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

[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?

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

Should a returning soldier who may have PTSD have a gun, how would you know unless he told you of his suffering? Just assume?

Should a rape victim, suffering mental distress, be denied a gun?

 

[Pop23]

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)

See folks, there should be training before use of the interwebs

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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)

1. Get the FUCK out of my country, asswipe.

2. There is no right to fly a helicopter.

 

[RWNJ]

Question. Do you believe that someone who has never used a firearm should be allowed to purchase one without any kind of training? If you do, then you are a fool. Guns are dangerous in the hands of the incompetent. A short class on gun safety does not infringe the rights of anyone.

 

[Pop23]

Question. Do you believe that someone who has never used a firearm should be allowed to purchase one without any kind of training? If you do, then you are a fool. Guns are dangerous in the hands of the incompetent. A short class on gun safety does not infringe the rights of anyone.

You can buy a car without any training. They are dangerous. They Kill.

What’s you point exactly? Saying someone is a fool is not an answer.

Do I think? Yes. You?

 

[RWNJ]

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?

Should a returning soldier who may have PTSD have a gun, how would you know unless he told you of his suffering? Just assume?

Should a rape victim, suffering mental distress, be denied a gun?

I've met soldiers with PTSD. I would not trust some them with a gun. With good reason. As far as the rape victim goes, if she is not the type to shoot first and ask questions later, and passed a basic gun safety course, I see no problem with them owning a gun.

 

[RWNJ]

Question. Do you believe that someone who has never used a firearm should be allowed to purchase one without any kind of training? If you do, then you are a fool. Guns are dangerous in the hands of the incompetent. A short class on gun safety does not infringe the rights of anyone.

You can buy a car without any training. They are dangerous. They Kill.

What’s you point exactly? Saying someone is a fool is not an answer.

Do I think? Yes. You?

So, do you think anyone should be allowed to buy a gun? Even if doing so would make them a danger to others? We're talking about a short gun safety class here. That's all. How could anyone have a problem with this? It doesn't even need to be a graded test. Just show them how to safely use it.

 

[MikeK]

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.

Unless universally acceptable rules are written into the proposal before it is passed.

Firearms training would impart a significant benefit to society in terms of substantially reduced firearms accidents, misuse, and improper deployment. So a qualification program which is partially subsidized by government would be a worthwhile federal investment.

The cost of such a program need not be prohibitive because it would not be profit-based and supported mainly by prospective gun buyers and sellers.

The program would require that a prospective gun buyer pass a basic written and performance test to determine his/her competence in the use, handling, and safeguarding of the type of firearm he/she intends to purchase. Training would be available to those who fail the tests.

What I am proposing is comparable to acquiring a driver license. Testing is the primary step. If one fails the test, re-testing is available at nominal cost. Training would be available at nominal cost or it may be acquired privately. Testing and training must be available within one week of an intended purchase or the requirement must be waived.

The vast majority of gun buyers would have no trouble passing the required competence test, so we're not looking at crowded places and long lines.

 

[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)

1. Get the FUCK out of my country, asswipe.

2. There is no right to fly a helicopter.

Exactly.

 

[Pop23]

Question. Do you believe that someone who has never used a firearm should be allowed to purchase one without any kind of training? If you do, then you are a fool. Guns are dangerous in the hands of the incompetent. A short class on gun safety does not infringe the rights of anyone.

You can buy a car without any training. They are dangerous. They Kill.

What’s you point exactly? Saying someone is a fool is not an answer.

Do I think? Yes. You?

So, do you think anyone should be allowed to buy a gun? Even if doing so would make them a danger to others? We're talking about a short gun safety class here. That's all. How could anyone have a problem with this? It doesn't even need to be a graded test. Just show them how to safely use it.

Most do that at the time of purchase.

You realize that, in many cases you can’t tell who had PTSD, unless they seek help.

I will ask again, should all soldiers be assumed to have it and deny them the right to own a gun.

 

[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)

See folks, there should be training before use of the interwebs

Because it is lethal?

 

[Pop23]

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)

See folks, there should be training before use of the interwebs

Because it is lethal?

Neither are guns.

What’s the point?

 

[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)

See folks, there should be training before use of the interwebs

Because it is lethal?

Neither are guns.

What’s the point?

You said use of internet should require training, I guess you won’t object to the same principle regarding guns. We’re on the same page.

 

[Doc1]

Yes.

 

[Pop23]

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)

See folks, there should be training before use of the interwebs

Because it is lethal?

Neither are guns.

What’s the point?

You said use of internet should require training, I guess you won’t object to the same principle regarding guns. We’re on the same page.

Just for you. I want to simply restrict your right. Everyone else is doing just fine.

 

[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.

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?

And yet the amendment still does not make being part of a militia a requirement for having a gun.

Of course times have changed. If they have changed enough that the second amendment should not exist, or not exist as it currently does, then a new amendment should be made to change it.

 

[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)

See folks, there should be training before use of the interwebs

Because it is lethal?

Neither are guns.

What’s the point?

You said use of internet should require training, I guess you won’t object to the same principle regarding guns. We’re on the same page.

Just for you. I want to simply restrict your right. Everyone else is doing just fine.

Oh. I guess the founding corpses didn’t know I was coming along. Either.

 

[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"?

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.

Anyone CAN. Not everyone DOES until they're presented with it. And I'm gonna have to say that your attitude of "Fuck your safety if you didn't realize you needed a gun sooner" isn't going to win you any points. I don't forfeit my right to protect my life because I didn't make the arrangements to do so by YOUR time limit.

Perhaps I should devise an Asshole Award for someone who dismisses the rights and concerns of others when they don't fit his agenda, just so I can give you one.

 

[Pop23]

Question. Do you believe that someone who has never used a firearm should be allowed to purchase one without any kind of training? If you do, then you are a fool. Guns are dangerous in the hands of the incompetent. A short class on gun safety does not infringe the rights of anyone.

You can buy a car without any training. They are dangerous. They Kill.

What’s you point exactly? Saying someone is a fool is not an answer.

Do I think? Yes. You?

So, do you think anyone should be allowed to buy a gun? Even if doing so would make them a danger to others? We're talking about a short gun safety class here. That's all. How could anyone have a problem with this? It doesn't even need to be a graded test. Just show them how to safely use it.

Dude, you are looking for a solution to a non existent problem.

Most gun deaths are the result of:

A. Criminal activity. And if you think criminals give a rip about laws, then I can’t help ya Son.

B. Suicide. If someone is hellbent on killing themselves, you think that training will stop them? Really?

C. The rest have almost zero statistical relevance. And even with these, you would save only a insignificant number that it’s nearly zero.

Thanks

 

[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.

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?

Back to the difference between "this is a good idea" and "therefore, the government must be the one to handle it".