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

[Cecilie1200]

I have to say, this argument which seems to say that there is nothing wrong or dangerous about blind people with guns is hilarious.

I don't consider blind people to automatically be any less intelligent and sane than other people. Do I understand why someone with a vision impairment wants to own a gun? No, but the Constitution doesn't require that I understand or approve, and I don't consider visual impairment to be an automatic sign of being mentally unhinged and untrustworthy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"Oh, hey, don't anyone forget the Big Lie I'm peddling in every single post! I sure wouldn't want anyone to think I ever notice the 61,000 times it's been shown to be an enormous pile of bullshit! BIG LIE, folks! Right here! Please, please, please believe it!"

Is there anything you can possibly do to label yourself MORE of a lying, meaningless sack of dog shit? Oh, wait, you could change your name to Kondor!

You are very funny - Thanks!

"You're very funny" = "I don't want to admit you tore me a new one".

One more time, you try to turn "Trump wants crazy people to have guns!" into a meme, and once more I point out that YOU want getting Social Security to be a sign of mental illness. All Trump did was defend the right to due process of Social Security recipients.

You want to keep guns out of the hands of the violently mentally ill? Fine. But get off your lazy ass and actually do the work, instead of trying to pawn it off onto some broad-brush, identity-politics scam that screws innocent people out of their rights.

You don't get to point fingers and pass judgement on this, Chuckles, because it's LEFTISTS who are guilty and should be ashamed of themselves.

All Trump did was defend the right to due process of Social Security recipients.


obviously leftist do not care about rights nor due process

Nor are they capable of feeling shame. That requires morals and a conscience.

 

[Pop23]

The problem, of course, is firearms falling into the wrong hands, or remaining in the wrong hands, once eligibility changes.

The problem is multi-faceted and also includes a lack of responsibility and accountability and transparency with respect to ownership.

The problem also presents as inconsistent existing regulation and enforcement that only nationwide standards can hope to remediate.

The problem is broad and profound and requires a new and consolidated approach, given the diversity of jurisdictions involved to date.

Now that I've played Captain Obvious for you, you may proceed to persuade America that these are not problems that require attention.

You will find yourself playing to a rapidly shrinking audience.

We don't need to persuade anyone to do anything.
We aren't asking you for anything we don't already have.

All you have is a list of things you want ... You are the only one in this negotiation that needs to persuade someone to do something ... Go Pound Sand ...

.

It's coming.

Delude yourselves all you like.

The very next time the Dems have control of the House, Senate, Oval Office and SCOTUS simultaneously.

Too many dead school-kids lying in pools of blood from gun violence already... and there will be more to fuel that fire before it's over.

See you at the voting booth.

They know better.

Dems are all talk no do

Without school shootings, they’d have nothing, so expect them to continue

 

[Pop23]

...So you advocate for full gun bans...

Nope.

Nothing of what I wrote there or elsewhere even remotely smacks of such a thing.

I advocate for national standards, mechanisms and enforcement, related to vetting, licensing, registration, training, transaction approvals, etc.

Big difference.

...Got it, come get mine.

If you are someone who is not supposed to have them, then... OK... Can-Do.

None of what you want stops any deaths.

Proof you advocate solutions to non existent problems.

Making you a nut job

 

[AVG-JOE]

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?

This is a good question.

I think that voluntary training is the training that sticks best, and that it's the background check that We, The Peeps should invest in most heavily.



And if the National Rifle Association was more concerned about gun education, and not dedicated to politics and protecting corporate profits, I might consider membership.

`​

 

[AVG-JOE]

They know better.

Dems are all talk no do

Without school shootings, they’d have nothing, so expect them to continue

Without school shootings, the discussion would be over, Pop.

 

[Pop23]

They know better.

Dems are all talk no do

Without school shootings, they’d have nothing, so expect them to continue

Without school shootings, the discussion would be over, Pop.

Nah, there are solutions, take the little mushheads off of antidepressants and it ends. They all have been on them, but duh, nobody wants those banned.

Who wants to jail their own pusher?

 

[BlackSand]

.

This is a good question.

I think that voluntary training is the training that sticks best, and that it's the background check that We, The Peeps should invest in most heavily.



And if the National Rifle Association was more concerned about gun education than they are about politics and protecting corporate profits, I might consider membership.

`​

There is good training available on the voluntary level.
You can also choose training that suits your desires to carry and tactical response.

Most untrained gun slingers would be surprised at what they don't know about basic tactical response.
Simple stuff ... Like the processes and procedures you need to exercise.
Calculations you make between identifying a threat and deciding whether or not to draw your firearm or evade.

.

 

[2aguy]

...AND, through all this^^^^^^^^^^

You are still seeking a problem for your solution. Let that sink in.

Oh, I hear you saying that there is no problem.

YOUR problem is that you can no longer sell that idea to vast and growing numbers of Americans who have come to realize the wrongness of that response.

Then you would have a response to the question: What is the problem that you have a solution for?

Damn, you are getting boring.

Thank you for your feedback.

You are welcome.

Now, do you have a problem that your solution cures?

We await your answer

The problem, of course, is firearms falling into the wrong hands, or remaining in the wrong hands, once eligibility changes.

The problem is multi-faceted and also includes a lack of responsibility and accountability and transparency with respect to ownership.

The problem also presents as inconsistent existing regulation and enforcement that only nationwide standards can hope to remediate.

The problem is broad and profound and requires a new and consolidated approach, given the diversity of jurisdictions involved to date.

Now that I've played Captain Obvious for you, you may proceed to persuade America that these are not problems that require attention.

You will find yourself playing to a rapidly shrinking audience.

Wrong....and wrong again..... we catch criminals with guns easily. The problem isn't punishing law abiding gun owners who have their guns stolen, the problem is that people like you keep letting violent gun felons out of jail over and over again. We don't need a national standard for that, we just need to keep violent gun felons in jail for longer than 2 years, and we need to get rid of bail for gun offenses.....

You can try to regulate guns all fucking day long....the problem is the criminals people like you keep letting out of jail.

 

[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?

This is a good question.

I think that voluntary training is the training that sticks best, and that it's the background check that We, The Peeps should invest in most heavily.



And if the National Rifle Association was more concerned about gun education than they are about politics and protecting corporate profits, I might consider membership.

`​

"More concerned about gun education".

NRA Explore | Student Courses

NRA Explore | Firearms Training

NRA Training

NRA Explore | Eddie Eagle

Maybe you should consider some NRA education before pontificating about what the NRA should and shouldn't do.

 

[Cecilie1200]

They know better.

Dems are all talk no do

Without school shootings, they’d have nothing, so expect them to continue

Without school shootings, the discussion would be over, Pop.

Which is exactly the point: without mass shootings, the left would have nothing to gin up a gun-grabbing conversation about.

 

[2aguy]

The problem, of course, is firearms falling into the wrong hands, or remaining in the wrong hands, once eligibility changes.

The problem is multi-faceted and also includes a lack of responsibility and accountability and transparency with respect to ownership.

The problem also presents as inconsistent existing regulation and enforcement that only nationwide standards can hope to remediate.

The problem is broad and profound and requires a new and consolidated approach, given the diversity of jurisdictions involved to date.

Now that I've played Captain Obvious for you, you may proceed to persuade America that these are not problems that require attention.

You will find yourself playing to a rapidly shrinking audience.

We don't need to persuade anyone to do anything.
We aren't asking you for anything we don't already have.

All you have is a list of things you want ... You are the only one in this negotiation that needs to persuade someone to do something ... Go Pound Sand ...

.

It's coming.

Delude yourselves all you like.

The very next time the Dems have control of the House, Senate, Oval Office and SCOTUS simultaneously.

Too many dead school-kids lying in pools of blood from gun violence already... and there will be more to fuel that fire before it's over.

See you at the voting booth.

It may be coming but it has nothing to do with dead kids, since school shootings are declining, not going up....and the facts, truth and reality don't support anything you want......

Naked power to take guns is all you have.....and as Women and blacks are the biggest growth area in the gun industry, you better grab those guns fast, before reality reveals your lies....

 

[2aguy]

They know better.

Dems are all talk no do

Without school shootings, they’d have nothing, so expect them to continue

Without school shootings, the discussion would be over, Pop.

Which is exactly the point: without mass shootings, the left would have nothing to gin up a gun-grabbing conversation about.

Correction...without dead kids the left would have nothing to gin up gun grabbing, which is why they don't want armed guards in schools...that would stop school shooters, and deplete them of their best tool for grabbing guns...dead kids.... they could barely get any motion to grab bumpstocks after Vegas...... but when they were able to drag dead kids in front of cameras..... then they have power.... and they know it...so there will be no stopping school shootings...that defeats the purpose...

 

[AVG-JOE]

.

This is a good question.

I think that voluntary training is the training that sticks best, and that it's the background check that We, The Peeps should invest in most heavily.



And if the National Rifle Association was more concerned about gun education than they are about politics and protecting corporate profits, I might consider membership.

`​

There is good training available on the voluntary level.
You can also choose training that suits your desires to carry and tactical response.

Most untrained gun slingers would be surprised at what they don't know about basic tactical response.
Simple stuff ... Like the processes and procedures you need to exercise.
Calculations you make between identifying a threat and deciding whether or not to draw your firearm or evade.

.

I totally agree. And I've really enjoyed the classes and seminars I've done. I truly believe that taking the concealed carry classes I've taken will be the reason I stay out of prison if I ever have to defend myself with lethal force.

Education is the key to everything.

But the post I quoted brings up a 2 good questions....

How much value can we truly place on mandatory training being used as a criteria for buying a gun?
and
How can we Constitutionally require such training, and not require the state to pay for all who want to do the steps We decide to require of prospective gun owners?

`​

​

 

[2aguy]

.

This is a good question.

I think that voluntary training is the training that sticks best, and that it's the background check that We, The Peeps should invest in most heavily.



And if the National Rifle Association was more concerned about gun education than they are about politics and protecting corporate profits, I might consider membership.

`​

There is good training available on the voluntary level.
You can also choose training that suits your desires to carry and tactical response.

Most untrained gun slingers would be surprised at what they don't know about basic tactical response.
Simple stuff ... Like the processes and procedures you need to exercise.
Calculations you make between identifying a threat and deciding whether or not to draw your firearm or evade.

.

I totally agree. And I've really enjoyed the classes and seminars I've done. I truly believe that taking the concealed carry classes I've taken will be the reason I stay out of prison if I ever have to defend myself with lethal force.

Education is the key to everything.

But the post I quoted brings up a 2 good questions....

How much value can we truly place on mandatory training being used as a criteria for buying a gun?
and
How can we Constitutionally require such training, and not require the state to pay for all who want to do the steps We decide to require of prospective gun owners?

`​

​

You can't. Owning and carrying a gun is a Right. Murdoch v. Pennsylvania states that you can't charge a fee for the exercise of a Right, and the 14th Amendment prevents Poll Taxes and Literacy tests.... which means that any test or bar created by the state through a testing process....which would have to be a part of any class, right? Would be UnConstitutional as well...

 

[AVG-JOE]

I've heard one potential solution floated in requiring all gun owners to carry liability insurance that would pay out if a gun registered to you is ever involved in a non-self defense killing.

My first thought is that such a regulation would limit gun ownership to those of us with enough disposable income to cover both bullets and insurance.

I suppose We could tax the FUCK out of ammo and create a fund for the widows, orphans and grieving parents of gun violence, but it seems so harsh to make all of us pay for the poor decision making of a few......
​

Trust me.... gun ownership which includes a reasonable budget for practice ammo is not a cheap hobby. I can't imagine buying what I thought I could afford for self defense and 7 hollow-point bullets to store in handy drawer, all the while hoping never to fire it.


I like shootin'

 

[Montrovant]

I have to say, this argument which seems to say that there is nothing wrong or dangerous about blind people with guns is hilarious.

Besides defend themselves and exercise their Constitutionally protected rights ...
What else are handicapped people not allowed to do in your world?

.

You can try to conflate all disabilities if you want to, but it is disingenuous at best.

I didn't say the blind don't have a right to bear arms (although it seems that at least some states don't allow the blind to own guns, I don't know if the Supreme Court has ever ruled about it), I said the argument that there is nothing wrong or dangerous about the blind having guns is hilarious. It is.

Can a blind person be a responsible gun owner? Of course.

 

[BlackSand]

.

...

But the post I quoted brings up a 2 good questions....

How much value can we truly place on mandatory training being used as a criteria for buying a gun?
and
How can we Constitutionally require such training, and not require the state to pay for all who want to do the steps We decide to require of prospective gun owners?

.​

The "value" thing in mandatory training is questionable.
Hunters' Safety courses are mandatory here to get a hunting license.
The courses are qualified training by qualified instructors ... But that doesn't mean someone that passes the class is always going to exercise good judgment.
I still don't see where it damages anything to require someone to take the Hunters' Safety course.

.​

The "Constitutional" question is easier for me.
It is Unconstitutional to prohibit or inhibit one's ability to freely exercise a Constitutionally protected right.
That includes taxes, fees and mandatory requirements.

SCOTUS has ruled several times ... But one of the most recent is Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner, 460 U.S. 575 (1983).

For instance, and as in regards to the issue ... It was found Unconstitutional to tax a particular ink used in news print (paper).
The tax was levied to intentionally inhibit the free exercise of a Constitutionally protected right.

.​

 

[AVG-JOE]

.

This is a good question.

I think that voluntary training is the training that sticks best, and that it's the background check that We, The Peeps should invest in most heavily.



And if the National Rifle Association was more concerned about gun education than they are about politics and protecting corporate profits, I might consider membership.

`​

There is good training available on the voluntary level.
You can also choose training that suits your desires to carry and tactical response.

Most untrained gun slingers would be surprised at what they don't know about basic tactical response.
Simple stuff ... Like the processes and procedures you need to exercise.
Calculations you make between identifying a threat and deciding whether or not to draw your firearm or evade.

.

I totally agree. And I've really enjoyed the classes and seminars I've done. I truly believe that taking the concealed carry classes I've taken will be the reason I stay out of prison if I ever have to defend myself with lethal force.

Education is the key to everything.

But the post I quoted brings up a 2 good questions....

How much value can we truly place on mandatory training being used as a criteria for buying a gun?
and
How can we Constitutionally require such training, and not require the state to pay for all who want to do the steps We decide to require of prospective gun owners?

`​

​

You can't. Owning and carrying a gun is a Right. Murdoch v. Pennsylvania states that you can't charge a fee for the exercise of a Right, and the 14th Amendment prevents Poll Taxes and Literacy tests.... which means that any test or bar created by the state through a testing process....which would have to be a part of any class, right? Would be UnConstitutional as well...

Guns are already available only to select economic classes and above...... corporate gun industry profits see to that. Hell, even the NRA doesn't promote putting guns in the hands of people who can't afford them.

We have to pay for the gun, the bullets, range time, targets, gun oil and cleaning supplies, the NRA approved class required by the state to apply for a concealed carry permit, the fucking fee for the CC permit (seriously... not a cheap photo to obtain).....

We, the People already restrict what weapons are available legally and who can qualify for gun ownership... the next two elections decide how that fact changes going forward.


Exciting times, eh?

 

[BlackSand]

...

We have to pay for the gun, the bullets, range time, targets, gun oil and cleaning supplies, the NRA approved class required by the state to apply for a concealed carry permit, the fucking fee for the CC permit (seriously... not a cheap photo to obtain).....
Exciting times, eh?

In the state where I live ... Honorably Discharged Veterans can get a 1 year, 5 year or lifetime CAC permit free of charge ...

.​