's.

Stop drinking piss.

 

[g5000]

Your logic doesn't work AT ALL. If your logic worked, we would have no laws and no regulations AT ALL. I don't drive drunk or recklessly, but there are laws against doing so. Why am I punished for what others do? Why do I need to buy liability insurance? I don't steal. Why are there laws against doing so? Why are there laws against cheating on taxes: I don't cheat on my taxes. Why am I punished for what others do?

Your logic is the same as a young child's.

Can you outline these punishments?

I am curious

Seriously?

Punishment isn't the correct word. Punishment is the word the poster used to whom I was replying. It's a childish term and a childish way to represent having regulations and laws in respect to civilized behavior.

You apparently seem unable to see the correlation between requirements and regulations in just about every 'right' we have as 'free' citizens and the right to have guns.

Really your question is just too stupid a question for me to bother with. Figure it out yourself, unless you are too retarded. You are obviously too retarded to pick up on irony.

You are frustrated I see.

Can you explain the problem that the OP will solve by his proposal.

99% of all gun related deaths are caused by suicide and criminal activities.

At best, you think that training these two groups will make them less effective in there deeds? How so? Seems training them makes them more effective, not less.

The one percent is due to carelessness. And I’ve seen no argument made that this training will make careless people less careless.

Do you have anything?

Other countries have requirements for training and psychological testing in the ownership of guns. Pro-gun people are always comparing what they think are lax regulations in Switzerland regarding gun ownership. Not true. The government keeps a list of people who have guns but whom the authorities think may not be psychologically competent to have them. Government officials and psychologists regularly check up on these people and remove their guns, and right to own guns, if they think the person shouldn't have them.

The OP is talking about legally owned guns. Suicides are related to mental health: therefore, psychological tests would help prevent suicides. In Switzerland, most gun related deaths are also due to suicides. As far as crime: most guns used by criminals are illegally obtained, most often stolen from legal owners. When the number of guns in circulation is reduced, criminals have fewer guns. In countries with strict gun control, there is less crime. I live in Spain at present. They have very strict gun control laws and very low crime, one of the lowest in Europe. There is correlation between strict gun control and low crime.

If people get training to own firearms, it wouldn't be just about the literal physical safety, but the wise and careful ownership of them, including keeping them out of the hands of thieves. The reason that illegal had a gun which killed the woman in SF is because the legal gun owner left it unsecured under the driver's seat in his car. The car was parked in downtown SF. Even if it was locked, that is not good gun safety because it is not unusual for someone to break into a locked car.

In countries with strict gun control, there is less crime.

Wrong....Britain has more violent crime than the United States does...

Britain's homicide rate is less than one fifth of ours. Stop making shit up.

 

[Flash]

...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.


.

The NRA would provide instructors to every elementary, middle, and/or high school in the country for free? That sounds extremely unlikely.

What is more likely is that the government would mandate the training and it would cost the American taxpayer's about $21 billion and never result in one less death. Then after a filthy ass Democrat Congress and Democrat President were elected the program would be used to curtail the right to keep and bear arms for anybody the Democrats thought were a threat to making the US a socialist shithole..

 

[OKTexas]

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.


.

That wasn’t a valid comparison now, was it?

That cars driven by trained people hurt more people than guns used by untrained people isn’t the question.

It’s not about anti cars, doctors or guns. It’s about education before use. If you don’t think such an education would have any effect, well that’s an argument I can understand.

Well if education is what you want, no better place to do it than in the schools. A mandatory 2 hours per year should do the trick. Maybe a couple of field trips to the range for High Schools. Where is better to teach the responsibilities of a constitutional right than in the schools?


.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's because there's no such thing as a "right to fly a helicopter", Mensa Boy.

And why is that? How come?
How come that we decided to require some sort of training to get to use helicopters, cars and airplanes?

Is it perhaps because they weren’t around at the time? No one could foresee this?

Well, perhaps - just maybe - if the founding fathers knew we would use guns to blow kids to pieces they would actually have entered “but you DO need some training first”.

Really? You really need me to explain to you why some things are inherent human rights, and other things aren't? If you don't even have THAT rudimentary knowledge, you have no business trying to participate in this discussion, and should stop interrupting the grown-ups.

No, it has nothing to do with what did or didn't exist at the time. Basic rights transcend details of technology.

"We" haven't used guns to blow kids, or anyone else, to pieces. I have no idea about YOU, but I'm wondering if the FBI doesn't want to pay a visit to your trailer.

”We” have.
Those documents were produced to “us”.

Now, some things have changed. The idea of some sort of education before having access to firearms isn’t bad. It’s wise.

It’s something the producers of that document would have suggested themselves if they knew what fashion guns would be used today.

Actually I do hold them in high regard, they were ahead of their time. What I can’t stand is the betrayal of their attitude by not carrying that legacy on.

Look, Sparkles, if you want to take on yourself responsibility for other people's evil acts through some collective "hive mind" thing you have going, that's your little red wagon. I'm not obligated to go along with it. I WILL say that if that's really the case, then your happy ass needs to get to prison and start serving time immediately for Jeffrey Dahmer's cannibal murders.

Furthermore, if it weren't for the fact that my dog has more Civics education than you do, you would know that the concepts of individuality, personal freedom, and personal responsibility are the cornerstone of our entire American society and American creed. Everything about who and what this nation was founded to be is built on the paramount importance of individual citizens having as much freedom of self-determination as is possible in proximity to each other.

So "those documents" were produced to "we the people", not "we the society", or "we the ant hill".

I have never shot another human being. I never plan to, no matter how attractive meeting you has made such a fantasy. Not one iota of guilt or blame attaches to me for the evil decisions and actions of others, and I will not be accepting delivery on the load of guilt and blame you're trying to send me.

You do realize that we are discussing the requirement of proper training to arming yourself? It seems you are somewhat overreacting here.

All bad things going on is the result of bringing this exact lot of people together. This is now. Everything that’s happened has led up to this point. Sure, you can try to distance yourself from the people that constitutes the country, but they will find you. They may come in the form of a bad driver, a bad doctor or a bad shooter. The last category is something we have not tried to improve on. Why?

Because there was no need 250 years ago.

No, dear, what you want to claim we're discussing is very different from what you're actually saying, and the issues it actually touches on. Your lack of foresight - and/or lack of honesty - is yet another thing which is not my responsibility.

If you take your car in to have a new tire put on, and the mechanic notices that your brakes are about to go out, would you want him to ignore it because "that's not what you came in for"? Likewise, if your attempt to discuss your simplistic and two-dimensional view of gun safety reveals a rather profound and fundamental flaw in your basic worldview which is driving your opinions on gun safety, I have no intention of ignoring and not addressing it. It is a very important point that you believe "we" need to be restricted and punished because "we" bear some sort of collective guilt for actions that "we" didn't actually participate in.

And I hate to break it to you, but your last paragraph didn't actually make sense in any "communicating in English" sort of way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

There are no qualifications in the Constitution to the individual right to keep and bear arms.

It says so right in the Bill of Rights. It says that because it is necessary for the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Stupid Moon Bats have a hard time understanding what the words "shall not be infringed" means. They think it means that the right can be infringed, the stupid shithheads.

If you have tests and background checks administered by the filthy ass corrupt government before you get a right then it is really not a right, is it?

It also says you are supposed to be part of a militia. Where did that go?

No, it doesn't. For the 1651984684th time, an explanatory clause is not a directive clause.

 

[OKTexas]

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.


.

You must stare at your drivers license and feel imposed on.

Yeah, I tend to to view all the bureaucratic impositions the American people have allowed that way. And what I find amazing is people like you are begging for more. Pathetic.


.