marksman13
Member
Interjecting the government into anything involving our RIGHTS is a bad idea, period! I don't care how you spin it.
Ramone said:The comparison to a Drivers License requiring training and/or demonstration of competence is a bad one-
You don't need a License to OWN a car- you need a License to operate it on public streets.
So a better analogy is some sort of training requirement to Carry a weapon (though, it does limp a little).
And just thinking WAY outside the box here, what if the license was good in all 50 states?
Why should purchasing a firearm be any different? How will this negatively affect our 2nd amendment rights?
the man is entitled to his opinion, whether you agree with it or not...
By armarsh: If a training requirement is not infringement, then certainly requiring a drivers license or other identification to vote is not disenfranchisement.
By this same logic, we should have to prove we understand policy issues before we vote and should not object to a "common sense" poll tax in the form of a license. Please assume that the test and license fee would be administered by your most hated political opponent.
I must confess that I wouldn't mind training for civilians be a mandatory requirement to owning a gun.
In the first post, the OP mentioned the old claim that only the police are properly trained to handle firearms.
How many have seen the video of the DHS guy teaching a class where he shoots himself in the foot?
And how many times have we heard of shootouts with police where the report goers something like "187 shots were fired at the criminal but no one was injured."
What's that again about training???
I would even take it one step further, and draft all young men after high school for 2 years of military, like the Israelis and South Koreans do.
In boot camp they should learn to shoot a rifle and a semi-auto pistol.
Plus how to take orders.