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

[toobfreak]

Ummm..... I don't know how to break this to you, but America isn't a planet, it's a Continent,

Gee, thank you Mr. Professor on that illuminating bit of non-information! You really think I didn't know that, jackass? I was speaking in the abstract, apparently something far over your head. And you don't even have that right! America isn't a continent, it is a COUNTRY---- if America was a continent, we'd be part of Canada, IDIOT.

and I'm pretty sure the current interpretation of the second amendment came from the suoresu Court and not god. Wise up.

And who else would "interpret" anything? Only people "interpret" things, not plants, not dogs and cats, and I would assume not Gods either, but then I wasn't speaking to a court's interpretation, Moron, but to the true meaning as intended by the creators of the document and the original documents were designed as a limitation on government, not to be limited BY government. More advice on how to "smarten up" from a leftist fool who hasn't the brains to blow his own nose.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

How bout following the conversation that we were having. It was about the school shootings, and there were not 11,000 shooting in schools.

And yes SSRI's are linked to most.

Now take a nap and have sweet dreams of being pissed on, cuz I sure as hell just pissed all over you.

I have to agree.
They should not be prescribing mood altering drugs to children like they are.
The effects are far too unpredictable and dangerous.
And since these schools massacres are also almost always suicides, clearly they are related to mental illness.
So if they are increasing, we should be examining the causes of increasing mental illness, not the weapons involved that have always been available.

 

[OKTexas]

Figures you would dodge the actual facts of the matter.

Again, Its an example of how any government that hates armed citizens will use laws like this to make it as hard as possible for anyone to get a firearm.

except of course people they like, or who are rich, or who are government actors.

Yes, the federal government is out to get you personally, so they made the state government of New York change their gun laws just to inconvenience you. Who wouldn't recognize that? How dastardly of them.

it's government in general, and NYC's laws are what progressives see as the next logical step before they ban private gun ownership entirely.

What i am trying to say, is that any federal law requiring training would be bastardized by any local government that hates private gun ownership to make it as restrictive, expensive and tedious as possible. Not in the interest of safety, but because they don't believe private citizens should have guns.

Did I spell it out enough for you, mouth breather?

You were very clear in articulating your twisted, childish opinion. We're talking federal law goober. If you don't like New York State law, you should move, or elect someone who is a gun nut like you. The citizens of New York don't seem to want gun nuts running their government.

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.

Define "gun nut".


.

 

[Rigby5]

Ummm..... I don't know how to break this to you, but America isn't a planet, it's a Continent,

Gee, thank you Mr. Professor on that illuminating bit of non-information! You really think I didn't know that, jackass? I was speaking in the abstract, apparently something far over your head. And you don't even have that right! America isn't a continent, it is a COUNTRY---- if America was a continent, we'd be part of Canada, IDIOT.

and I'm pretty sure the current interpretation of the second amendment came from the suoresu Court and not god. Wise up.

And who else would "interpret" anything? Only people "interpret" things, not plants, not dogs and cats, and I would assume not Gods either, but then I wasn't speaking to a court's interpretation, Moron, but to the true meaning as intended by the creators of the document and the original documents were designed as a limitation on government, not to be limited BY government. More advice on how to "smarten up" from a leftist fool who hasn't the brains to blow his own nose.

Well to be more specific, USA is a country, and north, south, and central America are continents.

But we should never allow anyone to tell us what something means.
Laws in particular are required to be easily understood.
It is not hard to read the history and understand that the Bill of Rights was intended entirely to limit the federal government.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes, the federal government is out to get you personally, so they made the state government of New York change their gun laws just to inconvenience you. Who wouldn't recognize that? How dastardly of them.

it's government in general, and NYC's laws are what progressives see as the next logical step before they ban private gun ownership entirely.

What i am trying to say, is that any federal law requiring training would be bastardized by any local government that hates private gun ownership to make it as restrictive, expensive and tedious as possible. Not in the interest of safety, but because they don't believe private citizens should have guns.

Did I spell it out enough for you, mouth breather?

You were very clear in articulating your twisted, childish opinion. We're talking federal law goober. If you don't like New York State law, you should move, or elect someone who is a gun nut like you. The citizens of New York don't seem to want gun nuts running their government.

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.

Define "gun nut".


.

Seems to me the founders were "gun nuts" so it is a positive association.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

I've owned firearms since the age of 5 and served in the Army why should I have to take gun safety classes.

 

[Pop23]

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.

How bout following the conversation that we were having. It was about the school shootings, and there were not 11,000 shooting in schools.

And yes SSRI's are linked to most.

Now take a nap and have sweet dreams of being pissed on, cuz I sure as hell just pissed all over you.

I have to agree.
They should not be prescribing mood altering drugs to children like they are.
The effects are far too unpredictable and dangerous.
And since these schools massacres are also almost always suicides, clearly they are related to mental illness.
So if they are increasing, we should be examining the causes of increasing mental illness, not the weapons involved that have always been available.

I've heard the mental illness claim made before. But studies have shown, those with these mental illnesses, yet those either left not treated or treated using other methods are rarely, if ever violent. It is those treated with SSRI's (antidepressants) are the ones that often become violent, at a rate 50% greater than those not using them.

So blaming the mental illness is turning a blind eye on the actual cause.

 

[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.

Why, I bought a gun and shells when I was 11 years old, already knew how to use it, got my own later that month. Already had my drivers license when I took drivers ED, just did it for the insurance credit. Driving isn't a constitutional right.


.

Why isn’t driving a constitutional right? Why is it that we aren’t free to move from point A to point B freely?

You are. There's a difference between the right to move around, and the non-existent right to a specific means of doing so.

Alright, that’s just semantics -

Just for you. I want to simply restrict your right. Everyone else is doing just fine.

Oh. I guess the founding corpses didn’t know I was coming along. Either.

Maybe they just figured we wouldn't allow droolers like you to run around loose, pretending to be competent adults.

And where they right?

Try that sentence again after you learn to write!

“and were they right?”

Methinks you understand neither the concept of rights, nor the definition of "semantics".

Our fundamental rights are not about a narrow, shallow focus on objects and means. They are about the broader philosophical aspects of our fundamental freedom of self-determination. The First Amendment freedom of the press isn't about a right to own a printer and paper and ink; it's about the right to uncover and know the truth, and the right to share that truth with other people. The freedom of religion and exercise thereof isn't about church buildings and Bibles that you carry around with you and going to listen to a sermon on Sunday morning; it's about deciding what is true and what is not inside your own heart and mind, and living your life and making your own choices based on that personal understanding of the truth.

And the Second Amendment isn't about the guns, and semi-automatic versus revolver versus muzzle-loader versus "what about a rocket launcher"? It's about the most basic, fundamental truth that there will always be people who try to take away your control of your life and decisions, and subjugate you to their purposes, and nothing else you ever do and no other freedom you ever claim means anything if you are helpless to stand against that subjugation.

Semantics, by the way, is NOT defined as "meaningless word games". Sometimes it's used for that purpose, but it actually means "the study of definitions and meanings in words, symbols, and other forms of communication". The fact that words mean specific things is actually kinda important, because without it, we're all just Neanderthals pointing and grunting. It is important to be able to make a distinction between the right to choose for yourself where you go and what you do, and the tool you use to exercise that choice.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That would be an infringement

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.

Not exactly. It is the actual operation of the car which requires a license. The mere presence of the car does not, even in public areas.

So again, are you SURE you want to apply the car analogy to guns? Because by that standard, I would be able to take my gun to any public area I want, and only require permission to actually fire it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[ ...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?

Yep.

Commodity-caliber context-specific training.

Gotta pass the Rules-of-the-Road -type written exam to get ANY kind of firearms license.

Gotta take one Rules-of-the-Road -type refresher class and subsequent exam once every 6 or 8 or 10 years.

Gotta take specialized training for specific categories of weapons...

For the basics...

Pistols 101...

Rifles and Shotguns 101...

< basic background check and periodic updates re: criminal convictions and specific mental health diagnoses or treatments or hospitalizations >​

For more sophisticated stuff...

High-rate-of-fire Weapons 201

High-rate-of-fire Weapons 202​

< deep background check, more hoops to jump through, more frequent renewals and auditing >
​

Every firearm is centrally registered...

Every transaction ( sale, gift, inheritance, etc. ) is centrally vetted by AI and approved or rejected; with an ability to appeal.

Upon felony conviction, advent of dangerous mental health condition, or indictment for crimes of violence, you lose your guns.

With full compensation or pre-approved transfer to a recipient of your choice, or temporary storage before resorting to such a process.

If you're indicted, and you're cleared, you get 'em back, and the interim seizure and storage are expunged.

No.

That was pretty easy. Glad we cleared that up.

 

[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.

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?

I had a 12 ga. shotgun when I was in the Navy. That makes it a military firearm. Are you sure you want to go there? Dumbass!

A shotgun is not a military weapon, dumbass!

Well, it obviously IS, if the military uses it. And apparently, the military HAS used it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who gets to certify the "mandatory training"? Would an 80 year old person in a crime infested area have to shell out $100 or $200 or even $500 for "training" when they could figure out how to load and aim a shotgun or a .22 in five minutes?

The price to be paid for necessary Firearms Control.

If someone applies for and is granted a hardship waiver, they get the training for free.

It's kinda breathtaking, the arrogance with which you ascribe to yourself the right to demand and assess prices to be paid . . . by people other than yourself.

 

[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!

Where is the right no to be armed and not be punished for that right?

That right comes when someone breaks into your house or tries to rob you on the street and you are left standing there with nothing but your dick in your hands to defend yourself and your family. You have every right to do that and watch yourself and your family be robbed, assaulted, beaten, abused, kidnapped or murdered!

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Generally speaking, you walking in-and-out of a voting booth does not take human life.

Besides... if you want to graduate school, you're stuck taking a Constitution Test anyway, right?

What the hell high school did YOU graduate from? Not saying a test on the Constitution wouldn't have some merit, but I can assure you there wasn't one when I graduated.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[ ...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?

Yep.

Commodity-caliber context-specific training.

Gotta pass the Rules-of-the-Road -type written exam to get ANY kind of firearms license.

Gotta take one Rules-of-the-Road -type refresher class and subsequent exam once every 6 or 8 or 10 years.

Gotta take specialized training for specific categories of weapons...

For the basics...

Pistols 101...

Rifles and Shotguns 101...

< basic background check and periodic updates re: criminal convictions and specific mental health diagnoses or treatments or hospitalizations >​

For more sophisticated stuff...

High-rate-of-fire Weapons 201

High-rate-of-fire Weapons 202​

< deep background check, more hoops to jump through, more frequent renewals and auditing >
​

Every firearms is centrally registered...

Every transaction ( sale, gift, inheritance, etc. ) is centrally vetted by AI and approved or rejected; with an ability to appeal.

Upon felony conviction, advent of dangerous mental health condition, or indictment for crimes of violence, you lose your guns.

With full compensation or pre-approved transfer to a recipient of your choice, or temporary storage before resorting to such a process.

If you're indicted, and you're cleared, you get 'em back, and the interim seizure and storage are expunged.

Well, all right, that sound a bit too complicated...

Kondor is Exhibit A on why we don't trust leftists with even the slightest and most innocuous-sounding requirements and restrictions on our freedoms.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

I have two college degrees. Does that mean I can prescribe medication? Dumbass!

I don’t know - it would depend on your line of education, wouldn’t it?

How about my daughter who has a degree in biology and is an Army officer. Can she prescribe meds for her soldiers?

Perhaps if you tell her that you are sorry and that you really would like to be a better father you could ask her yourself?

Step back, check yourself, and do not go there.

 

[Weatherman2020]

The only saving grace in the YouTube shooting is she was a lousy shooter. Training her would have resulted in dozens dead.

 

[Cecilie1200]

All I'm suggesting is a basic gun safety course before purchasing a firearm. Just about anyone can pass one. If you can't, you shouldn't own a firearm. It's that simple.

My rule of thumb is when someone approaches my Constitutional rights with "all I'm suggesting . . ." the answer is automatically "No".

 

[Pop23]

So, I think it was a noble try, but this thread has no provided any evidence that additional training would:

Do Nothing to stop violent criminal behavior or reduce the suicide rate, which is somewhere in the range of 99% of the total gun associated each year.

And of the other 1%? What kind of gun safety training will make irresponsible people become responsible? It's an incredibly low number anyway.

I think this thread has served it's purpose and the OP should request that it be closed. It serves no purpose.

 

[Pop23]

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?

I have two college degrees. Does that mean I can prescribe medication? Dumbass!

I don’t know - it would depend on your line of education, wouldn’t it?

How about my daughter who has a degree in biology and is an Army officer. Can she prescribe meds for her soldiers?

Perhaps if you tell her that you are sorry and that you really would like to be a better father you could ask her yourself?

Step back, check yourself, and do not go there.

You see who we are up against? Who does that? Outrageous