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

[Pop23]

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

All these pages and Weatherman2020 nailed the reason this threat should die, and die immediately!

 

[OKTexas]

...No Moon Bat you are confused. It is time to adhere to the Bill of Rights. Fuck gun control.

Thank you for your insightful feedback, Princess; however, mandatory training is coming, and sooner than you think.

When it DOES come, you will obey the laws of the United States, just like everybody else; piss-and-moan all you like.

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.


.

The NRA would provide instructors to every elementary, middle, and/or high school in the country for free? That sounds extremely unlikely.

Have you asked them?


.

 

[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?

You don't need to graduate school to vote.

True.

But most voters DO graduate school, so there's some considerable symmetry in all of that; despite the fact that it is not an absolute state of affairs.

The Republic is best served by an educated voting class.

The Republic is best served by a Militia Of The Whole which is required to be responsible and accountable with respect to lethal weaponry.

Given that leftists have spent decades degrading our educational institutions to make graduation as unrelated to being educated as it possibly can be, this post is utterly meaningless.

 

[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.

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.

What about the concealed carry permits already being issued? In Florida they require a basic working knowledge of pistols versus revolvers and a lot of common sense discussion, a trip to the firing range so that you can get a feel for it and then a pretty extensive background check.

What if we had a rule that a CC permit was required to buy an AR-15?

What I want is a nationally recognized CC permit so I can buy guns in other states without hassle and travel without the extra worry of differing state laws.

`​

I'm trying to imagine how one carries a concealed AR-15. They aren't exactly small and unobtrusive.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Charging people to express rights arent the same because.....
Im not claiming victimhood. How ridiculous.
I cant even have a civilized discussion with you without you turning into a dumbfuck.
Good day

You are claiming victim hood when you compare the cost of a gun safety course to people who really did lose their rights when they had to pay a poll tax to vote.

I am having a civilized debate, your argument doesn't pass muster.

The courts made it clear that it was not the amount of the tax, but that a tax existed in the first place.

It's not a tax. Demonstrating your proficiency with a firearm before you buy one is not a tax.

It's just something I'm not going to do, because you have no right to demand it.

Let's not get overly dramatic, OK? I haven't demanded anything to begin with however if the government made this the law then yeah..you'll fucking do it if you want a gun.

Way to lie and then expose your lie all in the same sentence. That's impressive.

 

[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.

What about the concealed carry permits already being issued? In Florida they require a basic working knowledge of pistols versus revolvers and a lot of common sense discussion, a trip to the firing range so that you can get a feel for it and then a pretty extensive background check.

What if we had a rule that a CC permit was required to buy an AR-15?

What I want is a nationally recognized CC permit so I can buy guns in other states without hassle and travel without the extra worry of differing state laws.

`​

I'm trying to imagine how one carries a concealed AR-15. They aren't exactly small and unobtrusive.

Be really really fat.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Most sidewalks are private property. Dip.


.

What makes you think that?

Reality. People are sued all the time for not maintaining their sidewalks.


.

 

[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.

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.

FWIW, Central America is NOT a continent either! It is merely a land bridge. Mexico is part of the North Am. Continent. And if laws are required to be easily understood, we have totally failed. The PRIME FUNCTION of lawyers is to COMPLICATE the law so that you need THEM to interpret it. Other than that, agree with the rest 100%. The WHOLE POINT to the Constitution and its amendments is to LIMIT government------ what a court has to say about that may be "lawful" but court decisions change from one week to the next, and I've yet to ever see a Court yet decide to curtail its powers rather than expand them. There is a tragic difference between what the Court decides is "lawful" and what is actually true and just---- just ask the billions of people enslaved, robbed from, imprisoned and slaughtered down through the centuries by "lawful decree."

 

[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.

No, this is very much a gun rights issue. I used to agree with you and still think that everyone should receive firearms training but it should take place within the school system otherwise hostile levels of government can price that training outside the reach of all but the elite.

Hey, if the leftists want to require that every high school student attend a basic gun safety class as part of their curriculum, so that when they're old enough to buy a gun they're all set to do so, THAT I could absolutely get behind.

How about it, lefties? Shall we give the NRA a call and see if they can rustle up a teacher for each high school?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Yep, they very aware of the consequences of being disarmed and the 20 century proved they were right.


.

 

[Rocko]

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.

Driving is a privilege, owning a gun is a right

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

And if you ARE too dumb to figure that out on your own, is there any amount of TELLING you not to that's going to make you smarter?

 

[my2¢]

Gun training, seems like a good idea.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Because it is putting a requirement, aka a restriction, on my ability to do something I have a Constitutional right to do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

The problem is that 1) nobody is proposing anything close to this YET, and 2) leftists routinely make "ridiculous slippery slope arguments" less ridiculous by actually going exactly where we said they were going to back when it was dismissed as a "ridiculous slippery slope argument". You act like we haven't watched you people throughout the past and learned our damned lesson. Trying to compromise with leftists is like paying off a blackmailer. HE ALWAYS COMES BACK LATER, WANTING MORE.

No. Uh uh. Not happening. We've made every concession and compromise we're going to. Anything else is going to require you to show us hard evidence that it will make substantial improvements, and NOT create onerous restrictions, and you've shown none of that.

 

[Taz]

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

Because it is putting a requirement, aka a restriction, on my ability to do something I have a Constitutional right to do.

So is an age restriction, why aren't you upset about that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

There is no mandate to receive driver's training before buying a car, only to get your license to drive it.

'Require gun carriers / users to have a license...when hunting, at the shooting range, etc....'

Of course some will consider the requirement to have such a license 'infringement'.....

Yup.

 

[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.

Yes I agree with this......here in Washington state it's required to take a 'Hunter Safety Course' before getting a hunting license. It includes several things and if I remember correctly is like a 6 day course over a 2 week period(?) It's not that far of a stretch to do the same or similar with guns & license/permits. It would be like a graduated step.....first the safety course, then get your permit, then buy your guns.

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 would the requirements be for a veteran who spent up to 30 years in the military, especially in combat arms? Or even a National Guardsman or Reservist who completed basic training and received extensive firearms training?

Military should be exempt for obvious reasons

You are mistaken. It is one very large stretch, from the "privilege" of hunting to the RIGHT of keeping and bearing arms. No. Nuh uh, screw that, and also piss off.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Yeah, kind of like Seattle putting additional taxes on gun and ammo sales. The slope has already been greased.


.

And now they're trying to strap roller skates to our feet before giving us a push.

 

[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?

Yet people with medical licenses and drivers licenses kill about 43 times the number of people with guns. Sounds to me like you don't have your priorities straight if you're really interested in saving lives.


.

That wasn’t a valid comparison now, was it?

That cars driven by trained people hurt more people than guns used by untrained people isn’t the question.

It’s not about anti cars, doctors or guns. It’s about education before use. If you don’t think such an education would have any effect, well that’s an argument I can understand.

Well yeah, that's the whole point. The idea that education is a magical fix, is brainlessly stupid.

Guns are not complicated. I was shooting guns when I was 10, at a church camp, with zero training whatsoever.

This isn't quantum physics. The long part with hole, is where the bullet comes from. The fist sized part, with the textured pattern on it, is where your hand goes. The slender stick by the grip, is the trigger. Don't pull that slender stick part, when the long part with the hole, is facing anything you don't want a bullet going through.

I remember watching this video of a lady held at gun point at a robbery. She grabbed the gun from the guy, and shot him with his own gun. Never held a gun before in her life.

Was there an emergency gun class, between the time she grabbed it, and the time she shot him with it? Did she contact Tank from the matrix, and download the gun handling program, so she could figure out how to fire it?

This is asinine. Dumbest argument ever.

When I got my CCW, I had to take a gun training course here in Ohio. I learned absolutely NOTHING.... as in NOTHING AT ALL... of any practical value. Not one single thing. Not even one.

Now I did learn some cool stuff. Overall, I thought the course was neat and worth the $75. But.... nothing they taught had any practical value. Like they taught how guns used flint, to cause a spark, into a pan of gun powerder, that went through a hole into the rifle barrel to then fire the bullet. If you improperly packed the gun powder, the pan would burn, but not fire the bullet. That's where the phrase "Flash in the pan" came from. Bright light, nothing happens.

They taught us that. Do tell buddy.... what practical application does that have? Do tell, how much safer I am with fire arms, with this arcane knowledge and wisdom?

Or they taught us the various parts of a gun. Barrel, frame, action, cylinder. Oh, and it's not a CLIP.... it's a 'magazine". You feel safer? Because I feel safer. Don't you?

Training will (hopefully) make people sound less stupid. Like if everyone went through that course, no one would say "Fully semi-automatic", like those anti-gun dip wads on TV have been saying.


The only 'safety" part of the training, was so unbelievably stupid... I laughed during the course. The instructor told me had to go through it by law.

"Do not point the gun at anything you don't want to shoot".....

WOW! NOW I AM SAFE!..... We're all safe now! Aren't you safe? We're all safe.

Do tell...... how many people..... until they got to that particular class... and was told by an instructor not to point a gun at something they don't want shot....... did not know this?

Really...... How many people were completely oblivious until they were 'trained' that guns shoot bullets?

Again, very interesting going through the history of fire arms. I liked it, and learned a ton.

But fact is, there was not one single thing of any practical value, that people didn't know before getting in that class room. Never seen a person yet, grab a gun by the barrel, and start pointing the handle at people.

So again, my argument to you is.... aside from maybe a mentally disabled person...... education is not going to do anything at all. Nothing. People do not need to be 'trained' on how to use a gun. They are not complicated.

Solid answer, perhaps most people can handle guns instinctively?

Then again, most people doesn’t miss fire their guns either. With proper mandatory training, one that you would have passed in ten minutes, don’t you think it would be beneficial at all?

Can most people hold a gun safely without perforating the cat? Yes. Just as most people can figure out how to chop food with a butcher knife without losing a finger, and don't require a "butcher knife safety class" before being allowed to cook.

This isn't rocket magic here. What is it you imagine is being taught, or would be taught, in a gun safety class that would constitute the magic bullet (pardon the expression) to make society perfectly safe?