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

[Kondor3]

...But I believe in STATE's Rights..................So how about you decide what's best for your beliefs and we will do the same.........

Not good enough.

It's gotta be on the Federal level the next time around.

The States have had decades to sort through this stuff and most of 'em couldn't find their asses in a well-lit room surrounded by mirrors.

With a handful of exceptions, they are incompetent and unreliable for this purpose.

The matter of States Right was decided long ago, in favor of the Federal government, in matters of collective security.

I have a right to expect the same standards and obligations and accountabilities anywhere within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Lethal weaponry is far too serious a matter to leave to Local Yokels when we're dealing with matters of Public Safety on a nationwide basis.

Which is exactly what this is.

See you at the voting booth, over the next decade or so, as this heats up.

 

[Political Junky]

The same folks disapprove of seat belts and helmets.

 

[Flash]

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

I think I have explained this to you a couple of times but you being a Moon Bat have trouble with comprehension.

There are two things wrong with it.

1. The great majority of gun deaths in this country are caused by criminals and no amount of government mandated "training" is going to change any criminal activity. In other words a waste of time.

2. The right to keep and bear arms is a right of all Americans guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. It says very clearly that it cannot be infringed. When the government puts requirements on allowing people to adhere to that right then that is big time infringement. A right that is subject to government requirements, permission and control is not really a right, is it? I sure as hell do not want a fucking asshole Democrat politician determining if I am safe enough to have a firearm. I am a veteran. Remember that asshole Obama saying that veterans are potential terrorists? You can't trust liberals with being the gatekeepers of our rights. They will always do the wrong thing.

If somebody is interested in gun safety then all they have to do is sign up for one of the many NRA courses. Better yet join the NRA. It is the largest gun safety organization in the world. I know because I occasionally teach some of the courses and as a range officer administer gun safety. We do a much better job than some stupid government bureaucrat and for a much cheaper cost to the taxpayers.

 

[eagle1462010]

...But I believe in STATE's Rights..................So how about you decide what's best for your beliefs and we will do the same.........

Not good enough.

It's gotta be on the Federal level the next time around.

The States have had decades to sort through this stuff and most of 'em couldn't find their asses in a well-lit room surrounded by mirrors.

With a handful of exceptions, they are incompetent and unreliable for this purpose.

The matter of States Right was decided long ago, in favor of the Federal government, in matters of collective security.

I have a right to expect the same standards and obligations and accountabilities anywhere within the jurisdiction of the United States.

Lethal weaponry is far too serious a matter to leave to Local Yokels when we're dealing with matters of Public Safety on a nationwide basis.

Which is exactly what this is.

See you at the voting booth, over the next decade or so, as this heats up.

I will cancel your vote if you happen to be from my state then........

To each his own.

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

There should be mandatory psychological testing: 50% of our current gunnuts would be eliminated.

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

There should be mandatory psychological testing: 50% of our current gunnuts would be eliminated.

The Same could be said with your logic.

 

[Flash]

[Q


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.


.

As a NRA firearm instructor I would gladly contribute my time to go to a school and teach firearms safety.

The NRA use to send instructors to school but the Liberals stopped it.

 

[eagle1462010]

The same folks disapprove of seat belts and helmets.

 

[Esmeralda]

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.

There should be mandatory psychological testing: 50% of our current gunnuts would be eliminated.

The Same could be said with your logic.

WTF is that supposed to mean? Your statement is completely illogical: there is no sense in it.

Based on the things I've been reading on these message boards, the posts of pro-gun people, they have obvious psychological problems, and I imagine the reason they don't want to do a psychological test before they are handed a gun is because they fear, and rightly so, they will fail the test.

Too many itchy fingers, too many having wet dreams hoping someone will break into their house so they can blow them away. Yep. A whole lot of very sick puppies.

 

[BlackSand]

.​

​

.​

 

[eagle1462010]

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.

There should be mandatory psychological testing: 50% of our current gunnuts would be eliminated.

The Same could be said with your logic.

WTF is that supposed to mean? Your statement is completely illogical: there is no sense in it.

Based on the things I've been reading on these message boards, the posts of pro-gun people, they have obvious psychological problems, and I imagine the reason they don't want to do a psychological test before they are handed a gun is because they fear, and rightly so, they will fail the test. To many itchy fingers, too many having wet dreams hoping someone will break into their house so they can blow them away. Yep. A whole lot of very sick puppies.

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.

 

[Auld Phart]

...Just one problem with your stance... militia members were, at the time the 2nd was written, between the ages of 16-45, able bodied, and male. I'm over 45, not as able bodied as I once was. I'm not 'qualified' to belong to a militia. Should I give up my firearms?

Easy to deal with...

A militia of last resort... a militia of all the cizenry... involves every living, breathing soul; some more fit for duty than others; even a bedridden, dying old lady.

Don't believe me?

Just ask the British.

Those who could still move-about and function were expected to report to the Home Guard in the event of a German invasion.

But every citizen was expected to fight the invaders to the best of his or her ability... "Take one with you" ...said Winston Churchill, eh?

Or just ask the Germans.

Those who could still move about and function were expected to report to the Volksturm in the event of an Allied invasion.

But every citizen was expected to fight the invaders to the best of his or her ability, according to Goebbels... eh?

Or just ask the Russians.

Those who could still move about and function were expected to report to Worker's Battalions or Labor Battalions in the event of German invasion.

But every citizen was expected to fight the invaders to the best of his or her ability, according to the Stalin, eh?

If the United States ever faces a similar predicament, the citizenry will be mobilized in much the same way.

The better armed and disciplined the Militia of the Citizenry, the more likely it is that the Militia will prove useful in defense of the Republic.

A Juicy Rationalization of the First Order.

Just what is needed, to shift the Nation to nationwide firearms ownership standards.

Just ask the British.

We aren't the British, nor are we the Germans, or Russians.

Do a little research on who was allowed to join the Militia when the Second was passed.

able bodied men, ages 16-45.

Stop using the laws, and opinions, of other countries to try to usurp ours.

(Makes you look silly)

 

[Flash]

[Q

A brave offer.

But merely a down payment on what is needed in the eyes of many of your fellow citizens.

You are confused about this. You are confusing firearm safety with criminal use of firearms. They are different.

Of the ways to die in this country death by unsafe firearms use is way far down on the list. For instance, my swimming pool is a much greater threat to the lives of my grandchildren than my firearms. Living in Central Florida, which is the lightning capital of the US, is a far greater threat to my family than unsafe firearm use.

The "payment" we need to make in this country on curtailing firearms deaths is for these Democrats in the big city shitholes to get tough on the gang bangers, druggies, illegals and scum where the great majority of gun deaths occur.

 

[martybegan]

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

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

What will happen is places will make the class cost $400 and make you wait 2-3 months to take it after scheduling said class.

You simply can't trust a gun control nut.

Quit whining. We both know that's not how it would be.

Then why does a background check in NYC take 3-6 months simply to get a handgun permit for home use?

Why does it cost up to $600 for that background check?

 

[Auld Phart]

The same folks disapprove of seat belts and helmets.

Which Amendment are they listed under?

 

[martybegan]

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

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

What will happen is places will make the class cost $400 and make you wait 2-3 months to take it after scheduling said class.

You simply can't trust a gun control nut.

I disagree. It could be done at any shooting range. Many of them offer free classes, if I'm not mistaken. And what you said does not change the fact that gun owners should at least get basic training.

It COULD be done. However any location that hates private gun ownership would make the process as slow and expensive as possible.

In NYC it takes 3-6 months and around $600 in fees just to get a permit for a revolver for home use. If there were a training requirement, places like NYC would make it cost $1000 and have a 1 year waiting list.

 

[Flash]

Methinks that term 'militia' has been kicked around by the SCOTUS a lot Kondor....

~S~

And it is going to be kicked around some more, in the coming years, isn't it?

Yesteday's SCOTUS interpretations can always be overturned by tomorrow's Court, eh?

Example: SCOTUS findings on Slavery; ante bellum vs. post-rebellion.

$hit happens... things change... times change... so do solutions to evolving dangers and perceptions.

Maybe why we are at it we can strike down Brown v Board and Roe v Wade. Until then we still have Negroes going to White schools and children being murdered on demand. Until you asshole Liberals get the power to change the Supreme Court the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Live with it.

 

[Kondor3]

...(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.

 

[Kondor3]

...Maybe why we are at it we can strike down Brown v Board and Roe v Wade. Until then we still have Negroes going to White schools and children being murdered on demand. Until you asshole Liberals get the power to change the Supreme Court the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Live with it.

Now, now... temper, temper... don't much care for the idea of a SCOTUS revisiting such case law, do you? We must be on the right track, then.

 

[martybegan]

What will happen is places will make the class cost $400 and make you wait 2-3 months to take it after scheduling said class.

You simply can't trust a gun control nut.

Unless universally acceptable rules are written into the proposal before it is passed.

Firearms training would impart a significant benefit to society in terms of substantially reduced firearms accidents, misuse, and improper deployment. So a qualification program which is partially subsidized by government would be a worthwhile federal investment.

The cost of such a program need not be prohibitive because it would not be profit-based and supported mainly by prospective gun buyers and sellers.

The program would require that a prospective gun buyer pass a basic written and performance test to determine his/her competence in the use, handling, and safeguarding of the type of firearm he/she intends to purchase. Training would be available to those who fail the tests.

What I am proposing is comparable to acquiring a driver license. Testing is the primary step. If one fails the test, re-testing is available at nominal cost. Training would be available at nominal cost or it may be acquired privately. Testing and training must be available within one week of an intended purchase or the requirement must be waived.

The vast majority of gun buyers would have no trouble passing the required competence test, so we're not looking at crowded places and long lines.

I simply don't trust the local governments that would end up implementing this to be fair about it.

They will MAKE it difficult, then you would have to sue, and the local courts would side the with local governments.