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

[HappyJoy]

Lets mandate education before you vote.

Let me know when the right to vote every killed anyone.

 

[Flash]

There are no qualifications in the Constitution to the individual right to keep and bear arms.

It says so right in the Bill of Rights. It says that because it is necessary for the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Stupid Moon Bats have a hard time understanding what the words "shall not be infringed" means. They think it means that the right can be infringed, the stupid shithheads.

If you have tests and background checks administered by the filthy ass corrupt government before you get a right then it is really not a right, is it?

You left out the “well regulated milita” part. Righties do that a lot . The 2nd is not that long.

Sorry dumbshit but the phrase was very well put to rest in the Heller case but you were too stupid to understand it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

All our rights have reasonable limits .

We have yet to hear any of you suggest something "reasonable". In fact, we have yet to hear any of you BE reasonable, so again, we're not feeling particularly in the mood to concede anything whatsoever or trust you as far as we can spit into a windstorm.

 

[Pop23]

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.

1. You can own a gun, as long as you have training

2. You can vote as long as you have the funds to pay a tax

3. You can marry as long as you marry members of the opposite sex

Hmmmmmmmm

 

[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?

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.

You're still having a problem with the gap between "This is a good idea" and "therefore, the goverment must rush in, take over, and force it to happen".

 

[Flash]

There are no qualifications in the Constitution to the individual right to keep and bear arms.

It says so right in the Bill of Rights. It says that because it is necessary for the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Stupid Moon Bats have a hard time understanding what the words "shall not be infringed" means. They think it means that the right can be infringed, the stupid shithheads.

If you have tests and background checks administered by the filthy ass corrupt government before you get a right then it is really not a right, is it?

By your own reasoning, A blind person should be allowed to get a drivers license. Would you want a blind person to own a gun?

Show me in the Bill of Rights where it says the government cannot infringe upon your right to drive a car.

I can show in the Bill of Rights where it says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infirnged.

Do you understand the difference? Probably not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

free speech and assembly are rights .

Is it ok to protest by blocking the highway ?

Does that Amendment contain the phrase "shall not be infringed"?

 

[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.

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?

No one is more pro gun than I am. I've been shooting since I was 13 years old. almost 40 years now. All I want is a way to ensure that gun owners know about gun safety and can hit what they shoot at. And it's not the government that would make that determination. It would be a class given by local gun clubs and shooting ranges that would be valid in all 50 states. If you complete the free class, you get your gun. It's that simple. And think about this. If someone cannot take a few hours to learn how to safely use a deadly weapon, do they really deserve to have one?

 

[Camp]

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.

Actually, it can be argued that the 2nd specifically refers to members of the militia being armed. "People" can also be interpreted as the people as a whole being allowed to maintain a militia to represent and serve them.

 

[Pop23]

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

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 frankly doubt that gun training would have made him any less of a dumbass.

 

[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.

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?

If they were really concerned about their safety, they should already own a firearm.

 

[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.

1. You can own a gun, as long as you have training

2. You can vote as long as you have the funds to pay a tax

3. You can marry as long as you marry members of the opposite sex

Hmmmmmmmm

You can drive a car as long as you are licensed and insured?

Poll taxes are unconstitutional, believe it or not your third point is well...pointless since very few people care who you marry.

Has nothing to do with require firearms training to buy a gun which considering gun control laws in the past or currently in the books wouldn't appear to be unconstitutional at all.

 

[Pop23]

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.

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

 

[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 frankly doubt that gun training would have made him any less of a dumbass.

I frankly doubt that gun training would have made him any MORE of a dumbass.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

I think it might work better if you required training WITH purchase, but not BEFORE purchase. "You don't get to exercise your rights until you do what I want" is never going to be a good selling point.

 

[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?

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

Beats "scared, unarmed, helpless, and dead". Nearly anything does.

 

[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?

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.

I think you're a pie-eyed optimist if you really think gun-haters would go with that and leave it be.

 

[Flash]

There are no qualifications in the Constitution to the individual right to keep and bear arms.

It says so right in the Bill of Rights. It says that because it is necessary for the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Stupid Moon Bats have a hard time understanding what the words "shall not be infringed" means. They think it means that the right can be infringed, the stupid shithheads.

If you have tests and background checks administered by the filthy ass corrupt government before you get a right then it is really not a right, is it?

By your own reasoning, A blind person should be allowed to get a drivers license. Would you want a blind person to own a gun?

I am a NRA Certified Firearms Instructor and a NRA Certified Range Officer. I am also a life member of the largest gun safety organization the world.

I know more about gun safety than ten thousand of you stupid Moon Bats. Maybe a hundred thousand.

I am not afraid of my neighbor exercising his or her right to jeep and bear arms.

What I am afraid of are the inner city druggies, gang banger. illegals and thugs where most of the gun crimes in this country takes place.

All the laws that you stupid Moon Bats can come with will not change the violence among the inner city demographics that commit most of the crimes.

Making me take some stupid test or passing a stupid worthless background check is not only in violation of the Bill of Rights but will never result in a crime not being committed because I, like most law abiding Americans, don't commit crimes. The crimes are committed by the assholes that would never adhere to the gun laws.

The last thing we need in this country are corrupt politicians having test to determine of we are eligible for the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, isn't it?.

I know that is hard for your Moon Bat to understand because the demographics committing the crimes are the same assholes that elected the filthy Democrats that pass the stupid worthless gun laws.

 

[Pop23]

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.

1. You can own a gun, as long as you have training

2. You can vote as long as you have the funds to pay a tax

3. You can marry as long as you marry members of the opposite sex

Hmmmmmmmm

You can drive a car as long as you are licensed and insured?

Poll taxes are unconstitutional, believe it or not your third point is well...pointless since very few people care who you marry.

Has nothing to do with require firearms training to buy a gun which considering gun control laws in the past or currently in the books wouldn't appear to be unconstitutional at all.

I drive two regularly, neither are insured and my license is not required. Are you really that stupid you can’t read my post?

Poll taxes are known as a hindering a right. There must be, according to the Supreme Court NO HINDERING ACCESS TO A RIGHT

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

It's true. Most of my co-workers are quite a bit younger than I am, and not a damned one of them knows anything about ANYTHING taking place before 1990. And they're not dumb, uneducated people. They just don't seem to realize that history extends past their own births.