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

[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 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.

Too easy - sure you can link to some training that they support or offer - it started out as an education and training operation. Unfortunately, under the leadership of every NRA president since Heston, the face of the organization has been a political, fear-mongering machine that I choose to have no part in that I can avoid.

Notice how I have to qualify that statement with "... that I can avoid."?

The political wing NRA is so steeped in the political fortunes of the gun industry that I cannot participate in gun ownership without supporting the organization.

That's truly fucked up.

 

[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.

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

Do you need a demon to chase so badly that even solving the problem by imagination and wishful thinking wouldn't satisfy you?

You have my pity.....​

 

[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...

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?

Not the same....purposely taxing guns to the point they are completely inaccessible to normal people is exactly what anti gunners would do if given that power...... you can't turn gun makers into slaves by forcing them to provide them for free...but you also can't tax them so that they can't be purchased.

Murdoch v. Pennsylvania.....already ruled on it.

 

[AVG-JOE]

So?

In eighteen-twenty-something the SC ruled that some Americans could own other Americans..... Things change.

The trick is to be in on the conversation ​

 

[Pop23]

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'

Joe!

Respectfully, you have been given the answer to solve school shootings.

You blew it off?

Why?

You in the back pocket of the AMA lobby and big pharma?

 

[BlackSand]

So?

In eighteen-twenty-something the SC ruled that some Americans could own other Americans..... Things change.

The trick is to be in on the conversation ​

Conversations about what ... There is a 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
There is a Second Amendment to the Constitution as well.

We are not asking for something ... We already have a Constitutionally protected right to bear arms.
Would you like to have a conversation about what kind of slavery you would like to consider as being okay?

.​

 

[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'

Joe!

Respectfully, you have been given the answer to solve school shootings.

You blew it off?

Why?

You in the back pocket of the AMA lobby and big pharma?

Nope.

Just an average American gun owner.

 

[AVG-JOE]

So?

In eighteen-twenty-something the SC ruled that some Americans could own other Americans..... Things change.

The trick is to be in on the conversation ​

Conversations about what ... There is a 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
There is a Second Amendment to the Constitution as well.

We are not asking for something ... We already have a Constitutionally protected right to bear arms.
Would you like to have a conversation about what kind of slavery you would like to consider as being okay?

.​

We, The People already regulate the list of firearms that are available. You can't go to a pawn shop and buy a bazooka and there is no reason that the AR-15 can't be added to that list if enough Americans vote to make it so.

We, the People already regulate who can own guns in America. There are plenty of people, sorted both by past behavior and by class who are forced to buy their weapons without submitting to a background check via private sale. This is certainly not the root of all gun evil in America, but it does account for a measurable percentage if the problem.

There is no Constitutional reason that the "Gunshow Loophole" can't be closed and that the AR-15 can't be added to the EXISTING list o' prohibited weapons.

`​

 

[BlackSand]

We, The People already regulate the list of firearms that are available. You can't go to a pawn shop and buy a bazooka and there is no reason that the AR-15 can't be added to that list if enough Americans vote to make it so.

We, the People already regulate who can own guns in America. There are plenty of people, sorted both by past behavior and by class who are forced to buy their weapons without submitting to a background check via private sale. This is certainly not the root of all gun evil in America, but it does account for a measurable percentage if the problem.

There is no Constitutional reason that the "Gunshow Loophole" can't be closed and that the AR-15 can't be added to the EXISTING list o' prohibited weapons.

`​

Are you suggesting We should have a conversation regarding to what degree you think slavery is appropriate?

.​

 

[AVG-JOE]

No.

The reference to the 1820's is a flippant reminder that things change.

400 years ago even the white people were owned by their good, Christian king.

Things change.

The choice is to be part of the conversation that foments the change, or be an uncompromising, hard-headed conservative getting dragged in to a future of progress kicking and screaming all the way.

 

[BlackSand]

No.

The reference to the 1820's is a flippant reminder that things change.

400 years ago even the white people were owned by their good, Christian king.

Things change.

The choice is to be part of the conversation that foments the change, or be an uncompromising, hard-headed conservative.

I understand that ...But, my point is the same either way (thanks for the opportunity).

My point is I have no more desire to discuss what you think is appropriate slavery ...
As I have the desire to discuss what you think is appropriate gun control.

I am not asking you for anything (more rights nor gun control).
I have the right to bear the arms I currently own.
You have nothing I am interested in entertaining in regards to slavery nor gun control.

If you want to threaten my rights ... That's why the Founding Fathers put the Second Amendment in the Constitution.
I was just asking why you somehow think your desires to negotiate gun control would be any different than someone else's desire to negotiate slavery?

.​

 

[Kondor3]

...What's coming ...

Why, nationwide standards for vetting, licensing, registration, transaction approvals, mandatory training, etc... sensible Gun Control... of course.

...What are you going to do?...

Continue to advocate for sensible Gun Control on the national level, alongside growing legions of my fellow Americans.

...If you want pools of unnecessary blood ... You are free to keep demanding it...

Pools of whose blood? Who is demanding blood? Are you paranoid?

...Your vote won't stop a bullet ... .

Correct... however, my vote will elect legislators who cannot be bought by the NRA and who are dedicated to sensible Gun Control on the national level.

You, on the other hand, will continue to obey the laws of the United States... both as they exist at present, and in the future.

Guaranteed.

 

[Kondor3]

...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.

It's not ME letting them out of jail... it's Liberals... and I'm not one of them.

For all I care, you can draw and quarter the little wankers and put their heads on pikes in the town square.

But that does not impact upon the need for sensible gun control at the national level, which is going to happen in the not-too-distant future.

 

[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.

So you have links to the blind being negligent or even wanting to buy guns?

Let’s see em.

Just a solution looking for a problem.....

But desperately wants an audience

I didn't propose any solution. I just pointed out that arguing there is nothing dangerous about the blind having guns is funny.

 

[BlackSand]

...
Correct... however, my vote will elect legislators who cannot be bought by the NRA and who are dedicated to sensible Gun Control on the national level.

You, on the other hand, will continue to obey the laws of the United States... both as they exist at present, and in the future.

Guaranteed.

I will do whatever I choose to do at the moment ... But fully understand why you do as you are told, slave.

Well it is obvious you have more use for politicians than I do.
I bet you think they can guarantee you a lot of things ...
Especially looking at their stunning success in managing the debt, fixing infrastructure, handling drug abuse, stomping out poverty and fixing healthcare.

No wonder you trust them ...

.

 

[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.

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.

I certainly never indicated that blindness is in anyway related to mental instability or lack of trustworthiness. It does, however, make the safe and accurate use of a firearm more difficult.

 

[Pop23]

So?

In eighteen-twenty-something the SC ruled that some Americans could own other Americans..... Things change.

The trick is to be in on the conversation ​

Conversations about what ... There is a 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
There is a Second Amendment to the Constitution as well.

We are not asking for something ... We already have a Constitutionally protected right to bear arms.
Would you like to have a conversation about what kind of slavery you would like to consider as being okay?

.​

We, The People already regulate the list of firearms that are available. You can't go to a pawn shop and buy a bazooka and there is no reason that the AR-15 can't be added to that list if enough Americans vote to make it so.

We, the People already regulate who can own guns in America. There are plenty of people, sorted both by past behavior and by class who are forced to buy their weapons without submitting to a background check via private sale. This is certainly not the root of all gun evil in America, but it does account for a measurable percentage if the problem.

There is no Constitutional reason that the "Gunshow Loophole" can't be closed and that the AR-15 can't be added to the EXISTING list o' prohibited weapons.

`​

Joe, what problem does your suggestion solve?

You think criminals will abide by the ban or regulation?

Highly doubtful

You think the ban or regulation will stop suicide.

Very suspect.

I’ve just listed over 99% of all gun related deaths.

So what is this problem that I am supposed to solve by allowing more bans and regulations?

Joe?

What is it?

 

[Pop23]

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.

I certainly never indicated that blindness is in anyway related to mental instability or lack of trustworthiness. It does, however, make the safe and accurate use of a firearm more difficult.

OK. Post a link to this wildly large number of the blind that either want or have guns.

Another solution in search of a problem?

And quit using the disabled as pawns in a purely political issue.

It’s simply bad theater.

 

[Pop23]

...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.

It's not ME letting them out of jail... it's Liberals... and I'm not one of them.

For all I care, you can draw and quarter the little wankers and put their heads on pikes in the town square.

But that does not impact upon the need for sensible gun control at the national level, which is going to happen in the not-too-distant future.

And you have not yet identified what sensible gun control accomplishes?

Please start at some point!

 

[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.

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.

I certainly never indicated that blindness is in anyway related to mental instability or lack of trustworthiness. It does, however, make the safe and accurate use of a firearm more difficult.

OK. Post a link to this wildly large number of the blind that either want or have guns.

Another solution in search of a problem?

And quit using the disabled as pawns in a purely political issue.

It’s simply bad theater.

Again, since you apparently did not read my l last reply, I have not proposed any solution. Nor have I stated that blind people have or want guns in large numbers. That is your strawman.

I'm not using anyone as a pawn.

Bad theater is trying to conflate all disabilities with blindness.