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

[RWNJ]

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.

Would you allow someone who is mentally retarded to own a gun? Would you allow a blind person to own a gun? Would you allow someone with anger management issues, who drinks too much, to own a gun? If not, you are infringing their rights. BTW, I'm still waiting to hear how requiring a free class on gun safety is an infringement on the 2nd amendment.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Sure, you can argue that, but it's not all that strong of an argument, and it's not one the Supreme Court has agreed with.

I think the second amendment was poorly written. I wish it hadn't mentioned the militia, or had clearly linked the militia to the right, whichever was the intent. Unfortunately, that isn't what we got.

I think a decent analogy would be if an amendment were created enshrining the right to cell phones, written something like this: "A high-speed, reliable phone connection, being necessary for the communication of a nation, the right of the people to own and use cell phones, shall not be infringed." Under that amendment, while it certainly says that a high-speed, reliable phone connection is important, it doesn't say that owning a cell phone requires such a connection.

Regardless, I believe the courts have ruled that the second amendment is not limited to members of a militia.

 

[Pop23]

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"?

We own the Highway in common with all. You blocking the highway violates my rights. The highway as well was built “in common”. You are not the “common”

It is those within “the common” that own the rights to the road.

 

[RWNJ]

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.

If you mean taking a class at the place of purchase, then buying the gun the same day, I could totally support that.

 

[Desperado]

Sorry no concessions. Never give-up, never surrender.

 

[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?

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

Why should they necessarily have been afraid for their safety already? Many people don't realize how dangerous the world can be until the danger drops into the big middle of their own personal lives. I suppose technically speaking, I didn't myself; on the other hand, I was 18 when I learned that lesson, so I picked up on it early.

What would you like to tell a woman who's been going calmly on about her life, never giving personal danger much of a thought until she breaks up with her boyfriend and he turns into an unhinged stalker? "Sorry, honey. Hire a bodyguard until you can complete the class"?

 

[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?

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.

Would you allow someone who is mentally retarded to own a gun? Would you allow a blind person to own a gun? Would you allow someone with anger management issues, who drinks too much, to own a gun? If not, you are infringing their rights. BTW, I'm still waiting to hear how requiring a free class on gun safety is an infringement on the 2nd amendment.

I know at least one retarded individual that is not only responsible, but a very good shot. Should he be even more vulnerable to criminals than anybody else?

 

[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 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.

Irrelevant. The point is, it sounds like the problem was that he was a dumbass, and that's usually not curable.

 

[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.

Why should they necessarily have been afraid for their safety already? Many people don't realize how dangerous the world can be until the danger drops into the big middle of their own personal lives. I suppose technically speaking, I didn't myself; on the other hand, I was 18 when I learned that lesson, so I picked up on it early.

What would you like to tell a woman who's been going calmly on about her life, never giving personal danger much of a thought until she breaks up with her boyfriend and he turns into an unhinged stalker? "Sorry, honey. Hire a bodyguard until you can complete the class"?

I'm saying that anyone can recognize that the world is a dangerous place. They should also recognize that the police can only clean up the mess afterwards. You are the only one who can protect yourself. Everyone is capable of recognizing such a simple fact. If they cannot, then they win the Darwin Award.

Darwin Award: An award given to those who, through their own stupidity, manage to remove themselves from the gene pool; thus improving the species chances of survival.

 

[RWNJ]

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.

Would you allow someone who is mentally retarded to own a gun? Would you allow a blind person to own a gun? Would you allow someone with anger management issues, who drinks too much, to own a gun? If not, you are infringing their rights. BTW, I'm still waiting to hear how requiring a free class on gun safety is an infringement on the 2nd amendment.

I know at least one retarded individual that is not only responsible, but a very good shot. Should he be even more vulnerable to criminals than anybody else?

There are also many who cannot function on his level. Should they have a gun?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Would you allow someone who is mentally retarded to own a gun? Would you allow a blind person to own a gun? Would you allow someone with anger management issues, who drinks too much, to own a gun? If not, you are infringing their rights. BTW, I'm still waiting to hear how requiring a free class on gun safety is an infringement on the 2nd amendment.

1) Depends on HOW mentally retarded we're talking.
2) Why would I assume that being blind made someone a moron?
3) There are already provisions in most, if not all, state laws regarding people who are violent.
4) And I'm still waiting for you to hear me say, "Because I don't trust gun-haters to leave it that way".

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

If you mean taking a class at the place of purchase, then buying the gun the same day, I could totally support that.

Which then brings us back to the question of whether or not gun-haters would leave that alone. Thing is, and I've said this before, compromising with leftists is like paying off a blackmailer. They just come back next week and want more.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Humm, well. . . . Perhaps a mandatory gun-safety video. I mean, we're only talking about a few pieces of information. The video would only need to last 5-10 minutes. It's nothing like driving a car.

 

[ErikViking]

I know cars wasn’t around when the founding gods scribbled down the constitution. Nevertheless, if you’re not allowed to drive a car without basic training why would the same for guns bring such an outrage?

After all, guns and cars doesn’t kill people?

 

[RWNJ]

What would you guys think about having a safety class that is given at the place where you purchase the gun? Take the class, buy the gun if you pass. Remember, we're talking about basic safety here, as well as the ability to hit what you are shooting at. Let's face it. There are some people who just should not own guns. I'm just saying that we should weed them out. And like I said earlier. If you cannot pass a gun safety class, then you do not deserve to own a gun. You would be a danger to yourself and others.

 

[Montrovant]

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

Do you have a particular ruling in which the USSC said there can be no hindering access to a right?

 

[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.

Sure, you can argue that, but it's not all that strong of an argument, and it's not one the Supreme Court has agreed with.

I think the second amendment was poorly written. I wish it hadn't mentioned the militia, or had clearly linked the militia to the right, whichever was the intent. Unfortunately, that isn't what we got.

I think a decent analogy would be if an amendment were created enshrining the right to cell phones, written something like this: "A high-speed, reliable phone connection, being necessary for the communication of a nation, the right of the people to own and use cell phones, shall not be infringed." Under that amendment, while it certainly says that a high-speed, reliable phone connection is important, it doesn't say that owning a cell phone requires such a connection.

Regardless, I believe the courts have ruled that the second amendment is not limited to members of a militia.

You should research what the term "militia" meant when the 2nd was written. A loose term like militia makes the thesis I presented understandably. All able-bodied men belonged to the militia in the period of the Revolution. Hence, all able-bodied men had a need to own a firearm. Are times the same or have they changed? Will everyone be welcome in the posse or militia?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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

Only in exchange for a repeal of the Hughes Amendment.

No more of this give and not receive bullshit.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Not sure about training. The best training is at a range, practicing and developing proficiency. I'm fine with some kind of unpaid basic safety course that you can complete in a couple hours on a computer. Just going over the fundamentals.

 

[ErikViking]

Founding fuckers had no problem infringing the right to fly a helicopter. (Unless it’s armed, then it would be considered a weapon, perfectly in order to use without any restrictions)