training as a constitutional requirement

[Shadow 7D]

Interesting, I have a great way to solve this,

A uniform service requirement, every 18yo would go to basic, and receive 007b (soldier, Not otherwise specialized) training

we could do it like the Swiss do, now if I could only get a FA Sig for my closet and subsidized range time....

 

[esquare]

That is what it is, is not meant to make anyone happy but safe, and if anyone has anything against it, honestly should move to Mexico where one ca shoot people just because is the popular to do.

That pretty much says all we need to know about your post.

 

[sniper5]

No problem with requiring training AS LONG AS the NRA is put in charge of it. Otherwise, NO!!!

I doubt that is ever likely to happen.

 

[Davek1977]

I don't agree with the mandatory training requirement, and would hope that, like many college courses, you could "test out" of the training by demonstrating that you are familiar with your firearm and how it works. A class on how to carry a gun seems rather redundant for those of us who grew up doing so.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

There is no way that knowledge is bad for us. None. There is no such as "ignorance is bliss". That's only a saying!

Look at the educational work done by the Brady and other anti-gun people. Depending on the spin you put on information, it can be bad or good.

I could go on as well...give me an example of just one professional who's job affects your everyday life that you DO NOT think needs mandatory training; your doctor? your attorney? your dentist? how about your CPA?

The guy who built all the cabinets in my home has no mandatory or formal training. Beautiful work, BTW.

I know musicians who have never had a music class.

My father grew up hunting for the family. He never had a day of training with firearms until he became a cop.

Like the OP, I have been dismayed by the folks who show up to renew their CHLs and unload the ammo from their guns that they loaded into their guns after qualifying 5 years before that, not having shot their guns, cleaning, lubed, or anything else in 5 years. They shoot, pass the quals, and load up the same defense ammo they unloaded and I am confident it will remain in their guns until they renew in the future.

So the folks are fairly ignorant about their guns. Their guns do not affect their everyday life. In fact, it seems the only things their guns really affect is one day every 5 years.

Yeah, a lot of professional who do things that affect our lives have had formal training. In no case is that training constitutionally required.

Oh and speaking of cops, they have had formal gun training, would you say they are all highly skilled shooters?

Education may give people some knowledge, but it doesn't necessarily make them smarter.

 

[Kenneth]

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

2A makes no mention of mandatory training...or wait a minute...does it?

NO!!!

To say that the right to keep and bear arms exists in the context of a "well regulated militia" is just flat out wrong. The first clause can in no way be construed as a limit to, or a qualification of the second clause. The two clauses are separate, and not dependent on one another.
In US v Cruikshank (1876) the court found: "The right of bearing arms for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." Since the use of the term “shall not be infringed” in the second clause presumes that our right to keep and bear arms pre exists the constitution, our right to keep and bear arms must also pre exist a "well regulated militia".
The second clause contains the explicit prohibition against infringement. Setting some arbitrary standard of competence not only infringes the rights of those who are able to meet some onerous requirements, it absolutely denies rights to those who fail to meet the requirements. Even the most incompetent boob in the world was born with the unalienable human right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state, and to assemble together with other incompetent boobs for their common defense.



"Our wrongs we must right if we can through the Ballot Box, and if this fails us, through the Cartridge Box."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote;

 

[Linda]

Do I "believe" someone should get voluntary training.., absolutely!
Do I believe it should be mandatory to own a firearm..., ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!
Mandatory training is a win for the Brady bunch. They would be dancing in the streets over that one.
"Shall not be infringed..." is pretty clear and that is clearly an infringement upon our god given right to self defense.

What if we were required to get permission to exercise our First Amendment? Wouldn't go over so well, would it?

 

[leadcounsel]

The 2A is about rights, NOT obligations. Nowhere else is a right defined by an obligation.
Why would the 2A be different?

VERY VERY dark and dangerous to go down the path requiring permission and such to exercise the 2A. In fact, we have danced with the devil on that song and seen the consequences... background checks, which create "loopholes" that must be closed in the eyes of the anti-gunners... States like Illinois which subscribes to "shall not be infringed" ignore it and trample on gun rights wholesale. FOID cards are requred for guns and ammo, mandatory gun locks, blah blah blah... the list is never long enough nor good enough for the anti-gunners...

Magazine of 9mm are too large. Ban hi-cap mags. Now killers are using 10 round mags of larger .45 cop killer bullets. Ban .45 calibers. Now they are using hunting rifles from afar... ban hunting rifles. Now they use shotguns with buckshot that are hard to track ballistics. Ban shotguns. And on and on and on...

NEVER give an INCH to the antis because they will take a mile and another mile until we are disarmed.

NO - the 2A does not require training. Our week governments have succumb to the antis and required checks and training and such for guns and concealed permits. But the tide is turning in many states... Keep up the fight!