Thoughts on people who claim "Only people who are formally trained should be able to own a firearm"?

George P said:

When they require training to exercise the right to free speech or to vote, MAYBE I'll consider some form of training to exercise the 2nd.

Click to expand...

Speech and voting don't have the capability of killing someone.
and a training requirement for concealed carry doesn't infringe on your ability to own a gun.

Clean97GTI said:

Speech and voting don't have the capability of killing someone.

Click to expand...

Some would argue that speech most certainly does ...

Clean97GTI said:

and a training requirement for concealed carry doesn't infringe on your ability to own a gun.

Click to expand...

Let's go back to the OP: It's a training requirement simply to OWN a gun.

Old Dog said:

Wow. Let me take a look ... oh, right -- Planet Earth. Terra. Soooo -- never read any philosophy, eh, Buck? Guessing you also weren't a history major.

By the by, I know a fair bit about laws; I spent a fair amount of my adult life enforcing laws (many senseless and unnecessary, to be sure), but enough time to realize that we have crafted a crazy amount of useless, unenforceable, stupid law.

Anyway, we're talking specifically about creating laws to force everyone to attain some level (who decides?) of mandatory training before they can even buy a firearm. If you're onboard with that, good on you, you clearly do not understand the concept of a right to keep and bear arms.

Thanks for the opening insult, by the way. Really makes a difference when you're trying to communicate a message. 'TIs a pity so many members of this fine forum seem to believe that it's possible to legislate common sense as well as to make laws that will actually make people behave and do the right thing ...

Click to expand...

I didn't say training to purchase. I said training to carry concealed.

Old Dog said:

Some would argue that speech most certainly does ...
Let's go back to the OP: It's a training requirement simply to OWN a gun.

Click to expand...

You quoted the exact post that proves you wrong. Reading comprehension is important.

Clean97GTI said:

I didn't say training to purchase. I said training to carry concealed.

Click to expand...

Plenty of states -- including mine -- have ZERO training requirements to carry a firearm or obtain a CPL. Statistically, this state has negligible numbers of cases of licensed CPL holders getting into situations where they're charged with criminal behavior.

Old Dog said:

TIs a pity so many members of this fine forum seem to believe that it's possible to legislate common sense as well as to make laws that will actually make people behave and do the right thing ...

Click to expand...

As a result of the left's control of the educational system for decades, that's now the overwhelmingly majority point of view of this country's population. To a certain extent, that has to be accepted and worked within ... or around. You're not going to change it in one session of Congress. So, with respect to the thread topic ... I'm afraid this training requirement is something that's going to be looked upon with favor by the general public and the legislators they elect.

Clean97GTI said:

You quoted the exact post that proves you wrong. Reading comprehension is important.

Click to expand...

"Only people who are formally trained should be able to own a firearm"?

Aside from the insult, I'm not following you. My reading comprehension is excellent, thank you, though for your concern. I was discussing the actual thread topic, which I highlighted above. But I will certainly argue a training requirement to carry firearms if you want ...

Reading for context is important as well.

Clean97GTI said:

I didn't say training to purchase. I said training to carry concealed.

Click to expand...

And the answer is still NO. Who are you to say what should be mandated?

Old Dog said:

"Only people who are formally trained should be able to own a firearm"?

Aside from the insult, I'm not following you. My reading comprehension is excellent, thank you, though for your concern. I was discussing the actual thread topic, which I highlighted above. But I will certainly argue a training requirement to carry firearms if you want ...

Reading for context is important as well.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure who you are quoting, but I never said that. I never said 'training to own' I said training as a requirement to carry concealed.

Didn't read the OP? Hint: thread title for post # 1.

That's all right: few of us here agree with you on the notion of mandating training to carry concealed also.

Clean97GTI said:

I'm not sure who you are quoting, but I never said that. I never said 'training to own' I said training as a requirement to carry concealed.

Click to expand...

So, the whole part about " training to own" was the question posed in the original post. That's been what I personally have posted opposition to. Training for carry or to obtain a license to carry is IMHO a completely separate discussion.

Old Dog said:

Didn't read the OP? Hint: thread title for post # 1.

That's all right: few of us here agree with you on the notion of mandating training to carry concealed also.

Click to expand...

I did. My post was different than the original which posited the training requirement for ownership.
I never said any such thing, so either you're trying to get me to argue for something I don't support or ???

tomrkba said:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, except those who we do not like for any reason or are untrained, shall not be infringed.

Click to expand...

and I fully support your right to serve in a state militia.

Howland937 said:

Training for carry or to obtain a license to carry is IMHO a completely separate discussion.

Click to expand...

Which has also been clearly proven as unnecessary in states such as Washington, Indiana, Pennsylvania and all the (how many now?) states that authorize "Constitutional carry."

You members that live in the nanny states, just sit back and relax -- it's gonna be all right. The government will take care of you. The rest of us will enjoy our freedom (what we have left, anyway)>

Howland937 said:

So, the whole part about " training to own" was the question posed in the original post. That's been what I personally have posted opposition to. Training for carry or to obtain a license to carry is IMHO a completely separate discussion.

Click to expand...

Yes it is a separate, ancillary discussion.

Clean97GTI said:

I never said any such thing, so either you're trying to get me to argue for something I don't support or ???

Click to expand...

Okay, now -- we'll slow it down for ya. Try to follow along, now. This was your initial post that many of us took exception to:

Clean97GTI said:

Sorry man, I feel that lots of people currently carrying concealed firearms, have little business doing so. They are not well disciplined and trained (that whole well-regulated thing) in the safe carry and use of firearms.
Police officers get what I would consider a bare minimum of acceptable training with their weapons.
Other people's behavior is what ends up getting legislated, but it ends up being bad behavior. So my take is that we demonstrate actual competence. Other regulatory schemes could be seriously more extensive and still fall inside the law. This shows a willingness to meet halfway AND make better shooters.

Click to expand...

So you yourself have said that you want people to "demonstrate actual competence" in order to carry firearms.

Now: since you've taken that position, tell us why -- and document, please. Because life is not about the people who engage in "bad behavior."

GOOD LAW does not punish those who do the right thing, or make every citizen spend money in order to be able to exercise a natural right. If you don't understand this, perhaps you are hanging out in the wrong forum.

Old Dog said:

Which has also been clearly proven as unnecessary in states such as Washington, Indiana, Pennsylvania and all the (how many now?) states that authorize "Constitutional carry

Click to expand...

I do agree that the merits of required training, as mandated by someone, somewhere, who has determined the minimum acceptable level is questionable at best. Who decides? Currently the states do individually, and I do know that here in Ohio, it was like pulling teeth just getting any kind of legal carry enabled.

So until/unless constitutional carry is allowed nationwide, states are able to do their own thing and the discussion of license and/or training to CC doesn't matter. Toothpaste ain't going back in the tube.

You guys rocked at proving my point in post 4. Thanks.

regarding training requirements for OWNERSHIP (not carry. That’s a distractive and separate discussion. Typical of the liberal poster to dodge, distract and divert attention), creating barriers to ownership is an infringement on the KEEP portion of the second amendment. Creating barriers to ownership is something the government will do, and that is the kind of activity that is limited by the constitution. The first ten were established as specifically reserved for individuals and the constitution as a whole is written to limit federal government’s influence on individuals.

words can most certainly cause killing to happen. Yessir, they can. We back up our first amendment with the second. Of course government may kill on instruction, which is WORDS.

people can command others to kill by WORD.

This topic is beat to death.

Sovblocgunfan said:

This topic is beat to death.

Click to expand...

Well, I thought so as well, but was waiting for someone to catch up.

Apparently we've been infiltrated by socialists.

By the way, thanks (and kudos) for being the first to remind everyone that freedom is indeed messy at times.

Did the Founders write "the right of some people"? If that is indeed what they intended it to mean, then it's up to the Supreme Court to decipher that. It is not up to the state governments, or even the Federal government. No doubt they will do their best to try ...

Old Dog said:

Okay, now -- we'll slow it down for ya. Try to follow along, now. This was your initial post that many of us took exception to:

So you yourself have said that you want people to "demonstrate actual competence" in order to carry firearms.

Now: since you've taken that position, tell us why -- and document, please. Because life is not about the people who engage in "bad behavior."

GOOD LAW does not punish those who do the right thing, or make every citizen spend money in order to be able to exercise a natural right. If you don't understand this, perhaps you are hanging out in the wrong forum.

Click to expand...

See, you're trying to move goalposts. You took issue with what you think I said, but when it was pointed out more than once, that I didn't actually claim to want a training requirement for ownership, you tried to shift gears and talk about the original topic. When I refused to be your straw man, you're now resorting to passive aggressive snide comments instead of simply admitting that you misread what I originally said.

I also mentioned a specific case, Michael Drejka, as a justification for my position in another post. There are others but now I'm not particularly inclined to justify anything else to you.

Law is about forbidding things that do not mesh with the moral code of society. It is absolutely about bad behavior. Law specifically prohibits the bad things and punishes those who step outside the law. Murder, robbery, rape, etc.
Good Law has the effect of improving society. It's what gives us the ability to remove dangerous criminals from circulation. It's what gives us things like building codes so people don't get hurt by unscrupulous contractors. And, there is already a training requirement in most states for concealed carry. Requirements that are recognized as constitutional under the Heller decision.

I am required to have a permit to worship. I need a license in order to write and publish. I need permission from my government in order to speak in public. Etc etc.

------

The perversion of some is to believe that the second amendment is about self defense. I aver that self defense was understood and did not need to be in the Constitution. Instead the Constitution guaranteed the means by which self defense could be ensured.

wiscoaster said:

Did the Founders write "the right of some people"? If that is indeed what they intended it to mean, then it's up to the Supreme Court to decipher that. It is not up to the state governments, or even the Federal government. No doubt they will do their best to try ...

Click to expand...

The Supreme court did decide that in Heller.
Scalia wrote:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Clean97GTI said:

The Supreme court did decide that in Heller.
Scalia wrote:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire-arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Click to expand...

NONE of what you just said in this post or the one before it has ANYTHING to do with the topic. The topic is about government-enforced mandatory training requirements prior to OWNERSHIP. Not carry, not militias, not kinds of weapons, or anything else. If you already stated your position as not in favor of training to own, why are you bothering to argue about training for CCW? Frankly, most of us are aligned with both of your stated positions! Once again, thanks for the distraction.