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

[hadit]

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.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

That would be an infringement

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

Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege

Must be nice, living in a world that is black and white. All I'm saying is that a gun owner should be able to demonstrate minimum competency with a firearm before owning one. Otherwise, they are a danger to themselves as well as others. These gun safety classes are free. It doesn't cost anything. Simply go to a local gun range, take the class, and get a certificate. How is that any kind of infringement on the 2nd amendment?

Is gun ownership a right? Is driving a right? You just didn't like my answer and yes it's black and white. You cannot infringe on the right to bear arms

Would you give a gun to a small child? No. You wouldn't. Isn't that an infringement on the 2nd amendment? By your reasoning it is. Also, by my reasoning, it is not an infringement to require someone to demonstrate a minimum proficiency and knowledge of gun safety before owning one. I'm not talking about a government agency determining whether you can own a gun or not. This can be done on a local basis. Like I said. Pass a gun safety course and get your gun. If you cannot pass such a test, and it's not difficult to do so, then you should not own a firearm. You call it infringement. I call it public safety. BTW, look up the FBI statistics for accidental shootings. Might change your mind. Every one of those shootings was preventable.

Now you're building straw men....

 

[Timmy]

free speech and assembly are rights .

Is it ok to protest by blocking the highway ?

 

[HappyJoy]

That would be an infringement

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

that isnt a constitutional right.

Required training isn't infringement.

If it happens quickly and free(like same day? maybe next day?), i might not have a problem with it.
Charging for it would be equivalent to a poll tax. But i also dont want some guy having the power to restrict me of my rights either..

No, that is not like a voter poll tax. Unless you want to count the price of the gun and ammo as a poll tax.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

 

[TNHarley]

That would be an infringement

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

that isnt a constitutional right.

Required training isn't infringement.

If it happens quickly and free(like same day? maybe next day?), i might not have a problem with it.
Charging for it would be equivalent to a poll tax. But i also dont want some guy having the power to restrict me of my rights either..

No, that is not like a voter poll tax. Unless you want to count the price of the gun and ammo as a poll tax.

Thats exactly what it is. Paying a fee to express your rights.

 

[Montrovant]

That would be an infringement

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

Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege

Must be nice, living in a world that is black and white. All I'm saying is that a gun owner should be able to demonstrate minimum competency with a firearm before owning one. Otherwise, they are a danger to themselves as well as others. These gun safety classes are free. It doesn't cost anything. Simply go to a local gun range, take the class, and get a certificate. How is that any kind of infringement on the 2nd amendment?

Is gun ownership a right? Is driving a right? You just didn't like my answer and yes it's black and white. You cannot infringe on the right to bear arms

Would you give a gun to a small child? No. You wouldn't. Isn't that an infringement on the 2nd amendment? By your reasoning it is. Also, by my reasoning, it is not an infringement to require someone to demonstrate a minimum proficiency and knowledge of gun safety before owning one. I'm not talking about a government agency determining whether you can own a gun or not. This can be done on a local basis. Like I said. Pass a gun safety course and get your gun. If you cannot pass such a test, and it's not difficult to do so, then you should not own a firearm. You call it infringement. I call it public safety. BTW, look up the FBI statistics for accidental shootings. Might change your mind. Every one of those shootings was preventable.

Children do not enjoy the full rights and protections of the Constitution that adults do, at least not as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.

 

[toobfreak]

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!

 

[SassyIrishLass]

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

Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege

Must be nice, living in a world that is black and white. All I'm saying is that a gun owner should be able to demonstrate minimum competency with a firearm before owning one. Otherwise, they are a danger to themselves as well as others. These gun safety classes are free. It doesn't cost anything. Simply go to a local gun range, take the class, and get a certificate. How is that any kind of infringement on the 2nd amendment?

Is gun ownership a right? Is driving a right? You just didn't like my answer and yes it's black and white. You cannot infringe on the right to bear arms

Would you give a gun to a small child? No. You wouldn't. Isn't that an infringement on the 2nd amendment? By your reasoning it is. Also, by my reasoning, it is not an infringement to require someone to demonstrate a minimum proficiency and knowledge of gun safety before owning one. I'm not talking about a government agency determining whether you can own a gun or not. This can be done on a local basis. Like I said. Pass a gun safety course and get your gun. If you cannot pass such a test, and it's not difficult to do so, then you should not own a firearm. You call it infringement. I call it public safety. BTW, look up the FBI statistics for accidental shootings. Might change your mind. Every one of those shootings was preventable.

Children do not enjoy the full rights and protections of the Constitution that adults do, at least not as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.

Most certainly the unborn children

 

[RWNJ]

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?

 

[Camp]

Training should be part of belonging to the "well-regulated militia". How can the militia be well regulated if members are not trained in the basics?

 

[playtime]

[

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.

the people are not to have unrestricted access to firearms. the states,protecting themselves against the possibility of a tyrannical government, had a well regulated militia. you & your buds have no chance against the big bad gov'ment as much as you fool yourself into believing it.

 

[Montrovant]

That would be an infringement

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

that isnt a constitutional right.

Required training isn't infringement.

If it happens quickly and free(like same day? maybe next day?), i might not have a problem with it.
Charging for it would be equivalent to a poll tax. But i also dont want some guy having the power to restrict me of my rights either..

The big difference is that poll taxes are specifically prohibited by the 24th amendment.

Whether or not the costs involved in training constitute an infringement of the 2nd would probably depend on the specific circumstances, whereas any poll tax is prohibited.

 

[RWNJ]

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

Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege

Must be nice, living in a world that is black and white. All I'm saying is that a gun owner should be able to demonstrate minimum competency with a firearm before owning one. Otherwise, they are a danger to themselves as well as others. These gun safety classes are free. It doesn't cost anything. Simply go to a local gun range, take the class, and get a certificate. How is that any kind of infringement on the 2nd amendment?

Is gun ownership a right? Is driving a right? You just didn't like my answer and yes it's black and white. You cannot infringe on the right to bear arms

Would you give a gun to a small child? No. You wouldn't. Isn't that an infringement on the 2nd amendment? By your reasoning it is. Also, by my reasoning, it is not an infringement to require someone to demonstrate a minimum proficiency and knowledge of gun safety before owning one. I'm not talking about a government agency determining whether you can own a gun or not. This can be done on a local basis. Like I said. Pass a gun safety course and get your gun. If you cannot pass such a test, and it's not difficult to do so, then you should not own a firearm. You call it infringement. I call it public safety. BTW, look up the FBI statistics for accidental shootings. Might change your mind. Every one of those shootings was preventable.

Now you're building straw men....

No. It is not. I lost my sister because some idiot was playing around with his new gun. She was 6 years old. If there had been mandatory gun training, she might still be alive. THAT is not a straw man. It's my reality.

 

[Muhammed]

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.

The 2nd amendment doesn't require training.

 

[HappyJoy]

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

that isnt a constitutional right.

Required training isn't infringement.

If it happens quickly and free(like same day? maybe next day?), i might not have a problem with it.
Charging for it would be equivalent to a poll tax. But i also dont want some guy having the power to restrict me of my rights either..

No, that is not like a voter poll tax. Unless you want to count the price of the gun and ammo as a poll tax.

Thats exactly what it is. Paying a fee to express your rights.

Not a poll tax, sorry.

You most likely have already paid for the NICS background check whether explicitly or through the dealer padding the cost into the firearm.

If you want a fully automatic weapon you also have to pay additional fees and jump through real hoops.

There is nothing unconstitutional to require you to pay for basic firearm training.

 

[Montrovant]

Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege

Must be nice, living in a world that is black and white. All I'm saying is that a gun owner should be able to demonstrate minimum competency with a firearm before owning one. Otherwise, they are a danger to themselves as well as others. These gun safety classes are free. It doesn't cost anything. Simply go to a local gun range, take the class, and get a certificate. How is that any kind of infringement on the 2nd amendment?

Is gun ownership a right? Is driving a right? You just didn't like my answer and yes it's black and white. You cannot infringe on the right to bear arms

Would you give a gun to a small child? No. You wouldn't. Isn't that an infringement on the 2nd amendment? By your reasoning it is. Also, by my reasoning, it is not an infringement to require someone to demonstrate a minimum proficiency and knowledge of gun safety before owning one. I'm not talking about a government agency determining whether you can own a gun or not. This can be done on a local basis. Like I said. Pass a gun safety course and get your gun. If you cannot pass such a test, and it's not difficult to do so, then you should not own a firearm. You call it infringement. I call it public safety. BTW, look up the FBI statistics for accidental shootings. Might change your mind. Every one of those shootings was preventable.

Children do not enjoy the full rights and protections of the Constitution that adults do, at least not as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.

Most certainly the unborn children

That is actually a different issue legally, I believe, as the unborn (at least up to a certain stage of development) are not considered persons under the Constitution, whereas children are, but with restrictions.

I don't want to turn this into an abortion discussion, however, as that would be a huge derailment.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege

Must be nice, living in a world that is black and white. All I'm saying is that a gun owner should be able to demonstrate minimum competency with a firearm before owning one. Otherwise, they are a danger to themselves as well as others. These gun safety classes are free. It doesn't cost anything. Simply go to a local gun range, take the class, and get a certificate. How is that any kind of infringement on the 2nd amendment?

Is gun ownership a right? Is driving a right? You just didn't like my answer and yes it's black and white. You cannot infringe on the right to bear arms

Would you give a gun to a small child? No. You wouldn't. Isn't that an infringement on the 2nd amendment? By your reasoning it is. Also, by my reasoning, it is not an infringement to require someone to demonstrate a minimum proficiency and knowledge of gun safety before owning one. I'm not talking about a government agency determining whether you can own a gun or not. This can be done on a local basis. Like I said. Pass a gun safety course and get your gun. If you cannot pass such a test, and it's not difficult to do so, then you should not own a firearm. You call it infringement. I call it public safety. BTW, look up the FBI statistics for accidental shootings. Might change your mind. Every one of those shootings was preventable.

Now you're building straw men....

No. It is not. I lost my sister because some idiot was playing around with his new gun. She was 6 years old. If there had been mandatory gun training, she might still be alive. THAT is not a straw man. It's my reality.

I'm sorry about your sister but you can't force people to take training to own firearms, it's a sound idea but sorry it's an infringement

 

[TNHarley]

that isnt a constitutional right.

Required training isn't infringement.

If it happens quickly and free(like same day? maybe next day?), i might not have a problem with it.
Charging for it would be equivalent to a poll tax. But i also dont want some guy having the power to restrict me of my rights either..

No, that is not like a voter poll tax. Unless you want to count the price of the gun and ammo as a poll tax.

Thats exactly what it is. Paying a fee to express your rights.

Not a poll tax, sorry.

You most likely have already paid for the NICS background check whether explicitly or through the dealer padding the cost into the firearm.

If you want a fully automatic weapon you also have to pay additional fees and jump through real hoops.

There is nothing unconstitutional to require you to pay for basic firearm training.

I didnt call it a poll tax. I said it would be basically doing the same thing.

 

[Montrovant]

[

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.

the people are not to have unrestricted access to firearms. the states,protecting themselves against the possibility of a tyrannical government, had a well regulated militia. you & your buds have no chance against the big bad gov'ment as much as you fool yourself into believing it.

I don't know who "my buds" are that you are referencing. I merely pointed out that the second amendment does not say that one must be part of a militia to enjoy the right to keep and bear arms. I never claimed that right was absolute, nor that I or anyone else would be able to win any sort of war against the US military. I'd appreciate it if you didn't argue strawmen.