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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The elected official that oversees CCW says CCW holders need to have the renewal period shortened (7 down to 5 years) and receive training at each renewal.

https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2019/...ants-big-changes-states-concealed-carry-laws/

Agriculture Commissioner Nikki Fried, who runs the concealed-weapons permit program, said she welcomed Jacquet’s “contribution” to the debate but didn’t commit to it when asked about a mental health examination for a concealed weapons permit.
“If we’re gong to make an honest effort to take on the issue of gun violence, all ideas need to be considered – everyone deserves a seat at the table for this discussion,” said Fried.

Training is a good idea but how often should NOT be at the discretion of government.
 
Let's not apply this to cars. Or any other such.

The RCBA is a RIGHT, and it's NOT a right "granted" by our government.

People who advocate such stupidity as this have no inkling of what constitutes "formal training" outside of some preconceived notion probably centering around law enforcement or military training. If they really knew the average training the majority of such obtain in those vocations, and what it really means in the field when actually used, perhaps they might not push this idea.

What they REALLY mean by such comments is "institute more controls over who can and cannot own firearms". In other words, it's not about "training", it's once again about "control".

Safe (and effective) use of firearms isn't rocket science. People who like to treat it as such (and perhaps honestly believe it) are, in short, morons.

No one said it is rocket science. So those that Instruct first time owners about gun safety and those that teach Hunter safety course's are just morons? These are just people that want "control"? I would say the vast majority of all Americans do know the concept of formal training and have done so in many areas of life.But then again, I have not idea of what your defination of "formal" training is. A person can hire a instructor to do a 30 min. training session at just about any where they choose. Even at the side of a pool in a bathing suite. Is this formal training?

A formal meeting is a pre-planned gathering of two or more people who have assembled for the purpose of achieving a common goal through verbal interaction. ... These meetings are held at a specific time, at a defined place and according to an agreed agenda.
 
Last edited:
When you screw up it is on you? Unless the screw up kills a innocent person.How does a dead or severely injured person face up to it?
In my state you have to complete a Hunters safety course to hunt. Is that wrong? Not sure what you mean by your comment that the State can just take away your driving privilege at a whim. What does that mean? I have not seen this written anywhere in my states laws etc. The state does require certain procedures to insure safety of others, is that wrong?
To get a CCW you do have the right to get one, provided you are not a criminal and have gone through some sort of safety training. Is that wrong? Some folks feel that there should be no check at all in the competency of driving a vehicle, or firearm carry. I am PRO 2A in every respect and lol NOT a liberal in any sense of the word, but there is a flip side to things as well.
And of course their is a difference in just ownership and use of, in regards to public safety.
If we actually have "rights", we shouldnt need to ask some sort of government or other authority for permission to do so.

With rights, comes individual responsibility, and its up to you to be responsible enough to get the training necessary, to do whatever it is that you want to do. Its is still "supposedly" your right, and your free to do as you wish, so yes, you should be held accountable for anything you screw up, and it is on you if you do.

Its not up to the government, bank, insurance agency to decide whats right for you, thats supposed to be our choice. All those "rules" and "permissions", are meant to control us, and to limit other's liabilities.
 
...With rights, comes individual responsibility, and its up to you to be responsible enough to get the training necessary...all those "rules" and "permissions", are meant to control us, and to limit other's liabilities.
Yes, yes and yes, but without educating the individual as to what their rights and responsibilities are, it's easier for authority to just tell them what their limits are and then to enforce those limits instead of respecting those rights. It's difficult for authority - it gives them problems respecting rights. That's why I say gun knowledge is better than gun control. We should be educating and informing people, not controlling them. If given the freedom to exercise those rights they then abuse them, well, then they have to face the consequences.
 
A strong family just about fixes everything. The elders/wise family members teach others the skills needed not to hurt themselves or others.
They also usually teach history and ways to improve inner strength.

Many of the same people who want to force firearm training, want to weaken the family unit. And rewrite history and diminish your inner strength.

As many have already posted, it's just a way to control.
 
Take a look at the frequency of injury auto accidents vs gun accidents.
Where's the outrage?
Funny just got into a wreck yesterday. Been injured by vehicles more then guns. And the only injures from firearms where minor and my fault. (Slide bite, hot brass in shirt, and a nd that hurt my ears).
 
If we actually have "rights", we shouldnt need to ask some sort of government or other authority for permission to do so.

With rights, comes individual responsibility, and its up to you to be responsible enough to get the training necessary, to do whatever it is that you want to do. Its is still "supposedly" your right, and your free to do as you wish, so yes, you should be held accountable for anything you screw up, and it is on you if you do.

Its not up to the government, bank, insurance agency to decide whats right for you, thats supposed to be our choice. All those "rules" and "permissions", are meant to control us, and to limit other's liabilities.

Got news for ya. The Gov. does control banks and Insurance companies, and many other things. And in most cases a good thing. Usually their is a balance in most things in life. It is when it becomes unbalanced and not controlled that things get out of whack or too much control. Some folks do not want any control from anyone or anything in life. I get it. At present, I do not feel controlled. At least not yet. I have a right to bear arms, I have a right to CCW with controls which does not bother me one bit. Individuals are all different.
Some folks want it all and just one way. No range officers, clubs with NO rules, no controls and on and on. Some hate law and order and the people in charge of enforcing those rules. .
Maybe there is a gun heaven when we all die and there will be no rules. Right Now, I cannot shoot the way I have been for years. And it is NOT the Gov. that has caused this. It is people.
 
Title pretty much speaks for itself. This has been something I've heard (and/or some variation of it) for quite a while now and am interested to see what your thoughts are on it. NOTE: This isn't my opinion, just a claim that I've heard people throw around quite a bit and (apparently) one that many people stand by.

Hah, So unpopular opinion here .... I'm not against the idea and while I'm not necessarily for it, either, I may lean that way a bit more than .... everyone else on the board I read so far. We do tend to 'restrict' dangerous things to some degree or another. Have to pass a test to drive a car, have to be so old to buy tobacco or alcohol, have to be so high to ride a rollercoaster, etc.

I think the idea that this is a right, comes with it a sense of responsibility too, that if abused or ignored should have consequences. After all, we have to remember that our rights end at the tips of the other parties nose. And in my mind, front loading it via some process like a CCDW permit isn't a terrible plan -- it's akin to the drivers test, though admittedly, driving is not a constitutional right. I guess, if you do something stupid and crash without your seatbelt fastened, you and your family run the risk of having to deal with some bad situations. If you screw around with a firearm and it discharges inappropriately, you and your family run the same risks, but so do the bystanders, neighbors, passerbyes, local stray cats, and property of others --- and all of these people have a reasonable right, in my mind, to assume that most folks within a mile of them at any given point with firearms have at least heard the basics of firearm safety. Even with really well trained and versed folks in law enforcement, the firearm industry, etc. we still see accidental discharges, or over exuberance in extrajudicial use of force with firearms that results in injury, death, and/or heartbreak.

Anecdotally, as a CCDW permit instructor in Kentucky for a few years (a few years back), my positions really changed after group, after group, after group of folks who attended the 2-day training course, with their own weapons, routinely had no experience, flashed other trainee's with loaded guns, made statements during the legal part of the training about 'hoping to shoot the folks in the street who mess with my car on the weekends,' etc. They were all there to presumably carry a firearm with them at all times, and so many were lacking the basic knowledge, skills, and practice to safely do just that. We kicked (and refunded their money and ammo) about 1 person per 12 out of every group, encouraging them to get practice and come back. You don't get a 'free pass' holding you loaded gun out and turning around flashing 13 other folks, just because you are there to get a CCDW.... you get politely but firmly removed from the farm with a discussion about what went wrong. This behavior was usually after 2 days of pretty thorough instruction on firearm function, safety, cleaning, risk, laws, etc. And while we instructors were the common denominator there, I don't think that we were so awful at it that this is an outlier.

Relatedly, I also have come to disagree with the SCOTUS verdict that the part about the 'well regulated militia' is essentially meaningless today. My reading, as a non-professional, non-legal savvy, generally kinda-daft guy, is that the 'well regulated' part implies a sort of inherent training, or at last tacitly assumes that everyone it applies to would have some skill with firearms.... which would be necessary for, you know, overthrowing tyrannical governments with professionally trained armies at their disposal. After all, the success of minutemen (not the continental army, though that point isn't entirely different here, either) and looser associations 'militia' forces (as in - just you and your neighbor trying to stop red coated guys with guns from taking your farm and slaughtering the cow) during the Rev.War stands out as a bit of a historical outlier due to some very specific historical trends and happenings at that time.
 
As another point of thought:

Legally blind people can own firearms.

Im probably not alone when I say I do not want to be around in the event said legally blind person uses a firearm for defensive purposes.

Maybe, but blind people are particularly vulnerable, so I guess you make a lot of noise letting them know you are not a threat
 
Common sense dictates. If you never handled a firearm then you should seek training to handle said firearm. Really, untrained people who handle a firearm around my presence scare me.

Yep, Plenty of people that do not have a clue about safety and could care less. Is seems they also are the same that are against any rules. They always say things like "I got my rights".
 
Yep, Plenty of people that do not have a clue about safety and could care less. Is seems they also are the same that are against any rules. They always say things like "I got my rights".
Youre either trying hard to miss the point and deflect, or just being like this to be difficult.

Do you really believe you have rights?

Do you have to ask and get permission to exercise a right?

If you have rights, and exercise them, are you responsible for your actions?

I get and fully support training and safety, I think most of us do, I just believe its MY responsibility to get the training and be safe, not the governments, or anyone else decision to make, and/or give me "permission" to exercise my "right".

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." :thumbup:
 
Youre either trying hard to miss the point and deflect, or just being like this to be difficult.

Do you really believe you have rights?

Do you have to ask and get permission to exercise a right?

If you have rights, and exercise them, are you responsible for your actions?

I get and fully support training and safety, I think most of us do, I just believe its MY responsibility to get the training and be safe, not the governments, or anyone else decision to make, and/or give me "permission" to exercise my "right".

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." :thumbup:

I am not missing the point nor being difficult. I think at this point is were we just agree to disagree and move on. Thank you for your opinion have a good day and be safe.
 
Last edited:
I agree with whoever said "Freedom isn't always pretty"
We do tend to 'restrict' dangerous things to some degree or another. Have to pass a test to drive a car, have to be so old to buy tobacco or alcohol, have to be so high to ride a rollercoaster, etc.
And while I agree that there are persons that should not be able to possess firearms, there are plenty of restrictions for that. Felons, domestic abusers, certain mental illness, non-citizen for the most part, etc...
Nobody here would care to have another individual or group deciding what rights we can exercise based on decisions we "might" make to violate said rights. If any of our rights are able to be restricted/stripped at the whim of other people, without due process, then the Constitution is no more meaningful than the Magna Carta. Just a historical document that we learn (or just heard*) about in school.

*ETA
 
Last edited:
All you need to know, a few minutes to read and understand.
View attachment 946584

My primary quibble with that list is that it mixes some universal rules (I, II, IV, VI, which are the fundamental Four Rules of gun safety) with some rules that are strictly “while hunting only” (e.g., V), or even “while hunting with long guns only” (VII, unless you draw your holstered revolver, unload and clear it, and reholster it every time you have to step over a ditch, then draw it again, reload it, and reholster it after you step).

For defensive guns kept at home in a safe, V and IX are not applicable as written (“secured from access by children and careless adults” and “stored in a separate place from the ammo so they can’t be accessed quickly” are separate concepts, and only one of them is praiseworthy if you live in a home with a safe).

My state has a “hunting oriented” list like that in hunting classes, but it’s not the rules you’ll get in the carry licensure class. Unfortunately, the prohibitionists sometimes cite hunting-only rules as generally applicable to gun ownership in the home, which is where D.C.’s “guns and ammo must be stored separately at home” law came from.

My quibble is with the last line: "avoid alcoholic beverages before or after shooting". This quite literally says that the only acceptable time to drink is while shooting.
 
In Virginia it is for 5 years
Those of you that know me - know the following is true!

First time (1998) they asked me for proof of training I said I will be right back. Went home and put on my class A greens with all the bling. Went back and pointed to all the ribbons, badges and patches and said, " is that enough proof for you!"
Since then I'm persona non grata at the clerks office, but they never bothered me again cause I'm kinda a minor big deal around town.
 
In Virginia it is for 5 years
Those of you that know me - know the following is true!

First time (1998) they asked me for proof of training I said I will be right back. Went home and put on my class A greens with all the bling. Went back and pointed to all the ribbons, badges and patches and said, " is that enough proof for you!"
Since then I'm persona non grata at the clerks office, but they never bothered me again cause I'm kinda a minor big deal around town.


You are Major League in all towns. (at least most)
Thank you for your Service.

Here are a couple more of some Big League players

http://www.viewpure.com/AWRJvl2TkNk?start=0&end=0
 
Chicago had their handgun ban overturned by SCOTUS in the McDonald case 2010.
So they required handgun training including firing qualification at a firing range as to get permission to own a handgun.
The used zoning laws to prevent private firing ranges in the city.
And refused to allow civilians to shoot at piloce rangess within the city.

New York City requires a $140 permit and $96 background check to buy a rifle.

Reasonal regulation to prohibitionists is onerous regulation, permits, feess to the point of de facto prohibition.
 
The one thing that gets ignored in arguments (debates) of this type is,,,
Neither side is going to change the other sides mind.

The people who argue for "reasonable restrictions" can't really defend their stances,,,
Because what leaves their lips is not what is in their brain.

They aren't arguing for training,,,
They are simply arguing against gun ownership.

No matter what the topic of the moment is,,,
They are trying to disarm all citizens,,,
Thinking it will make them safer.

They want rules and regulations banning anything that scares them,,,
The problem is that everything scares them.

So they try and legislate the environment so they will feel safe.

They are people who are essentially cowards,,,
They would not fight back if attacked,,,
They would cower in fear.

And believe me my friends,,,
They are afraid of us as much as anyone.

This is why I never, and I do mean never, argue with an anti-gun person,,,
It's like trying to teach a pig to sing,,,
It just wastes my good time,,,
And annoys the pig.

Yes, listen to them and keep track of what they are doing,,,
But know that you will never change their mind,,,
Because they are simply afraid of life.

Instead, find people who are on the fence about guns,,,
Take them for a fun day at the range,,,
Let them shoot some .22 pistols.

These are the people we can sway to our side.

This paper is 27 years old,,,
But it says it all and everyone of us should read it.

A Nation of Cowards

Aarond

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top