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.

Plus, it has the same problem that waiting periods do: what happens when the person is buying the gun because they're in serious danger RIGHT NOW?

 

[Pop23]

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.

Anything that hampers the exercise if a right is unconstitutional.

Poll taxes and same sex marriage are just two examples

 

[Montrovant]

Training should be part of belonging to the "well-regulated militia". How can the militia be well regulated if members are not trained in the basics?

Nothing is stopping training from being part of a well-regulated militia. However, the second amendment does not require one to be part of a well-regulated militia in order to have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[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.

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.

COULD be, but the question is, do we trust gun-haters to LET it be?

 

[RWNJ]

Must be nice, living in a world that is black and white. All I'm saying is that a gun owner should be able to demonstrate minimum competency with a firearm before owning one. Otherwise, they are a danger to themselves as well as others. These gun safety classes are free. It doesn't cost anything. Simply go to a local gun range, take the class, and get a certificate. How is that any kind of infringement on the 2nd amendment?

Is gun ownership a right? Is driving a right? You just didn't like my answer and yes it's black and white. You cannot infringe on the right to bear arms

Would you give a gun to a small child? No. You wouldn't. Isn't that an infringement on the 2nd amendment? By your reasoning it is. Also, by my reasoning, it is not an infringement to require someone to demonstrate a minimum proficiency and knowledge of gun safety before owning one. I'm not talking about a government agency determining whether you can own a gun or not. This can be done on a local basis. Like I said. Pass a gun safety course and get your gun. If you cannot pass such a test, and it's not difficult to do so, then you should not own a firearm. You call it infringement. I call it public safety. BTW, look up the FBI statistics for accidental shootings. Might change your mind. Every one of those shootings was preventable.

Now you're building straw men....

No. It is not. I lost my sister because some idiot was playing around with his new gun. She was 6 years old. If there had been mandatory gun training, she might still be alive. THAT is not a straw man. It's my reality.

I'm sorry about your sister but you can't force people to take training to own firearms, it's a sound idea but sorry it's an infringement

How is requiring basic competency and safety an infringement?

 

[HappyJoy]

Required training isn't infringement.

If it happens quickly and free(like same day? maybe next day?), i might not have a problem with it.
Charging for it would be equivalent to a poll tax. But i also dont want some guy having the power to restrict me of my rights either..

No, that is not like a voter poll tax. Unless you want to count the price of the gun and ammo as a poll tax.

Thats exactly what it is. Paying a fee to express your rights.

Not a poll tax, sorry.

You most likely have already paid for the NICS background check whether explicitly or through the dealer padding the cost into the firearm.

If you want a fully automatic weapon you also have to pay additional fees and jump through real hoops.

There is nothing unconstitutional to require you to pay for basic firearm training.

I didnt call it a poll tax. I said it would be basically doing the same thing.

Right, you're still wrong.

I don't think the government would be performing the training so you'd have to go to a local gun range, or perhaps the NRA can train you, often these classes are free/cheap. A private business would make the profit, not the government.

This is nothing "like" a poll tax that people of color were subjected to you poor, poor victim.

 

[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.

Sorry but the only permission I need to own a firearm is in the Bill of Rights. Nothing about having to meet some stupid bureaucrat's idea of if I am worthy or not.

You have the same stance on voter ID ?

Hah! I WISH we could make 'tards like you get some education before you're allowed to vote. Simply requiring you to prove you're you is NO ONE'S idea of you being "worthy" of anything.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Is gun ownership a right? Is driving a right? You just didn't like my answer and yes it's black and white. You cannot infringe on the right to bear arms

Would you give a gun to a small child? No. You wouldn't. Isn't that an infringement on the 2nd amendment? By your reasoning it is. Also, by my reasoning, it is not an infringement to require someone to demonstrate a minimum proficiency and knowledge of gun safety before owning one. I'm not talking about a government agency determining whether you can own a gun or not. This can be done on a local basis. Like I said. Pass a gun safety course and get your gun. If you cannot pass such a test, and it's not difficult to do so, then you should not own a firearm. You call it infringement. I call it public safety. BTW, look up the FBI statistics for accidental shootings. Might change your mind. Every one of those shootings was preventable.

Now you're building straw men....

No. It is not. I lost my sister because some idiot was playing around with his new gun. She was 6 years old. If there had been mandatory gun training, she might still be alive. THAT is not a straw man. It's my reality.

I'm sorry about your sister but you can't force people to take training to own firearms, it's a sound idea but sorry it's an infringement

How is requiring basic competency and safety an infringement?

How is it not? You're trying to require something to obtain gun ownership.

 

[HappyJoy]

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.

Plus, it has the same problem that waiting periods do: what happens when the person is buying the gun because they're in serious danger RIGHT NOW?

Scared, paranoid, untrained, not a great mix for a brand spanking new gun owner.

 

[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.

 

[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.

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?

Of course not. I'm exploring the mindset behind the drive for training and licensing gun owners. Is it really to ensure that only qualified people use guns (in which case they should have more freedom around the types of firearms they can own) or is it just another step toward total bans and confiscation?

 

[RWNJ]

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.

COULD be, but the question is, do we trust gun-haters to LET it be?

If gun owners got together, set up the training, and got the government to recognize that training as valid for owning a firearm, it would work.

 

[TNHarley]

If it happens quickly and free(like same day? maybe next day?), i might not have a problem with it.
Charging for it would be equivalent to a poll tax. But i also dont want some guy having the power to restrict me of my rights either..

No, that is not like a voter poll tax. Unless you want to count the price of the gun and ammo as a poll tax.

Thats exactly what it is. Paying a fee to express your rights.

Not a poll tax, sorry.

You most likely have already paid for the NICS background check whether explicitly or through the dealer padding the cost into the firearm.

If you want a fully automatic weapon you also have to pay additional fees and jump through real hoops.

There is nothing unconstitutional to require you to pay for basic firearm training.

I didnt call it a poll tax. I said it would be basically doing the same thing.

Right, you're still wrong.

I don't think the government would be performing the training so you'd have to go to a local gun range, or perhaps the NRA can train you, often these classes are free/cheap. A private business would make the profit, not the government.

This is nothing "like" a poll tax that people of color were subjected to you poor, poor victim.

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

 

[featherlite]

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.

Sounds like a workable idea. Ive heard many people suggest this.

 

[TNHarley]

Lets mandate education before you vote.

 

[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.

Sorry but the only permission I need to own a firearm is in the Bill of Rights. Nothing about having to meet some stupid bureaucrat's idea of if I am worthy or not.

That's what makes you a gun nut. Safety of others means nothing to you

That is what makes you an asshole. The Bill of Rights means nothing to you.

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.

Sorry but the only permission I need to own a firearm is in the Bill of Rights. Nothing about having to meet some stupid bureaucrat's idea of if I am worthy or not.

That's what makes you a gun nut. Safety of others means nothing to you

That is what makes you an asshole. The Bill of Rights means nothing to you.

Would you want a gun owner, who knows nothing about gun safety, living next door?

The question isn't "Is this a problem?" The question is "Does this require government and laws to fix it?" I can promise you if there was a careless mouthbreather owning a gun anywhere near me, he would feel motivated to get some education in short order.

 

[theHawk]

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.

Sure. As long as we start having IQ tests before allowing a citizen to register to vote. The right to vote can be more dangerous than a gun, especially if we let people with dangerously low IQs to vote.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Lets mandate education before you vote.

That may not work.....

66% of Millennials Don’t Know What Auschwitz Was – But We Should Listen To Them To Shape the Future

66% of Millennials Don’t Know What Auschwitz Was – But We Should Listen To Them To Shape the Future

 

[HappyJoy]

No, that is not like a voter poll tax. Unless you want to count the price of the gun and ammo as a poll tax.

Thats exactly what it is. Paying a fee to express your rights.

Not a poll tax, sorry.

You most likely have already paid for the NICS background check whether explicitly or through the dealer padding the cost into the firearm.

If you want a fully automatic weapon you also have to pay additional fees and jump through real hoops.

There is nothing unconstitutional to require you to pay for basic firearm training.

I didnt call it a poll tax. I said it would be basically doing the same thing.

Right, you're still wrong.

I don't think the government would be performing the training so you'd have to go to a local gun range, or perhaps the NRA can train you, often these classes are free/cheap. A private business would make the profit, not the government.

This is nothing "like" a poll tax that people of color were subjected to you poor, poor victim.

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That would be an infringement

Would you consider it an infringement to require a driving test before you can operate a vehicle?

Driving isn't a right, it's a privilege

Must be nice, living in a world that is black and white. All I'm saying is that a gun owner should be able to demonstrate minimum competency with a firearm before owning one. Otherwise, they are a danger to themselves as well as others. These gun safety classes are free. It doesn't cost anything. Simply go to a local gun range, take the class, and get a certificate. How is that any kind of infringement on the 2nd amendment?

And all WE'RE saying is that we're feeling neither trusting nor concessionary on the question. Nor do we have to.