Why 2nd Amendment supporters who support mandatory training are wrong….

[Dadoalex]

You might as well ask a fly to stop eating shit as ask Dadoalex to stop lying.

How's it feel to be owned by the DADO?
Can't get him out of your mind can you?

Sit Ubu, sit.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

They can put out public safety adds about getting training if you carry a gun......PSAs would be fine...but mandatory training? No.

I would go so far as to support mandatory gun safety training as part of every standard high school curriculum. This way, every adult who has graduated high school could be presumed to have received such training, and that would eliminate training as an excuse or a vehicle to be used to deny anyone's Second Amendment rights.

 

[Dadoalex]

It actually does.

Requiring anyone to have to pay for classes and pass tests before they can exercise a right is unconstitutional.

And I said the government will pay.

Describe for me the process for acquiring a Thompson Submachine gun.
Pretty sure it's not been ruled unconstitutional despite the forms and fees.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There are several 2nd Amendment supporters here on U.S.message board who support the mandatory training to own and/or carry a gun. They smugly state they don’t mind the democrat tactic because they can pass the test so everyone should pass the test or be denied their Constitutional Right. They refuse to understand that allowing the democrats to require mandatory tests is giving the democrats the ability to deny access to guns for normal people through arbitrary, impossible testing standards……standards that will be created with the intent to keep people from owning and carrying guns ……

New Jersey mandatory training shows how they will do this….

Twenty-five yards is also a totally unrealistic test for civilian concealed carry. While there are certainly a few incredible exceptions, most justifiable deadly-force encounters involving civilians occur at much closer ranges, usually within spitting distance.

Open carry holster​

This qualification course is designed to use an open-carry holster, worn either outside or inside the waistband. However, only law enforcement officers can openly carry handguns in New Jersey. Civilians must carry their defensive firearms concealed.
————
Like drawing from the holster, most private ranges don’t allow their customers to practice from the kneeling position. One range I know that did quickly abandoned the practice after a customer positioned their target too close and put five rounds into the ceiling.

Additionally, there are many shooters who can’t kneel because they suffer mobility issues or use a wheelchair. Will they be denied their Second Amendment rights because of their disability?

Forcing applicants to kneel violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires “state and local governments including their criminal justice agencies to comply with the ADA.”

New Jersey’s AG and its state police should be ashamed of their “ableist” misdeeds.
———
What’s not laughable is that anti-gun elected officials have come up with yet another way to infringe upon the Second Amendment by reworking an antiquated police qualification course and making it mandatory for anyone who wants to exercise their right to carry a gun New Jersey has erected an unconstitutionally high hurdle for the average person to clear to qualify for a carry permit.

Let's Take a Look at New Jersey's New 'John Wick' Concealed Carry Permit Qualifying Standards - The Truth About Guns

By Lee Williams After the U.S. Supreme Court issued its historic Bruen decision, which obliterated most state restrictions on the public carrying of arms and changed forever how lower courts should decide Second Amendment-related challenges to anti-gun regulations, many blue states seemingly...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

After the Republican Party defeated the democrat party in the Civil War, the democrats were forced to free black slaves……to keep their former black slaves from being able to vote, the democrat party created “literacy tests.” The democrats had made it illegal for their black slaves to learn to read so the democrats knew that freed blacks would not be able to pass their tests….and would lose their
Right to vote…..,

These arbitrary and impossible test standards are simply the new literacy tests of the democrat party……and they are hoping to take back the Senate so that if Biden wins, they can replace Thomas and Alito and make tests like these and other anti-guns laws permanent…

I don't support mandatory training but I strongly suggest that everyone trains. You wouldn't use a tool if you didn't have some training would you?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

And I said the government will pay.

Government doesn't pay anything, ever.

Government robs the taxpayers, making us pay.

 

[Dadoalex]

I would go so far as to support mandatory gun safety training as part of every standard high school curriculum. This way, every adult who has graduated high school could be presumed to have received such training, and that would eliminate training as an excuse or a vehicle to be used to deny anyone's Second Amendment rights.

So you're denying gun rights to anyone who's not graduated high school?

May want to rethink that proposal.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you want to require licensing in order exercise a right then that has to apply to all rights.

I do not mind licensing for concealed carry so long as it is reasonably and equitably applied. I don't want the would be robber to be able to conceal the weapon he intends to use to rob the liquor store or whatever, and if he does, I want the law to be able to count that as a prosecutable offense. Those with criminal records are generally not granted a CC permit.

Many states including mine that is a bright blue state allow open carry pretty much everywhere and without any licensing requirements and without any restrictions except in schools, court houses, bars etc. that right or wrong do not allow firearms of any kind.

The Founders were adamant that the citizenry not be prevented from owning and possessing firearms, but their qualification of a 'well regulated militia' suggested that some laws/regulation in how those firearms would and could be used could be appropriate.

 

[Dadoalex]

Government doesn't pay anything, ever.

Government robs the taxpayers, making us pay.

Sigh...

The cost of medical care, police investigation, and legal costs for a single gunshot incident would pay to train hundreds of gun owners.

You pay either way.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I do not mind licensing for concealed carry so long as it is reasonably and equitably applied. I don't want the would be robber to be able to conceal the weapon he intends to use to rob the liquor store or whatever, and if he does, I want the law to be able to count that as a prosecutable offense. Those with criminal records are generally not granted a CC permit.

Many states including mine that is a bright blue state allow open carry pretty much everywhere and without any licensing requirements and without any restrictions except in schools, court houses, bars etc. that right or wrong do not allow firearms of any kind.

The Founders were adamant that the citizenry not be prevented from owning and possessing firearms, but their qualification of a 'well regulated militia' suggested that some laws/regulation in how those firearms would and could be used could be appropriate.

Regulated means organized.

 

[Blues Man]

And I said the government will pay.

Describe for me the process for acquiring a Thompson Submachine gun.
Pretty sure it's not been ruled unconstitutional despite the forms and fees.

No it won't. The fucking government will not pay to enforce the gun laws we already have on the books and the democrats would be apoplectic if anyone ever said the government should pay for gun safety classes

And you don't seem to understand the difference between a 200 dollar tax stamp on a gun that people don't have to buy and requiring who knows how much to pay for classes to own ANY gun.

 

[Blues Man]

I do not mind licensing for concealed carry so long as it is reasonably and equitably applied. I don't want the would be robber to be able to conceal the weapon he intends to use to rob the liquor store or whatever, and if he does, I want the law to be able to count that as a prosecutable offense. Those with criminal records are generally not granted a CC permit.

Many states including mine that is a bright blue state allow open carry pretty much everywhere and without any licensing requirements and without any restrictions except in schools, court houses, bars etc. that right or wrong do not allow firearms of any kind.

The Founders were adamant that the citizenry not be prevented from owning and possessing firearms, but their qualification of a 'well regulated militia' suggested that some laws/regulation in how those firearms would and could be used could be appropriate.

It can't be because some people who want to own a gun might not be able to afford to because of your licensing requirements.

If you want to require people to pay to exercise one right then you have to require it for all rights and we al know that is unconstitutional.

And nowhere in the 2nd does it say one must qualify to be in a militia in order to own a gun and SCOTUS has ruled on that.

 

[Rigby5]

The idea that Gun Owners should know how to safely use their weapons is unAmerican

We have a Second Amendment right to randomly fire our weapons

Wrong.
There is nothing wrong with "gun safety", but that should apply to everyone.
What if you find a gun abandoned or accidentally dropped on the street?
Everyone needs to know proper gun handling safety.
And the final point is that we can't allow the government to make a list of who has guns, by who took the safety course.
Everyone should take the safety course, or no one should.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So you're denying gun rights to anyone who's not graduated high school?
May want to rethink that proposal.

That's not what I said.

 

[Foxfyre]

Regulated means organized.

No. It means there are rules to be followed usually ordered and/or enforced by an official authority. Regulate in the simplest terms is to "to govern or direct according to rule."

And as every able bodied citizen was considered the militia at such time as the the people--all the people distinctly different from a standing army or national guard--would be needed to be called into duty to defend their nation, there would need to be a chain of command and authority that would need to be obeyed. And as that militia needed to be ready to be called into action at any time, the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed by that same government.

 

[Grau]

I would go so far as to support mandatory gun safety training as part of every standard high school curriculum. This way, every adult who has graduated high school could be presumed to have received such training, and that would eliminate training as an excuse or a vehicle to be used to deny anyone's Second Amendment rights.

I've read countless suggestions for resolving the problem being discussed and yours is perhaps the very best on several levels.

I would only add that the sooner kids learn gun safety, the better.

Thanks,

 

[Rigby5]

Rights always come with restrictions.

Bad choice of words.
While rights are not unfettered, those are LIMITATIONS, they are NOT "restrictions".
The whole connotation of the word "restriction" is the opposite of a right, and totally confuses the whole discussion.
Rights do not and can not ever come with "restrictions".
When a right is not universal and absolute, that is from bumping into other rights.
And when you set a compromise limit between two rights in conflict, that is NOT a restriction.
A democratic republic by definition can NOT ever set any arbitrary "restriction" at all on any right.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I do not mind licensing for concealed carry so long as it is reasonably and equitably applied. I don't want the would be robber to be able to conceal the weapon he intends to use to rob the liquor store or whatever, and if he does, I want the law to be able to count that as a prosecutable offense. Those with criminal records are generally not granted a CC permit.

If some subhuman piece of shit robs a liquor store, I want its ass thrown in jail, of a long time, for the robbery itself, or better yet, just put down if it has a sufficiently-established history of such behavior. The fact that it happened to be carrying a gun is beside the point, and not the offense. It is the fact that it used that gun to commit a serious crime.

In fact, even after having been most properly sentences for the robbery, I am stull in favor of letting it keep its guns. It can have them buried with it in its grave.

 

[Foxfyre]

It can't be because some people who want to own a gun might not be able to afford to because of your licensing requirements.

If you want to require people to pay to exercise one right then you have to require it for all rights and we al know that is unconstitutional.

And nowhere in the 2nd does it say one must qualify to be in a militia in order to own a gun and SCOTUS has ruled on that.

The Second Amendment strongly infers that all able bodied citizens of the USA are the militia which is distinctly separate from a standing army or the national guard.

I do not support licensing all fire arms but only those who want to concealed carry and that is purely for practical reasons for the public good. We do not those with criminal records to be able to conceal weapons on their persons in public. Those qualifying for CC permits generally are law abiding and trustworthy and extremely unlikely to use those weapons inappropriately in any way.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No. It means there are rules to be followed usually ordered and/or enforced by an official authority. Regulate in the simplest terms is to "to govern or direct according to rule."

And as every able bodied citizen was considered the militia at such time as the the people--all the people distinctly different from a standing army or national guard--would be needed to be called into duty to defend their nation, there would need to be a chain of command and authority that would need to be obeyed. And as that militia needed to be ready to be called into action at any time, the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed by that same government.

You said: "a 'well regulated militia' suggested that some laws/regulation in how those firearms would and could be used could be appropriate."

That means the militia should have organization. It does NOT mean they are subservient to an official authority.

 

[Dadoalex]

No it won't. The fucking government will not pay to enforce the gun laws we already have on the books and the democrats would be apoplectic if anyone ever said the government should pay for gun safety classes

And you don't seem to understand the difference between a 200 dollar tax stamp on a gun that people don't have to buy and requiring who knows how much to pay for classes to own ANY gun.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure no one is forced to buy a gun.

I'm not apoplectic. Kinda kills your argument doesn't it?