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

[2aguy]

The notion you stop school shootings by banning bump sticks or AR style rifles is absurd. That’s been demonstrated. It is the use of SSRI medication on our youth that causes these. That’s been demonstrated.

Unless you ban ALL guns, which is the ultimate goal, you’re just pissing in the wind.

Watch the ball Pop ... The second most widely used firearm in school shootings is the semi-automatic handgun.
If they ban the AR-15 to stop school shootings ... The semi-automatic handgun would be next in line.

Not interested in letting them continue any further ... It's not about the crazy people shooting up schools ... It's about the firearms.

Now ... They may either lie to you and say it isn't ... Or be naïve enough to think that's not what they are asking for ...
In either case ... I am not interested in their nefarious attempt to further limit my freedoms.
If they want to discuss it ... They better arm themselves.

.​

They screamed it at the CNN Town hall, they want all semi automatic weapons.....they marched to that demand at the D.C. rallies...... they are enacting it in small towns across the country....

There is no hiding it anymore, they can't lie anymore.... if you have any gun owners who want to keep their guns, they better not vote for democrats.....at any level.

Any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment....they have told us this plain as day......

Any protest vote while Trump is in office that helps elect a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.....like him or not, he is the only one who can nominate justices, and we need at least 3 to save the Court.....ginsburg, kennedy, and likely Thomas will have to be replaced in the next 8 years...if a democrat does it....the 2nd Amendment is gone.

 

[Amaranth]

No, it is your right.

 

[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.

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.

I'm sure it does. But that is no more a concern for society at large than it would be with any other owner, because we are ALWAYS relying on the gun owner to be a rational, sane adult, and there's no reason to believe that blind people are less reliable in that regard than sighted people are. To say, "We need to regulate blind people owning guns!" is to say, "Because they can't be trusted not to fire off guns willy-nilly!"

 

[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.

I'm sure it does. But that is no more a concern for society at large than it would be with any other owner, because we are ALWAYS relying on the gun owner to be a rational, sane adult, and there's no reason to believe that blind people are less reliable in that regard than sighted people are. To say, "We need to regulate blind people owning guns!" is to say, "Because they can't be trusted not to fire off guns willy-nilly!"

Yeah, lets take a defensive tool away from our most defenseless. Lets see how well that will work out:

Study: Disabled more likely to be victims of violent crime - CNN.com

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- People with disabilities are 50 percent more likely to be victims of violent crimes than are people without disabilities, according to a government study released Thursday.


A study suggests the disabled are more likely to be victims of violent crime than those without disabilities.

The first national study of its kind found that a wide range of disabled people -- including blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, and others with physical and mental limitations -- were victims of assaults, rapes and robberies in 716,000 cases in 2007.

The study by the U.S. Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics said instances of violence against disabled people occurred overall 1½ times the rate of those without disabilities, but the numbers varied by age group.

The most vulnerable groups were disabled people ages 12 to 19 and 35 to 49, for whom victimization occurred at nearly twice the rate of non-disabled persons.

 

[BlackSand]

Any protest vote while Trump is in office that helps elect a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.....like him or not, he is the only one who can nominate justices, and we need at least 3 to save the Court.....ginsburg, kennedy, and likely Thomas will have to be replaced in the next 8 years...if a democrat does it....the 2nd Amendment is gone.

Once Justice Thomas is gone ... There is little hope for a more Conservative stance.
I have not been very impressed with any of the newer arrivals to the Court ... But I likewise don't expect to get anything better either.

.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Of all the shootings that really make an impact in the news, the AR-15 or something similar has played a starring role.

Of all the shootings that really make an impact in the news, crazy sons o' bitches make up the supporting cast.

As a gun owner and tax paying voter, I am so willing to give up my access to weapons purposed solely for the military, as well as, both submit to and pay for, extensive background checks, if doing so will reduce the number of shootings that really make an impact on the news. Because every shooting that really makes an impact on the news give fuel to the whackos who want to regulate guns way beyond removing military purposed weapons and heavy background checks.

Shame The Devil and tell the truth, the assault weapons ban imposed in the 90's had a positive impact on the issue fomenting this discussion.

`​

Check out the bolded parts. Duh, dude. Think there MIGHT be some sort of connection there? Is the media making a big splash about those cases because they're somehow worse and more egregious than other stories, or is it because they will give fuel to gun-grabbers and their agenda? Do you need a diagram drawn for you?

As a gun owner and tax-paying voter, I would like to draw your attention to this phrase you used: "if doing so will reduce the number of shootings that really make an impact on the news". Nothing the gun-grabbers promote, such as the "extensive background checks" and "military-style weapon bans" you mention, will do a damned thing to reduce the number of shootings, nor will it reduce the number of shootings THE MEDIA SCREAMS ABOUT, because they aren't intended to do anything like that. They're intended to draw attention away from anything that would actually reduce the number of shootings, so that people who don't know much about the issue will be panicked and stampeded into allowing a comprehensive ban. Nothing more, nothing less.

Which is why the answer is an unequivocal "Hell, no!"

And no, the "assault weapons ban" of the 90s didn't do a damned thing, for the problems OR for "the issue".

 

[AVG-JOE]

Absolutely. Slavery is wrong and shouldn't exist while gun regulations are necessary and already exist.

...

So are you saying that if slavery already existed ... It would be appropriate to discuss what kind of slavery is acceptable to allow?

You said slavery is wrong and shouldn't exist ... Yet I didn't ask you if you thought it was wrong nor whether or not it should exist.
I asked you if you were interested in discussing what someone else may think is reasonable or acceptable slavery.

The point I am making is that it is no more acceptable to discuss how you like to limit my rights.
I don't care if you have done it before ... I don't care if you think it is a good idea now.

I am not going to pretend the Second nor the 14th Amendment exist as a bargaining tool for your personal desires.

.​

It's nothing to do with me... it's American culture and society that's changing. I'm just reasonable and flexible enough to go with the flow while I plead the case for keeping weapons not originally purposed for the military in the hands of the general public, effective background checks notwithstanding.

150 years ago gun laws were as different from gun laws today as the gun laws of today will be from the gun laws of 150 years from now.

You can dig your heels in and pray that nothing changes while progress grinds forward while not giving a fuck or you can join the conversation.
​

Things change. They always have and they always will. No amount of conservative fear mongering and bitching has ever changed the grind of progress and I don't expect that to change, because... well, you know - things change.



Huh.

There is one thing that stays the same..... From the Tories and Loyalists of the American Revolution through the desperate failed effort to cling to slavery and on to Nixon and Trump, conservatives tend to find themselves on the losing side of history.

​

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I plead the case for keeping weapons not originally purposed for the military in the hands of the general public,

That would be the AR15, one of only a handful of firearms not used in war or proposed for military use.

Please, list all guns that were not proposed for military use. The list is quite short, which makes you ignorant or a full-blown communist gun grabber.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Of all the shootings that really make an impact in the news, the AR-15 or something similar has played a starring role.

...

Of all the roofing tools ... The nail gun has become more prevalent.
Probably because it works ... And if you ban the nail gun ... They will go back to using an Estwing.

.​

Apples and oranges, Babe...


According to that logic you are protesting the fact that we can't go to our local weapons emporium and procure surface-to-air missiles and battlefield nukes.

Some products are too dangerous to sell willy-nilly to the general public, even if they are effective tools in the hands of trained professionals.

`​

 

[2aguy]

Absolutely. Slavery is wrong and shouldn't exist while gun regulations are necessary and already exist.

...

So are you saying that if slavery already existed ... It would be appropriate to discuss what kind of slavery is acceptable to allow?

You said slavery is wrong and shouldn't exist ... Yet I didn't ask you if you thought it was wrong nor whether or not it should exist.
I asked you if you were interested in discussing what someone else may think is reasonable or acceptable slavery.

The point I am making is that it is no more acceptable to discuss how you like to limit my rights.
I don't care if you have done it before ... I don't care if you think it is a good idea now.

I am not going to pretend the Second nor the 14th Amendment exist as a bargaining tool for your personal desires.

.​

It's nothing to do with me... it's American culture and society that's changing. I'm just reasonable and flexible enough to go with the flow while I plead the case for keeping weapons not originally purposed for the military in the hands of the general public, effective background checks notwithstanding.

150 years ago gun laws were as different from gun laws today as the gun laws of today will be from the gun laws of 150 years from now.

You can dig your heels in and pray that nothing changes while progress grinds forward while not giving a fuck or you can join the conversation.
​

Things change. They always have and they always will. No amount of conservative fear mongering and bitching has ever changed the grind of progress and I don't expect that to change, because... well, you know - things change.



Huh.

There is one thing that stays the same..... From the Tories and Loyalists of the American Revolution through the desperate failed effort to cling to slavery and on to Nixon and Trump, conservatives tend to find themselves on the losing side of history.

​

Republicans freed the slaves, you doofus......it was the democrats who owned the slaves and the democrats who supported gun control to keep Blacks from having guns....just like now......

Funny how the democrats have actually been the ones on the wrong side of history, every single time....

The democrats supported slavery and gun control back then, and they support slavery and gun control now....

 

[Cecilie1200]

Absolutely. Slavery is wrong and shouldn't exist while gun regulations are necessary and already exist.

...

So are you saying that if slavery already existed ... It would be appropriate to discuss what kind of slavery is acceptable to allow?

You said slavery is wrong and shouldn't exist ... Yet I didn't ask you if you thought it was wrong nor whether or not it should exist.
I asked you if you were interested in discussing what someone else may think is reasonable or acceptable slavery.

The point I am making is that it is no more acceptable to discuss how you like to limit my rights.
I don't care if you have done it before ... I don't care if you think it is a good idea now.

I am not going to pretend the Second nor the 14th Amendment exist as a bargaining tool for your personal desires.

.​

It's nothing to do with me... it's American culture and society that's changing. I'm just reasonable and flexible enough to go with the flow while I plead the case for keeping weapons not originally purposed for the military in the hands of the general public, effective background checks notwithstanding.

150 years ago gun laws were as different from gun laws today as the gun laws of today will be from the gun laws of 150 years from now.

You can dig your heels in and pray that nothing changes while progress grinds forward while not giving a fuck or you can join the conversation.
​

Things change. They always have and they always will. No amount of conservative fear mongering and bitching has ever changed the grind of progress and I don't expect that to change, because... well, you know - things change.



Huh.

There is one thing that stays the same..... From the Tories and Loyalists of the American Revolution through the desperate failed effort to cling to slavery and on to Nixon and Trump, conservatives tend to find themselves on the losing side of history.

​

I assume, given your post, that you're defining conservative as "anything I think was bad", since you're certainly not referring to actual history.

 

[2aguy]

Of all the shootings that really make an impact in the news, the AR-15 or something similar has played a starring role.

...

Of all the roofing tools ... The nail gun has become more prevalent.
Probably because it works ... And if you ban the nail gun ... They will go back to using an Estwing.

.​

Apples and oranges, Babe...


According to that logic you are protesting the fact that we can't go to our local weapons emporium and procure surface-to-air missiles and battlefield nukes.

Some products are too dangerous to sell willy-nilly to the general public, even if they are effective tools in the hands of trained professionals.

`​

Wrong...you really need to read D.C. v Heller.....it explains how wrong you are and it also explains and defines "Arms." Surface to air missles are not Bearable arms and neither are battlefield nukes, you doofus.

There are over 8 million AR-15 civilian rifles in private hands, you doofus, and they are owned every single day and are used responsibly for self defense, sport, hunting and collecting, every single day.....they are the most common rifles in America, and so are protected specifically by the 2nd Amendment.....

 

[AVG-JOE]

I plead the case for keeping weapons not originally purposed for the military in the hands of the general public,

That would be the AR15, one of only a handful of firearms not used in war or proposed for military use.

Please, list all guns that were not proposed for military use. The list is quite short, which makes you ignorant or a full-blown communist gun grabber.

Nah... it makes me a realist.

There is a difference between weapons used and preferred by professional soldiers and weapons purposed for military use.

Surface-to-air missiles are weapons purposed for military use. Does the fact that some assholes have used them to bring down civilian aircraft make them non military? I don't think so...

Weapons are designed for sport, hunting, competition target, military etc. We already have a list of prohibited weapons... adding offensive weapons like the AR-15 which are designed to inflict maximum damage in minimum time just makes sense, especially with the track record such weapons have in shootings that have a lasting impact in the news.

`​

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

According to that logic you are protesting the fact that we can't go to our local weapons emporium and procure surface-to-air missiles and battlefield nukes.

None of those weapons are considered "firearms." Most people cannot afford a SAM or nuke. There is no such thing as a battlefield nuke in current production. Such a weapon is way too dangerous to the user. Let's not forget the cost.

Anyone with enough money to buy a SAM or nuke has enough motherfucking sense to not flush their money down the toilet on a weapon that they will never use, or if they do use it, they are flushing hundreds of thousands of dollars down the drain.

Come back to realistic land.

 

[Cecilie1200]

According to that logic you are protesting the fact that we can't go to our local weapons emporium and procure surface-to-air missiles and battlefield nukes.

None of those weapons are considered "firearms." Most people cannot afford a SAM or nuke. There is no such thing as a battlefield nuke in current production. Such a weapon is way too dangerous to the user. Let's not forget the cost.

Anyone with enough money to buy a SAM or nuke has enough motherfucking sense to not flush their money down the toilet on a weapon that they will never use, or if they do use it, they are flushing hundreds of thousands of dollars down the drain.

Come back to realistic land.

I'm gonna start calling this "Oppenheimer's Law": If you're debating gun control and you start invoking nuclear weapons, you have lost the argument.

 

[Soupnazi630]

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
It is a gun rights issue.

We do NOT require any such training to purchase or own a car.

We require people who use a car on PUBLIC roads to undergo training. The same is generally true with carrying a gun in public.

It is no ones business whether you own a gun or know how to use it least of all the governments.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Weapons are designed for sport, hunting, competition target, military etc. We already have a list of prohibited weapons... adding offensive weapons like the AR-15 which are designed to inflict maximum damage in minimum time just makes sense, especially with the track record such weapons have in shootings that have a lasting impact in the news.

Please list all the weapons specifically designed for sport, hunting, competition target, etc. and NOT designed for war.

You can't.

The entire CONCEPT of a firearm was developed because of war.

Your attempt to ban the weapons you don't like while keeping others is a fatal error. Your proposed ban on any firearm "proposed for military use" encompasses ever motherfucking gun ever made.

Guns are really guns. A user of ANY firearm can kill another with that firearm. It doesn't matter how they are advertised.

Which means you are no realist. You could either be an ignoramus or a gun-grabbing communist and nothing else. Your proposal is decidedly a ban on every gun ever manufactured.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Absolutely. Slavery is wrong and shouldn't exist while gun regulations are necessary and already exist.

...

So are you saying that if slavery already existed ... It would be appropriate to discuss what kind of slavery is acceptable to allow?

You said slavery is wrong and shouldn't exist ... Yet I didn't ask you if you thought it was wrong nor whether or not it should exist.
I asked you if you were interested in discussing what someone else may think is reasonable or acceptable slavery.

The point I am making is that it is no more acceptable to discuss how you like to limit my rights.
I don't care if you have done it before ... I don't care if you think it is a good idea now.

I am not going to pretend the Second nor the 14th Amendment exist as a bargaining tool for your personal desires.

.​

It's nothing to do with me... it's American culture and society that's changing. I'm just reasonable and flexible enough to go with the flow while I plead the case for keeping weapons not originally purposed for the military in the hands of the general public, effective background checks notwithstanding.

150 years ago gun laws were as different from gun laws today as the gun laws of today will be from the gun laws of 150 years from now.

You can dig your heels in and pray that nothing changes while progress grinds forward while not giving a fuck or you can join the conversation.
​

Things change. They always have and they always will. No amount of conservative fear mongering and bitching has ever changed the grind of progress and I don't expect that to change, because... well, you know - things change.



Huh.

There is one thing that stays the same..... From the Tories and Loyalists of the American Revolution through the desperate failed effort to cling to slavery and on to Nixon and Trump, conservatives tend to find themselves on the losing side of history.

​

Republicans freed the slaves, you doofus......it was the democrats who owned the slaves and the democrats who supported gun control to keep Blacks from having guns....just like now......

Funny how the democrats have actually been the ones on the wrong side of history, every single time....

The democrats supported slavery and gun control back then, and they support slavery and gun control now....

I didn't say 'republicans'... I said 'conservatives'.

The republican party was born in the spirit of progress to change things up, not conserve the status quo of slavery - that was for the conservatives of the day to defend.

Republican ideology went conservative after the moneyed interests of the late 19th Century figured out that the republican idea of dictating everything in the republic from D.C. by overturning state decisions could be highly profitable. I credit the NRA for being one of the first to see the Republican advantage over dealing with multiple jurisdictions of fickle voters.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Still waiting on a list of firearms NOT developed or designed for military use.

I'm sure I will wait forever.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

List of guns NOT designed for military use:

.

.

.

.


.


.


.


.

.



.



.



.



.





.



.



.





.