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

[Pop23]

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.

`​

Joe, because you have a right does not mean you must use that right.

You want to opt out of one or more. Be my guest.

Come after mine, expect a butt whipping.

I hope I’ve made myself clear.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

Bullshit! I remember several weeks of driver's education before getting my license and I remember having to pass both practical and written tests given by the state before being granted the right to drive a car.

A viable alternative to banning military purposed weapons, is putting them behind a license that's like concealed carry. Some level of proven competency and an effective background check by the state.

I think that kind of regulation might remove some of the problems from the hands of some of the crazies.

 

[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.

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.

Bullshit! I remember several weeks of driver's education before getting my license and I remember having to pass both practical and written tests given by the state before being granted the right to drive a car.

A viable alternative to banning military purposed weapons, is putting them behind a license that's like concealed carry. Some level of proven competency and an effective background check by the state.

I think that kind of regulation might remove some of the problems from the hands of some of the crazies.

His highlighted part is 100% correct.

There is absolutely ZERO training, registration or licensing required to purchase a car.

ZERO

and amazingly enough.

ZERO AGE LIMIT

 

[2aguy]

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.

Bullshit! I remember several weeks of driver's education before getting my license and I remember having to pass both practical and written tests given by the state before being granted the right to drive a car.

A viable alternative to banning military purposed weapons, is putting them behind a license that's like concealed carry. Some level of proven competency and an effective background check by the state.

I think that kind of regulation might remove some of the problems from the hands of some of the crazies.

Wrong...that does nothing to stop criminals, and only increases the time, cost and aggravation for law abiding gun owners..which is the entire goal....

Again....Literacy tests are UnConstitutional.....so too are tests for exercising the Right to own and carry a gun.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Not according to gun nutters.

Says it all, doesn't it.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A viable alternative to banning military purposed weapons, is putting them behind a license that's like concealed carry. Some level of proven competency and an effective background check by the state.

Then let us have full-autos. If background checks and licenses work, there should be no restriction on those who are qualified.

 

[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.

Bullshit! I remember several weeks of driver's education before getting my license and I remember having to pass both practical and written tests given by the state before being granted the right to drive a car.

A viable alternative to banning military purposed weapons, is putting them behind a license that's like concealed carry. Some level of proven competency and an effective background check by the state.

I think that kind of regulation might remove some of the problems from the hands of some of the crazies.

Wrong wrong wrong.

You completely missed the point and you are absolutely 100% wrong.

You needed that license to drive ON PUBLIC roads and ONLY on public roads.

You did not need any of that training or education or a license or registration or anything else to purchase own and operate a car. No one can stop you from owning and operating a vehicle on your property without any training or license.

You were never given the right to own a car you were licensed strictly to operate one on public roads which are built maintained and owned by government.

The same is essentially true for guns and what I own and how i use it on my property or on others property with their consent is no one's business especially the governments.

 

[AVG-JOE]

That and more still doesn't mean that putting assault weapons behind a license that requires training and a background check isn't a good idea.

Just sayin'...

 

[AVG-JOE]

A viable alternative to banning military purposed weapons, is putting them behind a license that's like concealed carry. Some level of proven competency and an effective background check by the state.

Then let us have full-autos. If background checks and licenses work, there should be no restriction on those who are qualified.

Absolutely. Ass-u-me-ing anyone who chooses to keep such a weapon in their possession understands that they are personally liable for any damage caused by anyone with that weapon unless it's reported stolen.

I'm not interested enough in paying for the ammo it would take to have fun with something like that, but proof of competency and proficiency should be rewarded.

 

[Pop23]

That and more still doesn't mean that putting assault weapons behind a license that requires training and a background check isn't a good idea.

Just sayin'...

Poll taxes are a horrible idea.

Just sayin

 

[hunarcy]

That and more still doesn't mean that putting assault weapons behind a license that requires training and a background check isn't a good idea.

Just sayin'...

I think literacy tests are a good idea to ensure voters can understand what they're choosing. However, just because it's a good idea doesn't make it proper and constitutional.

 

[Pop23]

That and more still doesn't mean that putting assault weapons behind a license that requires training and a background check isn't a good idea.

Just sayin'...

I think literacy tests are a good idea to ensure voters can understand what they're choosing. However, just because it's a good idea doesn't make it proper and constitutional.

And really, the only limitation that we really want in marriage is that one be male, the other female. What could possibly be wrong with that restriction?

 

[Some Guy]

Ideally, yes, absolutely. We require a license that proves you've been educated in how to drive a car, rightfully so, since a car has incredible destructive force if not used as designed.

Practically, probably not. There's too many people that would use it as another tool in the box to take rights away from law abiding citizens.

 

[Pop23]

Ideally, yes, absolutely. We require a license that proves you've been educated in how to drive a car, rightfully so, since a car has incredible destructive force if not used as designed.

Practically, probably not. There's too many people that would use it as another tool in the box to take rights away from law abiding citizens.

There is no such requirement for a car owner be trained in driving a car. Only if the driver wishes to drive on publicly funded roadways. And if you are discussing an equivalency, then yes, the gun owner should only need a license to shoot his gun on a publicly funded shooting range.

That is what the left keeps arguing, yet they can't quite make it stick.

This "but we only want" is never backed up with "what it solves"

Anyone can come up with solutions to problems that don't exists, that is not Rocket Science.

 

[Some Guy]

There is no such requirement for a car owner be trained in driving a car. Only if the driver wishes to drive on publicly funded roadways. And if you are discussing an equivalency, then yes, the gun owner should only need a license to shoot his gun on a publicly funded shooting range.

That is what the left keeps arguing, yet they can't quite make it stick.

This "but we only want" is never backed up with "what it solves"

Anyone can come up with solutions to problems that don't exists, that is not Rocket Science.

Good point about the publicly funded roadways. Something no one thinks about cause basically all roads are publicly funded, including myself.

Re-reading what i wrote, i would revise it to say that "ideally everyone would be trained." The mechanism for that would have to be administrated by the government, which is problematic, and goes to what i said about the practical. Perhaps requiring the legal sale of a firearm to include a basic aptitude test is a middle ground, but the curriculum for the test would likely still be determined by the government.

 

[Pop23]

There is no such requirement for a car owner be trained in driving a car. Only if the driver wishes to drive on publicly funded roadways. And if you are discussing an equivalency, then yes, the gun owner should only need a license to shoot his gun on a publicly funded shooting range.

That is what the left keeps arguing, yet they can't quite make it stick.

This "but we only want" is never backed up with "what it solves"

Anyone can come up with solutions to problems that don't exists, that is not Rocket Science.

Good point about the publicly funded roadways. Something no one thinks about cause basically all roads are publicly funded, including myself.

Re-reading what i wrote, i would revise it to say that "ideally everyone would be trained." The mechanism for that would have to be administrated by the government, which is problematic, and goes to what i said about the practical. Perhaps requiring the legal sale of a firearm to include a basic aptitude test is a middle ground, but the curriculum for the test would likely still be determined by the government.

True, most roads are, but cars are not limited to those.

 

[Borillar]

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?

It mentions a well regulated militia too. Some idiot yahoo who doesn't know which end the bullets come out waving guns around doesn't meet the "well regulated" criteria.

 

[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?

It mentions a well regulated militia too. Some idiot yahoo who doesn't know which end the bullets come out waving guns around doesn't meet the "well regulated" criteria.

I am sorry Moon Bat but the Heller case put that silly ass militia shit that you anti Constitutional assholes spout to rest. The wording was quoted by 2aguy earlier in this thread. Go look it up.

Also, while you are doing your homework assignment go look up what the term "well regulated" meant in Colonial times. It meant well provisioned. Take notes. I may you quiz you later.

 

[Pop23]

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?

It mentions a well regulated militia too. Some idiot yahoo who doesn't know which end the bullets come out waving guns around doesn't meet the "well regulated" criteria.

So you think rapists should not to have to worry whether the woman he’s stalking Is armed?. PLUS you think he, the rapist should be better trained with his weapon.

OK then..........

 

[Borillar]

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?

It mentions a well regulated militia too. Some idiot yahoo who doesn't know which end the bullets come out waving guns around doesn't meet the "well regulated" criteria.

So you think rapists should not to have to worry whether the woman he’s stalking Is armed?. PLUS you think he, the rapist should be better trained with his weapon.

OK then..........

Ok... Have no idea where you came up with that nugget. I think anyone owning a gun should have some basic safety training and preferably range time. A woman with a gun who doesn't know how to use it will, in your scenario, get raped and her rapist will wind up with her gun which he can use to victimize someone else.