marksman13
Member
Interjecting the government into anything involving our RIGHTS is a bad idea, period! I don't care how you spin it.
Training requirements for gun ownership.
- Thread starter BallistiCal
- Start date
- Status
Nushif
Member
The crux of the problem her doesn't lie in the word training.
It lies in the word requirement. And I don't like having requirements for enumerated rights.
It lies in the word requirement. And I don't like having requirements for enumerated rights.
MrDig
Member
In Minnesota all persons who wish to hunt, and are born after December 31st 1979 must take a firearms safety course to purchase a hunting license. Exceptions are persons who have served and or are serving in the United States Military. Minimum age requirement is 11 years of age.
Why should purchasing a firearm be any different? How will this negatively affect our 2nd amendment rights? This to me is the "well regulated" part of the amendment. While I will agree the "well regulated" clause is where we have our rights diminished the amendment none the less allows for some government oversite. I am not a constitutional lawyer but this seems like the type of legislation we as gun owners should in fact support.
Why should purchasing a firearm be any different? How will this negatively affect our 2nd amendment rights? This to me is the "well regulated" part of the amendment. While I will agree the "well regulated" clause is where we have our rights diminished the amendment none the less allows for some government oversite. I am not a constitutional lawyer but this seems like the type of legislation we as gun owners should in fact support.
Ramone said:
Glad someone pointed that out.
Not only do you not need a license to own a car, you don't need a license to transport a car on a trailer on public roads [even while it's "loaded" with gas in the tank].
The license to operate a car on public roads is "shall issue", in most states it's under $100, and it's good in all 50 states.
A hunting license is actually a better comparison to a driving license. Since it's assumed that a hunter will at some point shoot at an animal and they're hunting on state land, it's essentially a license to operate a gun on public land.
Ironically average joes like myself who aren't in a gang or involved in The War on Drugs are far, far more likely to be killed by a reckless and/or drunk driver than to be murdered with a gun. Yet there's virtually no restrictions on the mere possession of a motor vehicle and really just an age requirement on the purchase of alcohol. They don't even do background checks on would be alcohol buyers to insure they don't have a history of DUIs!
Old krow
Member
I think that Apple a Day's response says it fairly well, but I will add a little bit to it.
I don't mean any offense, so I hope that you do not take any, but, that is not out of the box. That line of thinking is well within the box. Freedom is a messy business and there are few easy answers out there.
It is a Right an not a privilege. Being that, it means that the Gov should not be able to "infringe" upon it as they see fit, however, it also means that there should be a level personal responsibility. With Rights also come responsibilities. If the Gov isn't/shouldn't be the ones to go around meddling with individual liberties, then those that exercise those liberties should be responsible for them.
As an alternative to initiating a Gov program that is certain to drive up taxes and make it harder to get training, why not take a different route?
Get yourself in a position to train people and then start doing so. If you really want to be a philanthropist, do it for little to no cost. If you want the Feds to do it, it's going to cost money anyway.
Become an activists and encourage others to do the same thing. Perhaps training isn't your thing, there are still plenty of ways to contribute. Host a web site for other to offer training services on. Bring people that need training together with people that are willing to do it for a minimal charge. In some cases it isn't even a money issue, it might be a time issue or a matter of finding a training class that they are comfortable with. Start an "Angie's list" for firearms training.
Get involved with Appleseed. I've never been able to attend one, but I've always heard good things about them.
If those don't tickle your fancy, start your own Not-for-profit organization that is specifically designed to subsidize training for those that want it.
How many gun owners have NOT been trained and how many have been? There's little merit in that argument at all because an "anti" isn't likely to know one way or the other, they're speculating. I'm sure if you take a poll here you will find it slightly skewed, but, you might be surprised just how many folks have had training.
The Government hasn't touched very many programs that they haven't killed. Even if we did follow this rabbit down the hole, how long before it turned out like Social Security, Medicare, or.... No Child Left Behind?
How does hunting fit into "keep and bear arms?" The "negative affects" are littered throughout this thread and they are numerous. Far too many to re-post, but posts #24, #37, #40 and #46 should sum it up pretty well.
I don't mean any offense, so I hope that you do not take any, but, that is not out of the box. That line of thinking is well within the box. Freedom is a messy business and there are few easy answers out there.
It is a Right an not a privilege. Being that, it means that the Gov should not be able to "infringe" upon it as they see fit, however, it also means that there should be a level personal responsibility. With Rights also come responsibilities. If the Gov isn't/shouldn't be the ones to go around meddling with individual liberties, then those that exercise those liberties should be responsible for them.
As an alternative to initiating a Gov program that is certain to drive up taxes and make it harder to get training, why not take a different route?
Get yourself in a position to train people and then start doing so. If you really want to be a philanthropist, do it for little to no cost. If you want the Feds to do it, it's going to cost money anyway.
Become an activists and encourage others to do the same thing. Perhaps training isn't your thing, there are still plenty of ways to contribute. Host a web site for other to offer training services on. Bring people that need training together with people that are willing to do it for a minimal charge. In some cases it isn't even a money issue, it might be a time issue or a matter of finding a training class that they are comfortable with. Start an "Angie's list" for firearms training.
Get involved with Appleseed. I've never been able to attend one, but I've always heard good things about them.
If those don't tickle your fancy, start your own Not-for-profit organization that is specifically designed to subsidize training for those that want it.
How many gun owners have NOT been trained and how many have been? There's little merit in that argument at all because an "anti" isn't likely to know one way or the other, they're speculating. I'm sure if you take a poll here you will find it slightly skewed, but, you might be surprised just how many folks have had training.
The Government hasn't touched very many programs that they haven't killed. Even if we did follow this rabbit down the hole, how long before it turned out like Social Security, Medicare, or.... No Child Left Behind?
How does hunting fit into "keep and bear arms?" The "negative affects" are littered throughout this thread and they are numerous. Far too many to re-post, but posts #24, #37, #40 and #46 should sum it up pretty well.
chucknbach
Member
Really? I hear of alot of trying to appease anti's. I'm hear to tell you there is no appeasing or trying to look the good guy.
Anything other than saying every man woman or child has the right to have fully silenced automatic flame throwing Howitzer with a 1000 round magazine in their front yard is giving away yours and my freedom.
Someone else already said it but. What part of "shall not be infringed" is not clear to everyone? Nobody but nobody is going to judge if I am capable or experienced enough or what ever and I don't consider my self a civilian but a citizen. I'll take responsibility for myself and my household, thank you very much!
OP thinks he knows what's best for his fellow country man. Might make us all safer Maybe just a little more secure? hmmm?
Left or right doesn't concern me as much as authoritarian vs libertarian. Support any kind of licensing and you fall into the authoritarian side of thing.
Liberty may not be the safest or securest road but it's the way I want to live.
Anything other than saying every man woman or child has the right to have fully silenced automatic flame throwing Howitzer with a 1000 round magazine in their front yard is giving away yours and my freedom.
Someone else already said it but. What part of "shall not be infringed" is not clear to everyone? Nobody but nobody is going to judge if I am capable or experienced enough or what ever and I don't consider my self a civilian but a citizen. I'll take responsibility for myself and my household, thank you very much!
OP thinks he knows what's best for his fellow country man. Might make us all safer Maybe just a little more secure? hmmm?
Left or right doesn't concern me as much as authoritarian vs libertarian. Support any kind of licensing and you fall into the authoritarian side of thing.
Liberty may not be the safest or securest road but it's the way I want to live.
txgunsuscg
Member
I like the idea of mandatory training, but not the idea of it being a requirement for owning a gun. I know in some states, gun/hunter safety is a phys-ed type requirement in high school. This seems to be a simple requirement that does not inhibit gun ownership in any way, as it is not a requirement to own a gun, just to make it out of high school....
marksman13
Member
This argument should be met with the same response as terrorism. The gun control crowd wants fun ownership abolished, much the way that terrorists want the American way of life destroyed. There can be no compromise with an enemy which wants nothing but your complete annihilation. There can only be defeat.
Is there some part of this that you are not understanding? The politicians in this country have proven that they can not be trusted to protect our rights. They do not care about the safety of your family. Their votes change according to whichever direction the political winds are blowing. People like that can not be trusted to protect your rights. The less say they have in the matter the better.
Is there some part of this that you are not understanding? The politicians in this country have proven that they can not be trusted to protect our rights. They do not care about the safety of your family. Their votes change according to whichever direction the political winds are blowing. People like that can not be trusted to protect your rights. The less say they have in the matter the better.
Suppose, just suppose that Ballistical got his desire, Mandatory Firearms Training, by a gigantic Federal govt bureaucracy run by by thousands and thousands of unelected, faceless, nameless Federal Govt. bureaucrats.
Would the law be retroactive, meaning the present 81,000,000 gunowners of America, were required by Federal law to go trooping down to their local Federal bureaucratic gun licensing office and take and pass the govt mandated tests?? Or turn in their firearms?
If they did not do so, would they then be adjudged as criminals and subject to be arrested by Federal Gun Confiscation Police, all bearing guns?
Or, would the new Federal law merely apply to anyone buying a gun after the law went into effect?
How would private, face-to-face sales of private property (firearms) be handled by the Federal Government?
What about gifts and bequeaths??
As usual, those do-right-daddies and do-right-mommas who always have the "best intentions," have not the faintest clue about "beginning, middle, and end," and "unintended consequences."
L.W.
Would the law be retroactive, meaning the present 81,000,000 gunowners of America, were required by Federal law to go trooping down to their local Federal bureaucratic gun licensing office and take and pass the govt mandated tests?? Or turn in their firearms?
If they did not do so, would they then be adjudged as criminals and subject to be arrested by Federal Gun Confiscation Police, all bearing guns?
Or, would the new Federal law merely apply to anyone buying a gun after the law went into effect?
How would private, face-to-face sales of private property (firearms) be handled by the Federal Government?
What about gifts and bequeaths??
As usual, those do-right-daddies and do-right-mommas who always have the "best intentions," have not the faintest clue about "beginning, middle, and end," and "unintended consequences."
L.W.
Last edited:
mortablunt
Member
As much as I'd like to see more people with guns be at least minimally competent, mandating training for ownership is the wrong way to go about it. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who own guns who haven't a clue. Oftentimes, people just purchase a handgun and stick it in a drawer without ever practicing. I am for a firearms training elective in school, or at least requiring that schools keep a list of reputable firearms trainers on hand for students who are of age.
hey.moe
Member
Hear, hear. Historically, the damage done by irresponsible voters has far outweighed the damage done by irresponsible gun owners. Let's fix the real problem first.
-Stan-
Last edited:
splattergun
Member
Rights are inherent
A license is the grant by government of a privelege, which is just as easily ungranted.
We are born with the right to protect ourselves. Our government's duty is to protect that right.
Rights are inalienable. They can not be removed. Even when unjust laws infringe upon the right, the right still exists.
A license is the grant by government of a privelege, which is just as easily ungranted.
We are born with the right to protect ourselves. Our government's duty is to protect that right.
Rights are inalienable. They can not be removed. Even when unjust laws infringe upon the right, the right still exists.
medalguy
Member
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???
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???
Shoobee
member
As the Bill Of Rights was originally written, everyone had the right to wear openly or concealed any firearm of their choice, anywhere.
Now however we have states (knows as "may issue") which violate the plain language of the 2nd Amendment. This is a problem that the US Supreme Court should solve, and I always wonder why the NRA is just sitting on their butz and not fixing it?
As the 2nd Amendment is currently drafted, no training requirement, criminal record, sanity issue, is appropriate, however the States continue to infringe while ignoring the plain language of the amendment.
I think you would need to further amend the Constitution if you wanted it to read any other way. Right now however it is being violated by most of not all of the States, as written.
Now however we have states (knows as "may issue") which violate the plain language of the 2nd Amendment. This is a problem that the US Supreme Court should solve, and I always wonder why the NRA is just sitting on their butz and not fixing it?
As the 2nd Amendment is currently drafted, no training requirement, criminal record, sanity issue, is appropriate, however the States continue to infringe while ignoring the plain language of the amendment.
I think you would need to further amend the Constitution if you wanted it to read any other way. Right now however it is being violated by most of not all of the States, as written.
BallistiCal,
The anti's believe that private citizens should not be able to own or possess firearms, period. They also believe the police should be unarmed as well except in special circumstances, much like how it's done it Great Britain.
The mandatory training and licensing aspect is just a temporary step towards a more permanent goal for them. They're wiling to allow the police to regularly carry firearms for now, not because of any special training that they get, but because the police are a government entity and therefore are under government control.
Firearms training is always a good thing to have. Making it mandatory though allows the antis a tool to regulate firearms possession out of existance. They've already used that tool as defacto gun prohibition in many places including Washington DC, Chicago and New York City. They'll continue to take advantage of it because they don't care about crime or your safety or your good intent to appease them. To them, guns are evil and the ends justify the means.
The anti's believe that private citizens should not be able to own or possess firearms, period. They also believe the police should be unarmed as well except in special circumstances, much like how it's done it Great Britain.
The mandatory training and licensing aspect is just a temporary step towards a more permanent goal for them. They're wiling to allow the police to regularly carry firearms for now, not because of any special training that they get, but because the police are a government entity and therefore are under government control.
Firearms training is always a good thing to have. Making it mandatory though allows the antis a tool to regulate firearms possession out of existance. They've already used that tool as defacto gun prohibition in many places including Washington DC, Chicago and New York City. They'll continue to take advantage of it because they don't care about crime or your safety or your good intent to appease them. To them, guns are evil and the ends justify the means.
BSA1
member
MrDig,
Why should purchasing a firearm be any different?
You need to reread the O.P.s original post in which he is adovacating turning control over to owns a gun to himself and his buddies in Big Sis. he sates;
While I strongly believe that nobody should have to justify "needing" a gun to some bureaucrat, I must confess that I wouldn't mind TRAINING for civilians be a MANDATORY REQUIREMENT TO OWNING A GUN
The O.P. is lying about nobody having to justify "needing" a gun. He states in the very same sentence his belief that citizens should NOT OWN A GUN WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE GOVERNMENT. The O.P. is setting himself to be the judge on whether you should be allowed to own a gun and by extension what type of gun. Notice I said gun not guns as the O.P. and his buddies will decide what type and how many.
How will this negatively affect our 2nd amendment rights?
Why does the idea of me owning firearms without your permission and the permission of Big Sis causing you so much discomfort?
Hunting licenses do not restrict firearm ownership in any fashion. A citizen can own all the shotguns, rifles and handguns for hunting they want. Hunting license are revenue driven. The money from licenses are used for wildlife and habitat conversation which are directly used by hunters. Notice I said wildlife and habitat conservation not for gun control. In fact the renevue is use to create MORE not less wildlife areas for hunters thus encouraging firearm ownership. Hunting licenses may not be required for hunting on your own land.
Why should purchasing a firearm be any different?
You need to reread the O.P.s original post in which he is adovacating turning control over to owns a gun to himself and his buddies in Big Sis. he sates;
While I strongly believe that nobody should have to justify "needing" a gun to some bureaucrat, I must confess that I wouldn't mind TRAINING for civilians be a MANDATORY REQUIREMENT TO OWNING A GUN
The O.P. is lying about nobody having to justify "needing" a gun. He states in the very same sentence his belief that citizens should NOT OWN A GUN WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE GOVERNMENT. The O.P. is setting himself to be the judge on whether you should be allowed to own a gun and by extension what type of gun. Notice I said gun not guns as the O.P. and his buddies will decide what type and how many.
How will this negatively affect our 2nd amendment rights?
Why does the idea of me owning firearms without your permission and the permission of Big Sis causing you so much discomfort?
Hunting licenses do not restrict firearm ownership in any fashion. A citizen can own all the shotguns, rifles and handguns for hunting they want. Hunting license are revenue driven. The money from licenses are used for wildlife and habitat conversation which are directly used by hunters. Notice I said wildlife and habitat conservation not for gun control. In fact the renevue is use to create MORE not less wildlife areas for hunters thus encouraging firearm ownership. Hunting licenses may not be required for hunting on your own land.
Last edited:
This topic has come up before here on THR. It seems to me that the main objection to mandatory training is that if the government holds the keys to that, then it is a potential gun control tool. I can follow the reasoning behind that.
Would people still have an objection if the training was mandated by law, but the trainer could be any person accredited by an independent body and there was no fixed fee like the $200 tax stamp?
In other words it would be similar to the mandatory training I have to go through before I can use certain X-ray equipment. The law says I have to do it, but the government isn't the one doing the courses, collecting fees for that and deciding whether I meet those mandatory requirements or not. It is either the employer or an agency or a private company that provides this training either to an individual directly or on behalf of an employer. The trainer or company has to meet certain basic standards, but we have examples of that already in other fields such as first aid training.
The issue then becomes obvious: the training has to be relevant and provide value but needs to be generic enough so that it applies to any kind of firearm. To me that means the four rules, a basic summary of where you can shoot and where you can't and maybe some other generic stuff can be thrown in, even if it is a small slide show of common accidents that have happened with firearms being incorrectly carried, for example. Or an array of negligent discharges and a brief summary of how they happened. Just things to get the new gun owner to think about.
I think there is merit in having mandatory training, but agree that you don't want a situation where the only vessel from which said training is dispensed is in the clutches of the government.
There are other arguments, of course....such as how many times do you have to do this and whether you have to do it when you move from one State to another. I guess that depends on how much legal matter there is in the course, because a guy in Arizona might need to know a little less about legal matters than a guy in California, for example.
Would people still have an objection if the training was mandated by law, but the trainer could be any person accredited by an independent body and there was no fixed fee like the $200 tax stamp?
In other words it would be similar to the mandatory training I have to go through before I can use certain X-ray equipment. The law says I have to do it, but the government isn't the one doing the courses, collecting fees for that and deciding whether I meet those mandatory requirements or not. It is either the employer or an agency or a private company that provides this training either to an individual directly or on behalf of an employer. The trainer or company has to meet certain basic standards, but we have examples of that already in other fields such as first aid training.
The issue then becomes obvious: the training has to be relevant and provide value but needs to be generic enough so that it applies to any kind of firearm. To me that means the four rules, a basic summary of where you can shoot and where you can't and maybe some other generic stuff can be thrown in, even if it is a small slide show of common accidents that have happened with firearms being incorrectly carried, for example. Or an array of negligent discharges and a brief summary of how they happened. Just things to get the new gun owner to think about.
I think there is merit in having mandatory training, but agree that you don't want a situation where the only vessel from which said training is dispensed is in the clutches of the government.
There are other arguments, of course....such as how many times do you have to do this and whether you have to do it when you move from one State to another. I guess that depends on how much legal matter there is in the course, because a guy in Arizona might need to know a little less about legal matters than a guy in California, for example.
ForumSurfer
Member
Considering I've helped more than one friend with their pistol shooting so they could qualify, as a civilian feel that your statement is unfair and should apply to every gun owner...civilian or not. I'm thankful to those that serve, but many serve in a role where firearms aren't an important part of their job so they need training just like the rest of us.
I'd have to respectfully disagree about mandatory training. The right to bear arms is a right. If we're going to require training, we also need to limit free speech to those who are properly trained. After all, free speech is far more dangerous.
mortablunt
Member
Shoobee
member
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.
In boot camp they should learn to shoot a rifle and a semi-auto pistol.
Plus how to take orders.
mortablunt
Member
Conscrpit into the military or make do service work. That would be a nice way of being able to get cheap labor for public works.
BobTheTomato
Member
I just love how people think that when someone gets "training" they will be safe. I see people do all kinds of stupid things on the highway eventhough they have had drivers ed. I know lets text and drive while shaving. I have seen people who have taken the hunters education class in PA do dumb things with high powered rifles eventhough they teach safety. Last I checked, most gun accidents could be avoided with simple common sense (see the 4 rules).
In the end all this does is add yet another infringement on peoples rights.
In the end all this does is add yet another infringement on peoples rights.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
