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

[blackhawk]

Pretty much everything you need to know about how to safely handle a firearm is common sense knowledge. Do you really need training to know not to aim a loaded gun at someone or carry one around with the saftey off?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

WTF is a poll tax?

Are we playing dirty Jeopardy?

I’m asking a question.

Well, I'm waiting for Admiral clusterfuck to answer the question.

If is a question coming from you, it is obviously a dumbass question!

You keep saying there is a poll tax here, explain it.

There is no poll tax dumbass! It is unConstitutional. Just like having to pay to exercise a right!

 

[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.

What restrictions? There really aren't any.

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

 

[rightwinger]

When you buy an AR 15,shouldn’t you be trained on how to shoot up a school?

 

[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.

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

 

[Montrovant]

Mandatory training on any firearm being transferred into one's possession? ( sale, gift, inheritance, whatever )...

Yes.

Absolutely.

Time to put Gun Ownership on a par with Drivers Licenses.

Different categories of license for different categories of vehicles... ditto for firearms.

Different levels of training for different categories of vehicles... ditto for firearms.

But mandate it on the Federal level; leave it to the States to execute (or face denial of Federal funding); with the Feds auditing & monitoring.

The States have had far too long to get it right, and they haven't; besides, America needs consistency from one jurisdiction to another.

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.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

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.

Most gun laws are enacted by people who know absolutely nothing about guns and for the most part are afraid of them. These ignorant but empowered legislators (state senators, council members, etc.) are inclined to seize upon any opportunity to limit possession and presence of guns. These law-makers are also influenced by members of their respective state and local law-enforcement agencies the vast majority of whom are strongly opposed to armed civilians and who encourage their legislators to impose restrictions. This is why it is extremely difficult and takes so long to obtain a carry permit in some places.

 

[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!

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.

 

[Zander]

Should people be forced to pass a civics test before voting?

Why

Who dies ?

Lots of people.

 

[Pop23]

When you buy an AR 15,shouldn’t you be trained on how to shoot up a school?

Don’t they have video games for that?

Oops

I mean apps.

Showing my age I guess

 

[Pop23]

Mandatory training on any firearm being transferred into one's possession? ( sale, gift, inheritance, whatever )...

Yes.

Absolutely.

Time to put Gun Ownership on a par with Drivers Licenses.

Different categories of license for different categories of vehicles... ditto for firearms.

Different levels of training for different categories of vehicles... ditto for firearms.

But mandate it on the Federal level; leave it to the States to execute (or face denial of Federal funding); with the Feds auditing & monitoring.

The States have had far too long to get it right, and they haven't; besides, America needs consistency from one jurisdiction to another.

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.

And you don’t need a drivers license to buy a car.

Then why a license to buy a gun

In a criminals hand, both are equally deadly.

 

[HappyJoy]

Here's an idea.

A licensed gun dealer offers a coupon for their state-accredited gun safety course if you buy a gun at their shop.

Here is a better idea. Adhere to the Bill of Rights.

I know I'm going to regret this but what is your definition of a poll tax?

That use to be a good way to keep the Negroes from voting. When they did away with it then more Liberals got elected and that was a bad thing.

Neat.

 

[HappyJoy]

Are we playing dirty Jeopardy?

I’m asking a question.

Well, I'm waiting for Admiral clusterfuck to answer the question.

If is a question coming from you, it is obviously a dumbass question!

You keep saying there is a poll tax here, explain it.

There is no poll tax dumbass! It is unConstitutional. Just like having to pay to exercise a right!

I didn't say there was a poll tax. You're the one insisting that having to show proof of competence to use a firearm is a poll tax. I think this is you're way of walking it backwards, good for you.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I’m asking a question.

Well, I'm waiting for Admiral clusterfuck to answer the question.

If is a question coming from you, it is obviously a dumbass question!

You keep saying there is a poll tax here, explain it.

There is no poll tax dumbass! It is unConstitutional. Just like having to pay to exercise a right!

I didn't say there was a poll tax. You're the one insisting that having to show proof of competence to use a firearm is a poll tax. I think this is you're way of walking it backwards, good for you.

You keep claiming I said it without quoting me. Why did you lie?

"You keep saying there is a poll tax here".

Show me where I said that there is a poll tax.

 

[RWNJ]

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

 

[HappyJoy]

Well, I'm waiting for Admiral clusterfuck to answer the question.

If is a question coming from you, it is obviously a dumbass question!

You keep saying there is a poll tax here, explain it.

There is no poll tax dumbass! It is unConstitutional. Just like having to pay to exercise a right!

I didn't say there was a poll tax. You're the one insisting that having to show proof of competence to use a firearm is a poll tax. I think this is you're way of walking it backwards, good for you.

You keep claiming I said it without quoting me. Why did you lie?

"You keep saying there is a poll tax here".

Show me where I said that there is a poll tax.

You said it would be just like a poll tax, it wouldn't. You then said I didn't know what a poll tax was so I asked you to tell us what it is and maybe show us how this is 'just like a polltax'. So, let's hear it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If is a question coming from you, it is obviously a dumbass question!

You keep saying there is a poll tax here, explain it.

There is no poll tax dumbass! It is unConstitutional. Just like having to pay to exercise a right!

I didn't say there was a poll tax. You're the one insisting that having to show proof of competence to use a firearm is a poll tax. I think this is you're way of walking it backwards, good for you.

You keep claiming I said it without quoting me. Why did you lie?

"You keep saying there is a poll tax here".

Show me where I said that there is a poll tax.

You said it would be just like a poll tax, it wouldn't. You then said I didn't know what a poll tax was so I asked you to tell us what it is and maybe show us how this is 'just like a polltax'. So, let's hear it.

I get paid to teach. How much are you willing to pay?

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

 

[HappyJoy]

You keep saying there is a poll tax here, explain it.

There is no poll tax dumbass! It is unConstitutional. Just like having to pay to exercise a right!

I didn't say there was a poll tax. You're the one insisting that having to show proof of competence to use a firearm is a poll tax. I think this is you're way of walking it backwards, good for you.

You keep claiming I said it without quoting me. Why did you lie?

"You keep saying there is a poll tax here".

Show me where I said that there is a poll tax.

You said it would be just like a poll tax, it wouldn't. You then said I didn't know what a poll tax was so I asked you to tell us what it is and maybe show us how this is 'just like a polltax'. So, let's hear it.

I get paid to teach. How much are you willing to pay?

Still stalling?