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

[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.

With a folding stock and a long coat it would be possible.

I suppose. I live in Phoenix. We don't have much truck with coats of any length.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

I can see benefits.
Less accidents, higher awareness towards guns and their potential use - or miss use. Storage, effects of different ammunition, how to aim, reloading, fire under stress, how to take cover, suppression and well - basic usage of a firearm.
Also, armed citizens with training would pose an even bigger threat to criminals.

Although there has been some good counter points about the issue, I have to admit that.

I don't recall asking you to recite your fantasies and imaginings of benefits to me. I have asked, at various times, precisely what you think is taught in gun safety classes which will render some huge improvement, and to provide EVIDENCE that your proposals will produce substantial benefits without onorous restrictions. Your daydreams aren't evidence.

 

[BlindBoo]

Not just no but Hell no.
This message was brought to you by United Mortician Workers Local 714

 

[HappyJoy]

Lets mandate education before you vote.

As soon as the first uneducated voter accidentally votes himself or someone else in the head we will get right on it.

Yes, there is no dangerous power in the world beyond that of firing bullets.

Taking it a little too far, don't ya' think? It was a comparison to voting, not whatever you are imagining.

I was talking about voting, too. I'm just not brain-damaged and tunnel-visioned the way you are.

I can theoretically kill one person per bullet. Our votes elect a President who can theoretically kill multitudes with the stroke of a pen.

Which is the more dangerous right: owning a gun or casting a vote?

You're ridiculous. One person does not elect the president, does not have the power to kill anyone, especially directly.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

With a folding stock and a long coat it would be possible.

I suppose. I live in Phoenix. We don't have much truck with coats of any length.

And yet you have an NHL hockey team (well, technically I guess they are in Glendale). I've always thought Phoenix was an odd place to have one.

 

[Geaux4it]

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, next question?

-Geaux

 

[Flash]

[QU

No. Have you? Does the NRA have the trained manpower to do that for every school in the country?

Don't you worry your little Moon Bat head. There will be many Libtard school boards that wouldn't allow the NRA into the school.

If there was some stupid Federal mandate to give firearm safety training the government would screw up doing just like they screw up everything else.

Worry my little Moon Bat head? Does questioning whether the NRA would be able to provide trainers for gun classes in every school in the country make me a liberal/progressive/whatever Moon Bat means to you?

Only a Moon Bat would question that. The question you should be asking is why in the hell would somebody be so stupid as to suggest that the filthy ass government require qualifications like training before a citizen could enjoy a right that clearly says shall not be infringed?

Do we need training before we are allowed free speech? Do we need training before we are allowed by the filthy government to go to church?

When does the filthy government get a say so in the rights that are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? If we have to get permission from the government then they aren't really rights, are they?

I can see your partisan filter is working well.

Perhaps you can't ask questions about more than one subject, but I don't need to limit my responses that way. I'm perfectly capable of asking about whether the NRA can supply gun training teachers (for free) to every school in the country, without it having any effect whatsoever on my thoughts about whether such training (if mandatory) would be productive or pass Constitutional scrutiny.

We don't need training to practice free speech or to worship, but there ARE restrictions on those rights. I don't think the Supreme Court would accept mandatory training before someone exercised their second amendment right, but I'm not completely confident about that.

You are probably more likely to have a civil discussion if you don't make unwarranted assumptions or place silly labels on people.

What I can see is that you asked a really dumb Moon Bat question.

You have trouble determining the real issue. It must be typical Moon Bat confusion.

The issue is allowing the government to infringe upon a right that specifically say it can't be infringed.

A "right" that you have to go through background checks, training, and is subject to bans and other onerous requirements really isn't a right is it?

When is specifically says that a right shall not be infringed and the government infringes upon it then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Lets mandate education before you vote.

As soon as the first uneducated voter accidentally votes himself or someone else in the head we will get right on it.

Yes, there is no dangerous power in the world beyond that of firing bullets.

Taking it a little too far, don't ya' think? It was a comparison to voting, not whatever you are imagining.

I was talking about voting, too. I'm just not brain-damaged and tunnel-visioned the way you are.

I can theoretically kill one person per bullet. Our votes elect a President who can theoretically kill multitudes with the stroke of a pen.

Which is the more dangerous right: owning a gun or casting a vote?

You're ridiculous. One person does not elect the president, does not have the power to kill anyone, especially directly.

Who said they did? I'm just pointing out that there are all types of dangerous power, and dangerous rights.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

With a folding stock and a long coat it would be possible.

I suppose. I live in Phoenix. We don't have much truck with coats of any length.

And yet you have an NHL hockey team (well, technically I guess they are in Glendale). I've always thought Phoenix was an odd place to have one.

Only if you try to play outside.

 

[Taz]

What about all of that "personal responsibility" crap you guys spew when we talk about important stuff like healthcare?

You are not making sense. Why should I have to pay an additional $400 for a training class to exercise a right?

How about we make people take classes to vote?

No answer huh?

Pretty much what I expected.

There was an answer. You just didn't like it.

There should be no training, no age limit, no restrictions on what kind of weapon you can buy (like AA missiles...), the NRA should have a permanent cabinet seat on every administration (without having to pay for it), and everyone who pays taxes should get a gross of bullets every year for free. Did I forget something Ceci?

Wow...that is too extreme.....where are your anti gun buddies making comments about your body parts....

You're just an anti-gun nut. Now you know.

 

[Taz]

What about all of that "personal responsibility" crap you guys spew when we talk about important stuff like healthcare?

You are not making sense. Why should I have to pay an additional $400 for a training class to exercise a right?

How about we make people take classes to vote?

No answer huh?

Pretty much what I expected.

There was an answer. You just didn't like it.

There should be no training, no age limit, no restrictions on what kind of weapon you can buy (like AA missiles...), the NRA should have a permanent cabinet seat on every administration (without having to pay for it), and everyone who pays taxes should get a gross of bullets every year for free. Did I forget something Ceci?

Wow?, Do you think a 15 year old gang banger, or suicidal teen hopped up on antidepressants care if they have the legal right to buy a gun?

Try again, this time make a bit of sense.

"shall not be infringed". An age limit is an infringement.

 

[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?

Who said I wasn't? You assume facts not in evidence, as usual.

You're against ordinary citizens owning nukes though.

 

[Taz]

What about all of that "personal responsibility" crap you guys spew when we talk about important stuff like healthcare?

You are not making sense. Why should I have to pay an additional $400 for a training class to exercise a right?

How about we make people take classes to vote?

No answer huh?

Pretty much what I expected.

There was an answer. You just didn't like it.

There should be no training, no age limit, no restrictions on what kind of weapon you can buy (like AA missiles...), the NRA should have a permanent cabinet seat on every administration (without having to pay for it), and everyone who pays taxes should get a gross of bullets every year for free. Did I forget something Ceci?

For starters, you forgot that my name is Cecilie, and that I wouldn't allow you to pick garbage out of the dumpster behind my house, let alone actually behave familarly with me.

The other thing you forgot is that you're a drooling imbecile and an enormous burden on any social occasion.

Ceci, so you don't agree with my statement? Then you're an anti-gun nut. Now you know.

 

[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.

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

Who said I wasn't? You assume facts not in evidence, as usual.

You're against ordinary citizens owning nukes though.

Mostly, I'm against having intelligent conversation shut down by yapping little poodles like you humping everyone's legs and pissing on the carpet. The answer to ANY gambit you wish to try to utterly derail and prevent discussion is "No. Fuck off. If it's coming from you, it's automatically stupid and deserves no comment. Did I mention fuck off?"

 

[Montrovant]

[QU

No. Have you? Does the NRA have the trained manpower to do that for every school in the country?

Don't you worry your little Moon Bat head. There will be many Libtard school boards that wouldn't allow the NRA into the school.

If there was some stupid Federal mandate to give firearm safety training the government would screw up doing just like they screw up everything else.

Worry my little Moon Bat head? Does questioning whether the NRA would be able to provide trainers for gun classes in every school in the country make me a liberal/progressive/whatever Moon Bat means to you?

Only a Moon Bat would question that. The question you should be asking is why in the hell would somebody be so stupid as to suggest that the filthy ass government require qualifications like training before a citizen could enjoy a right that clearly says shall not be infringed?

Do we need training before we are allowed free speech? Do we need training before we are allowed by the filthy government to go to church?

When does the filthy government get a say so in the rights that are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? If we have to get permission from the government then they aren't really rights, are they?

I can see your partisan filter is working well.

Perhaps you can't ask questions about more than one subject, but I don't need to limit my responses that way. I'm perfectly capable of asking about whether the NRA can supply gun training teachers (for free) to every school in the country, without it having any effect whatsoever on my thoughts about whether such training (if mandatory) would be productive or pass Constitutional scrutiny.

We don't need training to practice free speech or to worship, but there ARE restrictions on those rights. I don't think the Supreme Court would accept mandatory training before someone exercised their second amendment right, but I'm not completely confident about that.

You are probably more likely to have a civil discussion if you don't make unwarranted assumptions or place silly labels on people.

What I can see is that you asked a really dumb Moon Bat question.

You have trouble determining the real issue. It must be typical Moon Bat confusion.

The issue is allowing the government to infringe upon a right that specifically say it can't be infringed.

A "right" that you have to go through background checks, training, and is subject to bans and other onerous requirements really isn't a right is it?

When is specifically says that a right shall not be infringed and the government infringes upon it then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

If you look, you might notice that I've already said that requiring training to buy a gun seems like an infringement to me, and that I don't believe the USSC would accept it.

Why is asking whether or not the NRA has enough people available to provide free training in schools (a point I was responding to, not one I brought up) a "Moon Bat question"?

I have no trouble determining the issues. You seem to be having issues with treating me as anything but a stereotype you've created in your mind, however.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are not making sense. Why should I have to pay an additional $400 for a training class to exercise a right?

How about we make people take classes to vote?

No answer huh?

Pretty much what I expected.

There was an answer. You just didn't like it.

There should be no training, no age limit, no restrictions on what kind of weapon you can buy (like AA missiles...), the NRA should have a permanent cabinet seat on every administration (without having to pay for it), and everyone who pays taxes should get a gross of bullets every year for free. Did I forget something Ceci?

For starters, you forgot that my name is Cecilie, and that I wouldn't allow you to pick garbage out of the dumpster behind my house, let alone actually behave familarly with me.

The other thing you forgot is that you're a drooling imbecile and an enormous burden on any social occasion.

Ceci, so you don't agree with my statement? Then you're an anti-gun nut. Now you know.

"You're an . . ."

"No. Fuck off. Humans are talking, so shoo."

 

[Montrovant]

You are not making sense. Why should I have to pay an additional $400 for a training class to exercise a right?

How about we make people take classes to vote?

No answer huh?

Pretty much what I expected.

There was an answer. You just didn't like it.

There should be no training, no age limit, no restrictions on what kind of weapon you can buy (like AA missiles...), the NRA should have a permanent cabinet seat on every administration (without having to pay for it), and everyone who pays taxes should get a gross of bullets every year for free. Did I forget something Ceci?

Wow?, Do you think a 15 year old gang banger, or suicidal teen hopped up on antidepressants care if they have the legal right to buy a gun?

Try again, this time make a bit of sense.

"shall not be infringed". An age limit is an infringement.

Yes and no. One has to keep in mind that children do not have all the same Constitutional rights and protections that adults do.

An arbitrary raising of the age limit for guns to 21 years old is a problem IMO, though.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No answer huh?

Pretty much what I expected.

There was an answer. You just didn't like it.

There should be no training, no age limit, no restrictions on what kind of weapon you can buy (like AA missiles...), the NRA should have a permanent cabinet seat on every administration (without having to pay for it), and everyone who pays taxes should get a gross of bullets every year for free. Did I forget something Ceci?

Wow?, Do you think a 15 year old gang banger, or suicidal teen hopped up on antidepressants care if they have the legal right to buy a gun?

Try again, this time make a bit of sense.

"shall not be infringed". An age limit is an infringement.

Yes and no. One has to keep in mind that children do not have all the same Constitutional rights and protections that adults do.

An arbitrary raising of the age limit for guns to 21 years old is a problem IMO, though.

 

[2aguy]

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?

Who said I wasn't? You assume facts not in evidence, as usual.

You're against ordinary citizens owning nukes though.

A nuke is not a "Bearable Arm." Read Heller, they explain it very thoroughly in their opinion.

 

[2aguy]

Don't you worry your little Moon Bat head. There will be many Libtard school boards that wouldn't allow the NRA into the school.

If there was some stupid Federal mandate to give firearm safety training the government would screw up doing just like they screw up everything else.

Worry my little Moon Bat head? Does questioning whether the NRA would be able to provide trainers for gun classes in every school in the country make me a liberal/progressive/whatever Moon Bat means to you?

Only a Moon Bat would question that. The question you should be asking is why in the hell would somebody be so stupid as to suggest that the filthy ass government require qualifications like training before a citizen could enjoy a right that clearly says shall not be infringed?

Do we need training before we are allowed free speech? Do we need training before we are allowed by the filthy government to go to church?

When does the filthy government get a say so in the rights that are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? If we have to get permission from the government then they aren't really rights, are they?

I can see your partisan filter is working well.

Perhaps you can't ask questions about more than one subject, but I don't need to limit my responses that way. I'm perfectly capable of asking about whether the NRA can supply gun training teachers (for free) to every school in the country, without it having any effect whatsoever on my thoughts about whether such training (if mandatory) would be productive or pass Constitutional scrutiny.

We don't need training to practice free speech or to worship, but there ARE restrictions on those rights. I don't think the Supreme Court would accept mandatory training before someone exercised their second amendment right, but I'm not completely confident about that.

You are probably more likely to have a civil discussion if you don't make unwarranted assumptions or place silly labels on people.

What I can see is that you asked a really dumb Moon Bat question.

You have trouble determining the real issue. It must be typical Moon Bat confusion.

The issue is allowing the government to infringe upon a right that specifically say it can't be infringed.

A "right" that you have to go through background checks, training, and is subject to bans and other onerous requirements really isn't a right is it?

When is specifically says that a right shall not be infringed and the government infringes upon it then the Bill of Rights isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

If you look, you might notice that I've already said that requiring training to buy a gun seems like an infringement to me, and that I don't believe the USSC would accept it.

Why is asking whether or not the NRA has enough people available to provide free training in schools (a point I was responding to, not one I brought up) a "Moon Bat question"?

I have no trouble determining the issues. You seem to be having issues with treating me as anything but a stereotype you've created in your mind, however.

I think the NRA would be happy to provide instructors, and in fact, they already have the program up and running...it is just that anti gunners fight to keep them out of the schools.