Maybe requiring some training is a good idea...

[cskny]

fiddletown, thanks for taking the time to post comprehensive and well thought out content.

I think we'd be a more effective 'community' if more of us really understood:

So whether or not we like it, whether or not we think the Second Amendment allows it and notwithstanding what we think the Founding Fathers would have thought about it, we will have to live with some forms of gun control. We may have opportunities to influence how much. But imagining that somehow we can make it all go away isn't going to help.

 

[Sam1911]

I'll go back to my earlier point: We certainly live among the great masses of the ignorant, the apathetic, and those ardently opposed to our views. It seems, from the great (nearly inconceivable twenty years ago) strides we've been making, and from statistics on things like membership numbers in "anti" organizations, that those in that third category (ardently opposed) are falling precipitously as our increased levels of freedom prove to be no greater a threat, statistically, than our much more restricted levels of freedom were in years past.

Further, the statistics involving accidents and 'gun crime' are ALSO falling further every year -- corresponding with or at least juxtaposing with the reductions in onerous gun control laws -- which can only be evidence in favor of our position.

So why -- WHY -- are WE arguing to sway OURSELVES to support more restrictions and controls in the forms of tests, mandatory programs, taxes, etc?

If our enemies, who have long sought to establish these and many other controls, are falling by the wayside, why would we succumb to the self-destructive compulsion to pick up their torch and run with it? Are we so afraid of our own success?

Is it a kind of anxiety that pushes some of us to retreat while we're ahead?

 

[Gouranga]

So whether or not we like it, whether or not we think the Second Amendment allows it and notwithstanding what we think the Founding Fathers would have thought about it, we will have to live with some forms of gun control. We may have opportunities to influence how much. But imagining that somehow we can make it all go away isn't going to help.

It is absolutely going to help. Maybe we will never reach that goal but to settle and accept any level of control is to cede ground to the Brady bunch.

So let's say you give them a 50 round limit on magazines for handguns. You figure few folks would even try to use them and it will appease the anti's and you can move on with life. Do you think that they will be happy there or will they come back with a 45 round limit after a short period of time? it is sad but we can never accept less than no restrictions because once you give these guys any middle ground they will push beyond the middle.

So I would say the converse is true, accepting limitations on a protected right for law abiding citizens, is never good.

Look at the freedom of speech. We started with the fire in a crowded theater limitation now, they are assigning protesters on public property specific zones they need to go to, frequently out of site of the object they are protesting.

History has shown when we accept limitation on our rights and fail to fight against them , those limitations will grow.

 

[JayBird]

You don't think there would be a test in your mandatory training in school?

Since we aren't likely to have mandatory training in school, perhaps you'd rather we require proof of completion of a NRA-certified course to purchase a firearm? Mandatory is mandatory, no matter where it takes place.

There is a big difference between mandatory safety training FOR EVERYONE in junior high school, than mandatory training to purchase a firearm.

One is a requirement for ownership...one is not. I do not see mandatory training for everyone in the US as an infringement.

Plus, it would probably remove some of the negative stigma associated with firearms from those who have never touched one.

 

[reflex439]

If someone wants to own a firearm in their home for self protection and defense, shooting sports, hunting, etc, I believe its their right and they shouldn't be restricted by required. Training should be actively promoted, encouraged, and free information made readily available. But it should up to the individual if they wish to take training courses.

However, once they carry that firearm out into businesses, malls, or places where others are gathering, I strongly feel some training should be required. The training should cover laws on the use of deadly force, proper operation, firearms safety, basic tactics, and conclude with a written test and minimum proficiency demonstration.

I believe the training requirements should be set by an organization of our peers made by members from the NRA, dealers/manufacturers, training providers, etc. Training should be performed by individual businesses within our industry that meet a basic criteria, and should NOT be government run. This would allow us to police ourselves, grow small businesses within our industry, and help fund local ranges with training classes and new memberships. These are all beneficial side effects.

We don't require people to be licensed to own a car, dental equipment, construction cranes, or electricians tools. But we do require proper training before allowing people to drive on the highways, perform root canals or surgical procedures, operate cranes on a job site, or wire buildings of others. Its required because the evils of not doing are far more problematic for all.

I don't see why it should be any different for firearms. I believe any law abiding person should be able to carry if they desire for any lawful purpose. But I also feel they should be held to a minimum standard to ensure safety for the overall public.

Plus, it would probably remove some of the negative stigma associated with firearms from those who have never touched one.

This is true. I've introduced many to shooting that had a negative stigma to start. Teaching someone that these things just don't go off, and watching them get their first bullseye, greatly changes their overall perspective. Most had no idea there were so many sports and competitions centered around shooting. That level of exposure is all positive, and we need as much of that as we can get.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...So why -- WHY -- are WE arguing to sway OURSELVES to support more restrictions and controls in the forms of tests, mandatory programs, taxes, etc?

If our enemies, who have long sought to establish these and many other controls, are falling by the wayside, why would we succumb to the self-destructive compulsion to pick up their torch and run with it? Are we so afraid of our own success?...

We're hardly scattering our enemies before us. We're gaining ground inch by inch. Heller and McDonald were 5 to 4 decisions. We're facing strong and concerted opposition in followup litigation. We continue to face anti-gun legislation in a number of States.

The point is not that we stop fighting. Rather the point is that we must continue to fight -- to make our best cases and continue to be good ambassadors for the Second Amendment.

We can't be cocky or complacent. This will not be a walkover, and we will never be able to give up fighting.

 

[Sam1911]

Agreed, but that doesn't negate my point. Why champion increased hurdles, hardships, and infringements -- why even entertain the thought, let alone actively seek them -- when we're making such strides to tear such down wherever we can?

We seem to be capitulating from a position of greater strength, which isn't sound negotiation, if you even accept that this is a negotiation of sorts.

Much as if Rosa Parks, on hearing of the passage of the Civil Rights act in '64 had said, "Now that's mighty nice of you all, and to show all that there's no hard feelings, I'll go ahead and sit in the back of the bus!"

 

[cskny]

Further, the statistics involving accidents and 'gun crime' are ALSO falling further every year -- corresponding with or at least juxtaposing with the reductions in onerous gun control laws -- which can only be evidence in favor of our position.

So why -- WHY -- are WE arguing to sway OURSELVES to support more restrictions and controls in the forms of tests, mandatory programs, taxes, etc?


Both sides have statistics. Both sides "claim" their statistics support their messages. The reality is, statistics are manipulatable and clearly both sides pick and choose what supports their current arguments. A bunch of math majors would rip all the statistics apart. When you find a truly independent group with NO agenda and NO objective, and you find independent flawless data, let me know cause I want to meet ET (cause there's no way it's human based).

It's become absolutely ridiculous to me that everyone these days seems to argue black and white "polar" opinions and then INSISTS that we must "choose" which side we are on. Just look at the news now, if I'm conservative I must choose FOX news so I can hear my conservative slant on everything. If I'm liberal, I must choose MSNBC so I can hear the news with a liberal slant. They are doing a great job fractioning the masses. What happen to just "news" and my own opinion?

Gun control isn't different. You have an "opinion" (read : opinion). You are free to have it and argue your case. You can site statistics and the like to support it. You might be 'correct' in some or all of what you say. The issue is, other's don't share that opinion and won't EVER share it. They have an opinion (read : opinion). They are entitled to have it and site statistics and the like to support it. Maybe they are 'correct' in some or all of what they say. Maybe, when we die, God can tell us who was 'most' correct but in the meantime we will have gun controls that fall somewhere in between.

But now, neither side can hear the other because we are supposed to 'choose sides', talk only amongst ourselves, and stop listening to those now "bad guys".

The new goal on both sides isn't to accomplish anything, it's just to talk louder and last.

There are some of us that aren't so interested in that new goal.

 

[Sam1911]

There are some of us that aren't so interested in that new goal.

I can't disagree with you there.

My only goal is the repeal of gun control laws. What's yours?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Agreed, but that doesn't negate my point. Why champion increased hurdles, hardships, and infringements -- ...

Where have I championed increased hurdles?

....why even entertain the thought...

Well, to go a little far afield, because to the extent we want to make inroads politically, there will usually be a price -- a trade off. We need to consider what we want more, and what we might be willing to pay for it.

In many States, the price of lawful concealed carry has been a "shall issue" permit system, with fees and often with training requirements. Was it worth it?

 

[Sam1911]

Where have I championed increased hurdles?

My apologies. Some have. I shouldn't have included you in that.

We need to consider what we want more, and what we might be willing to pay for it.

But is this discussion on a political level usually framed as a direct this-for-that bargain negotiation? Sometimes yes, certainly, but in my observations usually we're simply under attack, not at the bargaining table. And, as many have said before me, how do you negotiate with someone holding nothing you want? All we could ever do is agree to give away something we have in the hope that they won't take ALL that we have. Kind of like pleading with thieves.

Of course, if there ever was to be an offer by the 'other' side that they would give up some gun control that is already established in exchange for implementing some other gun control that they want -- well, we perhaps could talk. But I don't see that happening here, at all.

In many States, the price of lawful concealed carry has been a "shall issue" permit system, with fees and often with training requirements. Was it worth it?

That seems to me to be a different case. When rights have already been abridged, and we're vying to re-establish those rights, it is not necessarily illegitimate to accept an improvement even should it come with conditions.

In the discussion at hand, however, we seem to see a number of folks (not you, I understand) actively seeking increased regulation, testing, or controls of some sort -- NOT as a bargaining chip to wrest some more onerous restriction away from the other side, but simply for its own sake. That is the part I can't understand.

And that's my question from post 102 (and others). Why are WE seeking this out? Why are some of us desirous of imposing further controls? Why are WE (some of us, again) carrying this particular torch out of the Sugarman/Brady camp, when this doesn't even seem to be on their radar screen at the moment?

Again, with friends such as these...

 

[gbw]

Agreed, but that doesn't negate my point. Why champion increased hurdles, hardships, and infringements -- why even entertain the thought, let alone actively seek them -- when we're making such strides to tear such down wherever we can?

Because it isn’t a pissing contest, us v. them. It’s the right thing to do. I’m no fan of mandates and I wish there were another way. I don’t see one, especially the ‘voluntary’ pipe dream. Take a look at too many of your neighbors and see what you think.

I would, btw, require standards for training, and a test before it’s legal to own a gun. Once per lifetime will do. In school, in the military, LEO, NRA, wherever. Get trained and licensed (the ‘license’ is merely proof of successful training). Then, if you want to own 1 gun or fifty who cares. Those who aren’t willing don’t bother me. When they decide to accept simple adult responsibilities they can have guns too.

It probably would save a life or two, net. I’ll bet most of you, if you’re honest, will agree. (No Vern, I can’t prove it geometrically in advance). Maybe that is ‘statistically insignificant’. But we’re talking lives, living people, not statistics.

It’s not a restriction or an infringement. It’s an inconvenience. Suffer it gladly.

It’s not a diabolical plot to control guns, or minds, nor a backdoor path to tyranny.

It’s not a poll tax, which was intended to deny a right. This wouldn’t deny anything to anyone willing to make a little effort.

Can I be positive that it never will? Guarantee it? No, I can’t. As many here are so fond of pointing out, life is risk. What we can do is limit, absolutely, the amount of training / testing / licensing we will agree to as nothing more stringent than that we all go through to drive. (I know, I know, driving is not a divine right protected in the BOR. BS. Try restricting it and you’ll really see a popular uprising.)

It is a responsible act and acknowledges what we all know: guns are dangerous, people who choose to own them should be competent, and the rest of society has a reasonable right to require such. (And, as has been so ably noted, they can all vote. True, a lot do it during DWTS commercials. Nevertheless, they are here too and have rights and we need to live peaceably with them.)

For those who live in Mom’s basement – don’t bother with the ball bats, knives, chainsaws, or whatever-other-tool arguments. The danger in all that stuff ends at or near the end of the arm. Guns are in a class by themselves, they are far more dangerous and everybody, gun person or not, knows it. Much more. That’s why cops, soldiers, and I carry one.

 

[JayBird]

Personally Sam...I am no proponent of any infringement.

If you took my desire to see mandatory junior high school firearm safety classes as an infringement, well, then I disagree with you, as I feel the idea has alot of merits.

However, the discussions that go on here, the arguments for more or less training, the differing views of gun owners, or our differing goals are not what scares me.

What scares me is the fact that gun owners are a minority in this country, and we are just one knee jerk reaction away from having our rights taken away.

 

[Sam1911]

Because it isn’t a ... contest, us v. them.

Every move involved with the right to bear arms is politicized to a degree that makes it a zero-sum contest. Perhaps I wish that wasn't so, but it absolutely is and we have to face the realities of the world we exist within. (See below...)

It’s the right thing to do.

Well, that is your opinion, and I can't fault you for it. I don't share it at all, but I appreciate your honesty.

I’m no fan of mandates and I wish there were another way. I don’t see one, especially the ‘voluntary’ pipe dream.

The problem is that the concept of a 'benevolent' government coercive program to make such happen is a BIGGER pipe dream (by far) than the daily visible phenomenon of new gun owners seeking out training and safety instruction. Not all do, of course, and that's too bad. More do than ever before, and that's great. Government forcing it is NEVER going to be a positive move, ever.

Take a look at too many of your neighbors and see what you think.

I see lifelong hunters and shooters (or not, in some cases) who don't seem to kill anyone, don't seem to have bullet exit holes in their houses, and who have given me no reason to ever believe they should be forced to undergo some further government intrusion. As the old saying goes, 279,999,990 guns in private hands killed no-one yesterday. We're seeking to solve a social problem which is small, and dwindling on its own, by implementing (heck, inviting!) massive government programs which rarely accomplish their stated goal well and always balloon to massive proportions in the attempt to exceed their mandate.

Those who aren’t willing don’t bother me. When they decide to accept simple adult responsibilities they can have guns too.

I certainly mean no offense, but I am very glad you don't get to make this choice.

It probably would save a life or two, net. I’ll bet most of you, if you’re honest, will agree. (No Vern, I can’t prove it geometrically in advance). Maybe that is ‘statistically insignificant’. But we’re talking lives, living people, not statistics.

The CDC says, in 2007, 2,400,000 people died in the US. All kinds of accidents accounted for only 124,000 of them (a little over 5%). The NRA (not unbiased, I'm sure) says that 0.5% of those accidental deaths involve a firearm. Which works out to something near 620 deaths a year. Mercer School of Medicine (just a reference I found) lists 642 accidental gun deaths in 2006. There were approximately 303 MILLION Americans alive in 2007. That means that 1 out of every 473,400 or so died as a result of an accidental firearm discharge. How many billions are we going to spend -- how far are we going to open the door for the government monster to crawl in, to prevent this ... astronomically unlikely ... problem? We near-about should be building meteor shelters.

We lose so many, MANY more people through a very large list of other causes that we aren't demanding the government force us to deal with. Why this tiny, tiny pebble in the road? Gun owner guilt?

It’s not a restriction or an infringement. It’s an inconvenience. Suffer it gladly.

Another? No thanks.

It’s not a diabolical plot to control guns, or minds, nor a backdoor path to tyranny. It’s not a poll tax, which was intended to deny a right. This wouldn’t deny anything to anyone willing to make a little effort.

It isn't -- in YOUR plans. Surely you have the most humanitarian purposes, and would stand firmly against any step over the line of 'reasonableness' -- wherever you personally felt that line was.

But folks have been reasoned, argued, cajoled, and guilted onto very similar slippery slopes for centuries now.

 

[Sam1911]

If you took my desire to see mandatory junior high school firearm safety classes as an infringement, well, then I disagree with you, as I feel the idea has alot of merits.

Heavens no! I rather like the idea. Not sure 'mandatory' should ever be placed in an educational setting (actually I'm quite opposed to that) but it should be available.

What scares me is the fact that gun owners are a minority in this country, and we are just one knee jerk reaction away from having our rights taken away.

I don't see this at all. We may be a minority, but not a tiny one. A supreme court decision reversing Heller (or whatever your definition of having our rights taken away may be) is a lot more than some random "knee-jerk" away.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It probably would save a life or two, net. I’ll bet most of you, if you’re honest, will agree. (No Vern, I can’t prove it geometrically in advance). Maybe that is ‘statistically insignificant’. But we’re talking lives, living people, not statistics.

"Geometrically?"

You're using the Fallacy of Limited Alternatives, pretending the only choices are to do what you advocate or do nothing.

Since the homicide rate and the accident rate are falling rather dramatically right now, it appears what we are doing now is yielding striking success.

Whatever we do in addition to that will cost money. We don't have money to throw away. So it's up to you to demonstrate that your plan is the best use of our limited funds, compared to alternative approaches.

(Hint: Dealing with depression or gang violence, as mentioned in an earlier post, offers a much greater chance of saving lives.)

It’s not a restriction or an infringement. It’s an inconvenience. Suffer it gladly.

From now on, report to work wearing a mini-skirt and no panties. It’s not a restriction or an infringement. It’s an inconvenience. Suffer it gladly.

 

[cskny]

I can't disagree with you there.

My only goal is the repeal of gun control laws. What's yours?


Helping modify the cruddy laws that result from the constant inflexible battle between your extreme and the "no guns allowed" extreme

When neither side can accept that WE WILL live in middle (even though, we already do), the solutions will continue to make no sense.

 

[JayBird]

I don't see this at all. We may be a minority, but not a tiny one. A supreme court decision reversing Heller (or whatever your definition of having our rights taken away may be) is a lot more than some random "knee-jerk" away.

I wish I didn't see it at all as well. Yes, I think our numbers are growing, but I often wonder if they are growing at the same pace as our numbers are dieing off as they get older and pass on.

I know there is no way to statistically determine the percentage of American Gun owners(which I like) but most estimates seem to think we are under 30%. That is not enough to protect our right if a Majority determined guns needed to go away.

Take a look at Britain or Australia. Heck, there was even a recent(albeit unsuccessful push) in Switzerland.

If something like this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

...occurred in the US tomorrow, it would be quite quick that the majority would band together and trample our rights.

Historically, almost all major firearm regulation in any country has been successfully passed shortly after a mass tragedy where the government takes advantage of the public's emotional reaction and fear.

While I hope none of this ever comes true, I cant sit back and relax and rejoice in our recent victories, as those victories could be snatched right out from underneath our noses in a blink of an eye....be damned with our constitution or our rights.

 

[Sam1911]

Helping modify the cruddy laws that result from the constant inflexible battle between your extreme and the "no guns allowed" extreme

Okay. I don't see a lack of a training/testing requirement as part of the "cruddy" cess pool of gun laws we're saddled with, so I guess we'll disagree on that.

If you can convince the "other" side to put NFA '34, GCA '68 and any number of state prohibitions on the bargaining table, I'll come right in and have a seat and we can talk about negotiating for some form of universal training initiative. Perhaps there is some kind of bargain that can be struck.

Until then, I'll just have to continue viewing this as a win/lose battle ... that we seem to be winning.

 

[cskny]

If you can convince the "other" side to put NFA '34, GCA '68 and any number of state prohibitions on the bargaining table, I'll come right in and have a seat and we can talk about negotiating for some form of universal training initiative. Perhaps there is some kind of bargain that can be struck.

If we could only get everyone from all sides to be so reasonable maybe we could get somewhere that made some sense

 

[Monkey_King]

Jaybird, I think firearms safety courses in public school are a great idea and I'm sure most on here would agree. I wouldn't want it to be mandatory simply because I wouldn't force firearms on anyone who is adamantly opposed to their existence anymore than I would force animal dissections on animal lovers. (I am one by the way; they taste great!) Nor should it be a prerequisite for owning a firearm, but I would love to see some of that tax money spent on a elective firearms safety course. Hell, I might audit it myself if they would let an old grey beard sit in. I just wanted to let you know I am one who would love to see more training oportunities as long as they're voluntary. I was lucky to have a TWRA hunters safety course and 4-H shooting sports when I grew up. Also, my dad taught me way before that even though he never handles his own guns.

 

[zxcvbob]

I would, btw, require standards for training, and a test before it’s legal to own a gun. Once per lifetime will do. In school, in the military, LEO, NRA, wherever. Get trained and licensed (the ‘license’ is merely proof of successful training). Then, if you want to own 1 gun or fifty who cares. Those who aren’t willing don’t bother me. When they decide to accept simple adult responsibilities they can have guns too.

The training is a good idea until you make it mandatory. At that point, you are back to the poll tax. Somebody (presumably the government) gets to set the level of training and the required grade to pass -- then they keep raising the the difficulty until nobody can pass and you have a defacto ban.

Also, don't idiots have the same rights as the rest of us? Someone who is illiterate should be deprived the means to protect himself? Read the Declaration of Independence and the 14th Amendment.

 

[gbw]

Every move involved with the right to bear arms is politicized to a degree that makes it a zero-sum contest. Perhaps I wish that wasn't so, but it absolutely is and we have to face the realities of the world we exist within. (See below...)

Sometimes you put the politics aside, hold your nose, and take the high road (sorry). I understand the reason for your fear, I don’t share it, I remain confident we can avoid the slippery slope, though it won't be easy.

I certainly mean no offense, but I am very glad you don't get to make this choice.

I’m not offended. Of course I expected all of this And you needn’t be. Anyone willing to put the time, thought, and effort into the issue as you, however misguided, has nothing to fear from me.

...Government forcing it is NEVER going to be a positive move, ever.

Never say never. They said as much about speed limits? Medical standards? And on, and on, and on,…Perfect, no. Needed, yes.

The CDC says, in 2007...............

Again with the statistics. They are an easy way to cherry pick for the result you want, nothing more. At the end of the day were still talking about real people.

"Geometrically?"

You're using the Fallacy of Limited Alternatives, pretending the only choices are to do what you advocate or do nothing.

Put those degrees to work. Or get another. The whole thread is binary – read the title. Either training should be required or not. No fallacy involved except the one you made up.

Since the homicide rate and the accident rate are falling rather dramatically right now, it appears what we are doing now is yielding striking success.

What are we doing? 'Cause I missed it. The rates you're so proud of could as easily be an aberration or 'statistically insignificant', it's way to early to make such a conclusion. You statistics guys should know that.

Whatever we do in addition to that will cost money. We don't have money to throw away. So it's up to you to demonstrate that your plan is the best use of our limited funds, compared to alternative approaches.

I’ve seen this tried more times and ways than you can ever imagine. In a lifetime spent allocating and using very large amounts of money, mine and others’, I think I can honestly say I’ve never seen it done effectively. Nice try.

(Hint: Dealing with depression or gang violence, as mentioned in an earlier post, offers a much greater chance of saving lives.)

Now this really IS the fallacy of limited alternatives.

It would cost, for your lifetime, at worst less than a couple boxes of .45s. Far less than the cost of a gun, or your computer, or any piece of the unused junk sitting in your garage.

From now on, report to work wearing a mini-skirt and no panties. It’s not a restriction or an infringement. It’s an inconvenience. Suffer it gladly.

Not sure of the point here, but okay, and believe me when I say I won’t be the one suffering!

And now I, for one, really am done with this one.

 

[JayBird]

Jaybird, I think firearms safety courses in public school are a great idea and I'm sure most on here would agree. I wouldn't want it to be mandatory simply because I wouldn't force firearms on anyone who is adamantly opposed to their existence anymore than I would force animal dissections on animal lovers. (I am one by the way; they taste great!) Nor should it be a prerequisite for owning a firearm, but I would love to see some of that tax money spent on a elective firearms safety course. Hell, I might audit it myself if they would let an old grey beard sit in. I just wanted to let you know I am one who would love to see more training oportunities as long as they're voluntary. I was lucky to have a TWRA hunters safety course and 4-H shooting sports when I grew up. Also, my dad taught me way before that even though he never handles his own guns.

I see your points on not making it mandatory. It just really irks the hell out of me seeing schools indoctrinate our younger generation into gun fearing citizens. Hell, they cant even say the word gun in schools anymore. They have turned the word 'gun' into a dirty 4 letter word with all of the connotations that are associated with it.

If a school can teach sex education, they should teach firearm education. Heck....maybe they should combine the two.....

"This is my rifle, this is my gun, this is for fighting, this is for fun"

I know...I know. We actually agree here for the most part. I guess I would agree to a 'mandatory' firearm training unless exempted by a parents note. That would be my compromise. See...I am not unreasonable.

 

[stuckinsocal]

Because it isn’t a pissing contest, us v. them. It’s the right thing to do. I’m no fan of mandates and I wish there were another way. I don’t see one, especially the ‘voluntary’ pipe dream. Take a look at too many of your neighbors and see what you think.

I would, btw, require standards for training, and a test before it’s legal to own a gun. Once per lifetime will do. In school, in the military, LEO, NRA, wherever. Get trained and licensed (the ‘license’ is merely proof of successful training). Then, if you want to own 1 gun or fifty who cares. Those who aren’t willing don’t bother me. When they decide to accept simple adult responsibilities they can have guns too.

It probably would save a life or two, net. I’ll bet most of you, if you’re honest, will agree. (No Vern, I can’t prove it geometrically in advance). Maybe that is ‘statistically insignificant’. But we’re talking lives, living people, not statistics.

It’s not a restriction or an infringement. It’s an inconvenience. Suffer it gladly.

It’s not a diabolical plot to control guns, or minds, nor a backdoor path to tyranny.

It’s not a poll tax, which was intended to deny a right. This wouldn’t deny anything to anyone willing to make a little effort.

Can I be positive that it never will? Guarantee it? No, I can’t. As many here are so fond of pointing out, life is risk. What we can do is limit, absolutely, the amount of training / testing / licensing we will agree to as nothing more stringent than that we all go through to drive. (I know, I know, driving is not a divine right protected in the BOR. BS. Try restricting it and you’ll really see a popular uprising.)

It is a responsible act and acknowledges what we all know: guns are dangerous, people who choose to own them should be competent, and the rest of society has a reasonable right to require such. (And, as has been so ably noted, they can all vote. True, a lot do it during DWTS commercials. Nevertheless, they are here too and have rights and we need to live peaceably with them.)

For those who live in Mom’s basement – don’t bother with the ball bats, knives, chainsaws, or whatever-other-tool arguments. The danger in all that stuff ends at or near the end of the arm. Guns are in a class by themselves, they are far more dangerous and everybody, gun person or not, knows it. Much more. That’s why cops, soldiers, and I carry one.

ANY requirement, mandate, or other standard that people are held to before they can buy/own/carry a gun is an infringement of the 2A. Period. Your arguments sound like the same arguments the Brady's come up with against "assault weapons", high cap mags, CC, and just about any other gun related topic. Seriously, what part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? Mandatory training to own a gun is an infringement, not simply an inconvienence. Maybe you personally would want mandatory training to actually do some good and save lives (if it would actually accomplish the goal), but I guarantee that the government and government officials setting the training standards do intend to use it to deny a right. That's what every gun law is about. Gun laws don't stop criminals. It's been proven time and time again. Yet the government wants to implement more laws. So you have to ask why. If gun control doesn't accomplish the stated goal of keeping criminals from getting guns, why does the government want more laws? I think the answer is obvious.

Yes, guns are dangerous. Several of the guns I own were used in wars to kill people. I own several guns specifically to shoot people/animals should I ever be unfortunate enough to have to defend my life. As a law abiding and responsible adult, I acknowledge that I have a responsibility to know how to safely use them and the laws governing their use and the use of deadly force. And if you almost have to be a lawyer to understand a damn thing about California gun laws. Hell, even the cops and DOJ don't understand the gun laws here. But that's my responsibility and mine alone. It's not up to you, the government, or anyone else to decide what standard I should be held to regarding competence or how responsible I should be to own guns. I leave an unlocked, loaded rifle by my bed when I'm at home. Many gun owners, the government, and anti's say that's irresponsible for me to do. Yet I don't think it's irresponsible. What else is going to be restricted when you give that kind of power to any entity to decide the standards?