Why 2nd Amendment supporters who support mandatory training are wrong….

[Rigby5]

No. It means there are rules to be followed usually ordered and/or enforced by an official authority. Regulate in the simplest terms is to "to govern or direct according to rule."

And as every able bodied citizen was considered the militia at such time as the the people--all the people distinctly different from a standing army or national guard--would be needed to be called into duty to defend their nation, there would need to be a chain of command and authority that would need to be obeyed. And as that militia needed to be ready to be called into action at any time, the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed by that same government.

Actually the word "regulate" means to "keep smoothly functioning", such as a well regulated clock or someone having regular bowel movements.
In no way does it mean to restrict, in any way.
Regulated means to prevent blockage or breakdown.
Such as the interstate commerce clause of the constitution is to prevent a state from being able to interfere with interstate traffic, when it says to "regulate" interstate commerce.
The goal is not to enforce even more restrictions on interstate traffic, but to prevent any one state from interfering with traffic from other states.
Ideally, in a democratic republic, you would want totally anarchy, where there was no governing according to rules.
We compromise and accept a "chain of command", but only under emergency conditions when external invasion threatens everything.

 

[Foxfyre]

If some subhuman piece of shit robs a liquor store, I want its ass thrown in jail, of a long time, for the robbery itself, or better yet, just put down if it has a sufficiently-established history of such behavior. The fact that it happened to be carrying a gun is beside the point, and not the offense. It is the fact that it used that gun to commit a serious crime.

In fact, even after having been most properly sentences for the robbery, I am stull in favor of letting it keep its guns. It can have them buried with it in its grave.

It puts the shop owner and employees at a disadvantage and higher risk if the robber conceals the weapon until just prior to the robbery. Somebody openly carrying, the store owner can watch and even have his own weapon cocked and ready should that be necessary.

And if the robber is not able to successfully complete the robbery but is apprehended and an illegal weapon is concealed on his body, the law has more ammunition to use to get him off the street for a much longer time.

The number of those qualifying for CC permits subsequently using a weapon inappropriately or illegally is so small it barely registers. I for one feel a lot safer knowing some of those people are around. I would not feel safe if the thugs and hoodlums are allowed to conceal carry with impunity.

 

[Blues Man]

The Second Amendment strongly infers that all able bodied citizens of the USA are the militia which is distinctly separate from a standing army or the national guard.

I do not support licensing all fire arms but only those who want to concealed carry and that is purely for practical reasons for the public good. We do not those with criminal records to be able to conceal weapons on their persons in public. Those qualifying for CC permits generally are law abiding and trustworthy and extremely unlikely to use those weapons inappropriately in any way.

No it doesn't and the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no requirement to be in a militia in order to own a gun.

It is already illegal for convicted felons to possess firearms but this is one of our gun laws that the government refuses to enforce as these types of gun charges are usually the first to be dropped in plea deals kind of like the one Hunter Biden got dropped.

Those that apply for CC permits usually already have to pay to get a background check done before the permit is issued.

And IMO that is unconstitutional as all those background checks should be free.

It seems you're pretty ignorant of the laws and maybe you should educate yourself on them

 

[Dadoalex]

That's not what I said.

View attachment 817580

It is EXACTLY what you said

"I would go so far as to support mandatory gun safety training as part of every standard high school curriculum. This way, every adult who has graduated high school could be presumed to have received such training, and that would eliminate training as an excuse or a vehicle to be used to deny anyone's Second Amendment rights.

No high school diploma? No gun.

Try again.

 

[Blues Man]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure no one is forced to buy a gun.

I'm not apoplectic. Kinda kills your argument doesn't it?

It is a right.

PERIOD.

And I doubt you represent all democrats if any at all.

No one is forced to vote either, or forced to practice a religion but they do not have to pay the government to exercise those rights do they?

 

[Foxfyre]

Actually the word "regulate" means to "keep smoothly functioning", such as a well regulated clock or someone having regular bowel movements.
In no way does it mean to restrict, in any way.
Regulated means to prevent blockage or breakdown.
Such as the interstate commerce clause of the constitution is to prevent a state from being able to interfere with interstate traffic, when it says to "regulate" interstate commerce.
The goal is not to enforce even more restrictions on interstate traffic, but to prevent any one state from interfering with traffic from other states.
Ideally, in a democratic republic, you would want totally anarchy, where there was no governing according to rules.
We compromise and accept a "chain of command", but only under emergency conditions when external invasion threatens everything.

Regulate in the way it is written in the Second Amendment means exactly what I said and none of the alternate definitions you are using. And honestly, in all due respect, it looks really specious for you to presume otherwise.

We have had this discussion on anarchy before and you won't convince me that anarchy is a satisfactory or beneficial way to organize any society. So we'll just have to disagree on that too and let it go at that.

 

[Rigby5]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure no one is forced to buy a gun.

I'm not apoplectic. Kinda kills your argument doesn't it?

The Founders thought there likely should be a mandate that all adult males were armed.
Washington was all for mandating firearms.

 

[Dadoalex]

It is a right.

PERIOD.

And I doubt you represent all democrats if any at all.

No one is forced to vote either, or forced to practice a religion but they do not have to pay the government to exercise those rights do they?

Already said the government pays for the classes.

Vote you say?
The government pays for the polling places, the people who work the polls, security for the polls, as well as the officials who rub the elections.

Like I said, you're paying one way or the other.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is EXACTLY what you said

"I would go so far as to support mandatory gun safety training as part of every standard high school curriculum. This way, every adult who has graduated high school could be presumed to have received such training, and that would eliminate training as an excuse or a vehicle to be used to deny anyone's Second Amendment rights.

No high school diploma? No gun.

Try again.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with you but there is a reasonableness to this. I have long thought that if we required a high school diploma or GED with real academic proficiency required in various subjects before a person could register to vote or get a marriage license or have an unrestricted driver's license or legally buy or possess a gun, etc. at least until say age 25, high school drop outs would largely cease to exist. And the threat of being suspended or expelled from school would be taken much more seriously by the students.

At least it's worth a thought.

 

[rightwinger]

Wrong.
There is nothing wrong with "gun safety", but that should apply to everyone.
What if you find a gun abandoned or accidentally dropped on the street?
Everyone needs to know proper gun handling safety.
And the final point is that we can't allow the government to make a list of who has guns, by who took the safety course.
Everyone should take the safety course, or no one should.

I am 67 and never found a gun someone drop on the street.

Those who choose to have guns need to know how to handle them safely. When to shoot and when NOT to

 

[Blues Man]

Already said the government pays for the classes.

Vote you say?
The government pays for the polling places, the people who work the polls, security for the polls, as well as the officials who rub the elections.

Like I said, you're paying one way or the other.

Then you go make it happen.

Get the laws passed and get the appropriation but it ain't gonna happen.

Let me know when it's on C SPAN

 

[Blues Man]

I am 67 and never found a gun someone drop on the street.

Those who choose to have guns need to know how to handle them safely. When to shoot and when NOT to

And the vast majority of them do.

 

[Foxfyre]

No it doesn't and the Supreme Court has ruled that there is no requirement to be in a militia in order to own a gun.

It is already illegal for convicted felons to possess firearms but this is one of our gun laws that the government refuses to enforce as these types of gun charges are usually the first to be dropped in plea deals kind of like the one Hunter Biden got dropped.

Those that apply for CC permits usually already have to pay to get a background check done before the permit is issued.

And IMO that is unconstitutional as all those background checks should be free.

It seems you're pretty ignorant of the laws and maybe you should educate yourself on them

Sigh. Maybe if I type more slowly. . .

The Founders saw the 'militia' as ALL citizens. ALL citizens. Got that? ALL citizens. Not a group of militants or mercenaries who call themselves a militia. Not a standing army. Not a national guard. ALL citizens.

And as such time as those citizens would need to be called to arms to defend their country, there needed to be some authority to organize and direct them, ie well regulate them. Otherwise there would be chaos.

But at such time as those citizens would need to put down their plows and hammers and meat cleavers or whatever and take up their weapons to use in the defense of the country, their right to keep and bear arms could not be infringed by the government.

 

[Rigby5]

Regulate in the way it is written in the Second Amendment means exactly what I said and none of the alternate definitions you are using. And honestly, in all due respect, it looks really specious for you to presume otherwise.

We have had this discussion on anarchy before and you won't convince me that anarchy is a satisfactory or beneficial way to organize any society. So we'll just have to disagree on that too and let it go at that.

Wrong!.
The Founders wrote at great lengths that they meant the words "well regulated" to mean exactly what I said, and NOT what you wrote at all.
What they were worried about is that if there were gun control, then the average person would not be familiar normally, so then if an emergency came up, it would force a delay until the population could then be properly trained and familiarized with firearms.

Here is exactly what the Founders said they intended:
A well armed, trained, practiced, and ready to fight Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

As for "anarchy", clearly you have to also be wrong on that because there were no significant police until around 1900, so for over 100 years were essentially did have anarchy, and it worked BETTER than the police state we have now.
Anarchy does not mean there are no conventions or rules, but just that the average people decide when someone over steps, and not some distant government.

 

[Rigby5]

I am 67 and never found a gun someone drop on the street.

Those who choose to have guns need to know how to handle them safely. When to shoot and when NOT to

It does not matter how frequently you will need to be able to deal with guns, it is still an essential skill.
It is not a matter of choice, since wars, crime, accidental gun exposure, etc., is highly likely.
Even those who never actually touch a gun need to know the rules, so that they can fire abusive police who deliberately point guns in dangerous manners.
You can not be a good citizen and ensure the police are doing the right things, if you do not know what it is they are supposed to be doing.

 

[Rigby5]

It is already illegal for convicted felons to possess firearms but this is one of our gun laws that the government refuses to enforce as these types of gun charges are usually the first to be dropped in plea deals kind of like the one Hunter Biden got dropped.

The idea convicted felons can not own guns did not happen until 1968, and it seems highly illegal to me.
We do not have a multi tiered society.
Once an adult, there can be no distinction.
Convicted felons have the right to self defense, so it is illegal to prohibit them from having arms.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It is EXACTLY what you said

"I would go so far as to support mandatory gun safety training as part of every standard high school curriculum. This way, every adult who has graduated high school could be presumed to have received such training, and that would eliminate training as an excuse or a vehicle to be used to deny anyone's Second Amendment rights.

No high school diploma? No gun.

Try again.

You're lying, putting words in my mouth that I did not say, and do not agree with.

But then , lying is what you do. It is what defines you. It is what you are.

I absolutely do not agree with denying anyone any of his Constitutional rights, for not having graduated from high school; and nothing that I have said states nor implies that I do.

I merely suggested a policy that, in most cases, with destroy an excuse that might otherwise illegally be used to deny someone's rights. I never claimed nor implied that this policy was perfect, and would work in every case.

 

[Blues Man]

Sigh. Maybe if I type more slowly. . .

The Founders saw the 'militia' as ALL citizens. ALL citizens. Got that? ALL citizens. Not a group of militants or mercenaries who call themselves a militia. Not a standing army. Not a national guard. ALL citizens.

And as such time as those citizens would need top be called to arms to defend their country, there needed to be some authority to organize and direct them, ie well regulate them. Otherwise there would be chaos.

But at such time as those citizens would need to put down their plows and hammers and meat cleavers or whatever and take up their weapons to use in the defense of the country, their right to keep and bear arms could not be infringed by the government.

Again there is nothing that requires training in the 2nd

And besides that the militia is not the sublet of the 2nd Amendment the right of the people is the subject.

The Bill of Rights was written to emphasize the rights of the people not the rights of the government because the government has no rights

 

[Blues Man]

The idea convicted felons can not own guns did not happen until 1968, and it seems highly illegal to me.
We do not have a multi tiered society.
Once an adult, there can be no distinction.
Convicted felons have the right to self defense, so it is illegal to prohibit them from having arms.

I agree with you.

Once a person serves his time his slate should be clean

 

[Foxfyre]

Wrong!.
The Founders wrote at great lengths that they meant the words "well regulated" to mean exactly what I said, and NOT what you wrote at all.
What they were worried about is that if there were gun control, then the average person would not be familiar normally, so then if an emergency came up, it would force a delay until the population could then be properly trained and familiarized with firearms.

Here is exactly what the Founders said they intended:
A well armed, trained, practiced, and ready to fight Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

As for "anarchy", clearly you have to also be wrong on that because there were no significant police until around 1900, so for over 100 years were essentially did have anarchy, and it worked BETTER than the police state we have now.
Anarchy does not mean there are no conventions or rules, but just that the average people decide when someone over steps, and not some distant government.

James Madison was arguing for the right of the various states to establish a 'national guard'. He was also more in favor of a standing army than were some of the other founders.

Almost all of the Founders agreed with Patrick Henry on this issue:
Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.

Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.