Mandatory Firearms Training..

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Mandatory Firearms Training.. (Page 1 of 7)

Posted: 10/4/2015 1:43:23 AM EDT

I know this post is going to generate tons of heat,
so I post this with a fair bit of warning.

I'm not a huge proponent of mandatory gun training for
prospective gun buyers, but it is something I've thought about.

I think we all agree that good training is important to
a firearms owner. There are too many idiots out there
with no business owning a firearms. People too incompetent,
or worse, people like the guy in Oregon.

I'm starting to think that not only would mandatory training
help ensure that owners are more competent, but also be a
way for observant trainers to identify potentially unstable individuals.

I think this could be a win-win. Most criminals don't go through
the paperwork to obtain a gun, and most would avoid any mandatory
training that comes with it. This would increase the odds in the favor
of the legal owner when it comes to a deadly confrontation. Not
only that, but mandatory training would allow potential ant-social personality
types to be IDed.
I'm not saying that the trainer could necessarily stop someone from completing
training, but if he felt there might be an issue, he could recommend the individual
to a more lengthy screening process, just to be certain that the person isn't dangerous.

I know there are people who would argue that this would mean registration. It doesn't
have to. Licensing would be conducted, and no records would be sent kept by the
Govt. I mean, think about it. Every time you go to a LGS, you fill out a form
for an instant background check. The govt still doesn't keep a record of your purchase.
The class and licensing would be done in the same manner. The govt wouldn't keep
a record, the purchaser would, and he would simply show the license to the
LGS on every purchase.

The class should be offered for free, just like hunter safety courses are.

Thoughts?

Posted: 10/4/2015 1:45:24 AM EDT

[#1]

Sure. Right after everyone that votes takes a civics test.

Shall not be infringed.

Posted: 10/4/2015 1:46:51 AM EDT

[#2]

Not a particularly big fan of "mandatory" anything.

Posted: 10/4/2015 1:47:22 AM EDT

[#3]

How about - Fuck you

Head on back to DU with this "mandatory" bullshit.

Posted: 10/4/2015 1:50:51 AM EDT

[#4]

You need to take a class on the acceptable forms of speech to make sure you don't misuse your free-speech First amendment rights.

Posted: 10/4/2015 1:50:58 AM EDT

[#5]

Wasn't the halfrican in OR denied a training class because they judged him to be a lunatic?

And no.

No pre - conditions on my rights.

Posted: 10/4/2015 1:52:50 AM EDT

[#6]

What did the guy in oregon do wrong? Other than not run across campus and get shot by responding police officers?

Not saying CCW in the right place/time can't stop stuff like this but the dudes comments were taken completely out of context and twisted to promote an anti-gun agenda. He had good reasons for not acting. He was nowhere near the shooter. By the time he sought out and located the guy he likely would have been putting himself at great risk of being mistaken for an active shooter.

Posted: 10/4/2015 1:53:33 AM EDT

[#7]

While I agree with your statement about people owning guns that are ill trained. It would be a double edged sword, if people got good practical training and purchased their guns and later on down the road decided to use them for evil, that training could serve to increase their casualties and make the situation worse!

My thoughts go to the guy on the train in France, imagine if Cory and Erika trained him how to use his AK... Oh nvm the results probably would have been the same

Posted: 10/4/2015 1:55:56 AM EDT

[#8]

Free ammunition and transportation to the training session too?

Otherwise you are alienating the poor and impoverished individuals rights to firearm ownership.

What about the disabled? They might not have the means to attend your mandatory training session.

Posted: 10/4/2015 1:56:36 AM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
I know this post is going to generate tons of heat,
so I post this with a fair bit of warning.

I'm not a huge proponent of mandatory gun training for
prospective gun buyers, but it is something I've thought about.

I think we all agree that good training is important to
a firearms owner. There are too many idiots out there
with no business owning a firearms. People too incompetent,
or worse, people like the guy in Oregon.

I'm starting to think that not only would mandatory training
help ensure that owners are more competent, but also be a
way for observant trainers to identify potentially unstable individuals.

I think this could be a win-win. Most criminals don't go through
the paperwork to obtain a gun, and most would avoid any mandatory
training that comes with it. This would increase the odds in the favor
of the legal owner when it comes to a deadly confrontation. Not
only that, but mandatory training would allow potential ant-social personality
types to be IDed.
I'm not saying that the trainer could necessarily stop someone from completing
training, but if he felt there might be an issue, he could recommend the individual
to a more lengthy screening process, just to be certain that the person isn't dangerous.

I know there are people who would argue that this would mean registration. It doesn't
have to. Licensing would be conducted, and no records would be sent kept by the
Govt. I mean, think about it. Every time you go to a LGS, you fill out a form
for an instant background check. The govt still doesn't keep a record of your purchase.
The class and licensing would be done in the same manner. The govt wouldn't keep
a record, the purchaser would, and he would simply show the license to the
LGS on every purchase.

The class should be offered for free, just like hunter safety courses are.

Thoughts?

View Quote

"Fuck you" works fine for me.

Posted: 10/4/2015 1:57:48 AM EDT

[#10]

already sort of mandatory to get a hunting license and for CCW

I don't see a problem with it for those areas. For home defense, training is good but mandatory training in order to own a gun is bad

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:00:20 AM EDT

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:
How about - Fuck you

Head on back to DU with this "mandatory" bullshit.

View Quote

and take this with you for the ride.......

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:04:36 AM EDT

[#12]

I can see it now - biased trainers discriminating against blacks and claiming they may pose a danger because other blacks commit lots of crime. What a wonderful idea.

It will also come back to get you in the end. More hurdles = less owners. Less owners = less people caring for gun rights. When that happens, they'll make gun ownership too expensive for civilians and stores. And therefore, your gun rights will dry up.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:04:41 AM EDT

[#13]

Cmon, I just don't see the issue if the
training is free of cost, the govt doesn't
know who is taking the class,
and no records are kept as to who
graduates, with the exception of
the citizen who receives paperwork
upon completion.

Hell, you have guys out there who pay for
tactical carbine classes.

These classes wouldn't be so advanced,
but would be free, and help keep guns
out of the hands of nuts.

Besides the fact that it might inconvenience some
prospective buyers, I don't see the big deal.

Like others said, you need a class to get hunter safety certified,
get a CCW. Why not this?

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:06:15 AM EDT

[#14]

Sure why not. I'm sure the gov will only require a few hundred hours of training and break it down by gun classes (handgun, shotgun ,bolt gun, evil assault rifle) and make the cost retardedly prohibitive.

Let's just give back all the gains toward freedom and then some.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:06:27 AM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:
Cmon, I just don't see the issue if the
training is free of cost, the govt doesn't
know who is taking the class,
and no records are kept as to who
graduates, with the exception of
the citizen who receives paperwork
upon completion.

Hell, you have guys out there who pay for
tactical carbine classes.

These classes wouldn't be so advanced,
but would be free, and help keep guns
out of the hands of nuts.

Besides the fact that it might inconvenience some
prospective buyers, I don't see the big deal.

Like others said, you need a class to get hunter safety certified,
get a CCW. Why not this?

View Quote

How long did DU groom you to come here? Did they give you a test? How much do they pay to troll this time of year?

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:06:36 AM EDT

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:
I can see it now - biased trainers discriminating against blacks and claiming they may pose a danger because other blacks commit lots of crime. What a wonderful idea.

It will also come back to get you in the end. More hurdles = less owners. Less owners = less people caring for gun rights. When that happens, they'll make gun ownership too expensive for civilians and stores. And therefore, your gun rights will dry up.

View Quote

There would be oversight to ensure that people are not being discriminated against.
I mean, it would require a more lengthy exam to bar someone. Probably before a panel,
and a lawyer in your defense, or whatever we deem is fair.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:07:03 AM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:
Cmon, I just don't see the issue if the
training is free of cost, the govt doesn't
know who is taking the class,
and no records are kept as to who
graduates, with the exception of
the citizen who receives paperwork
upon completion.

Hell, you have guys out there who pay for
tactical carbine classes.

These classes wouldn't be so advanced,
but would be free, and help keep guns
out of the hands of nuts.

Besides the fact that it might inconvenience some
prospective buyers, I don't see the big deal.

Like others said, you need a class to get hunter safety certified,
get a CCW. Why not this?

View Quote

No records kept huh?

So no way to keep people from forging the certificates then.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:07:48 AM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:

There would be oversight to ensure that people are not being discriminated against.
I mean, it would require a more lengthy exam to bar someone. Probably before a panel,
and a lawyer in your defense, or whatever we deem is fair.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I can see it now - biased trainers discriminating against blacks and claiming they may pose a danger because other blacks commit lots of crime. What a wonderful idea.

It will also come back to get you in the end. More hurdles = less owners. Less owners = less people caring for gun rights. When that happens, they'll make gun ownership too expensive for civilians and stores. And therefore, your gun rights will dry up.

There would be oversight to ensure that people are not being discriminated against.
I mean, it would require a more lengthy exam to bar someone. Probably before a panel,
and a lawyer in your defense, or whatever we deem is fair.

Because if there's one thing our .gov has proven good at its oversight.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:08:30 AM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:

How long did DU groom you to come here? Did they give you a test? How much do they pay to troll this time of year?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Cmon, I just don't see the issue if the
training is free of cost, the govt doesn't
know who is taking the class,
and no records are kept as to who
graduates, with the exception of
the citizen who receives paperwork
upon completion.

Hell, you have guys out there who pay for
tactical carbine classes.

These classes wouldn't be so advanced,
but would be free, and help keep guns
out of the hands of nuts.

Besides the fact that it might inconvenience some
prospective buyers, I don't see the big deal.

Like others said, you need a class to get hunter safety certified,
get a CCW. Why not this?

How long did DU groom you to come here? Did they give you a test? How much do they pay to troll this time of year?

What is DU?

And to the other poster saying it would be a costly several hour long class.
I suggest it should be a free, one day class for any firearm, and it lasts
a lifetime. It would also save people the hassle of having to fill out paperwork
at the LGS.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:09:13 AM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:

Because if there's one thing our .gov has proven good at its oversight.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I can see it now - biased trainers discriminating against blacks and claiming they may pose a danger because other blacks commit lots of crime. What a wonderful idea.

It will also come back to get you in the end. More hurdles = less owners. Less owners = less people caring for gun rights. When that happens, they'll make gun ownership too expensive for civilians and stores. And therefore, your gun rights will dry up.

There would be oversight to ensure that people are not being discriminated against.
I mean, it would require a more lengthy exam to bar someone. Probably before a panel,
and a lawyer in your defense, or whatever we deem is fair.

Because if there's one thing our .gov has proven good at its oversight.

Training and oversight wouldn't be done by anyone govt related. It would be a non-govt entity,
such as the NRA.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:09:15 AM EDT

[#21]

Quote History

Quoted:
Cmon, I just don't see the issue if the
training is free of cost, the govt doesn't
know who is taking the class,
and no records are kept as to who
graduates, with the exception of
the citizen who receives paperwork
upon completion.

Hell, you have guys out there who pay for
tactical carbine classes.

These classes wouldn't be so advanced,
but would be free, and help keep guns
out of the hands of nuts.

Besides the fact that it might inconvenience some
prospective buyers, I don't see the big deal.

Like others said, you need a class to get hunter safety certified,
get a CCW. Why not this?

View Quote

That's the stupidest load of shit I've read in awhile.

Holy fuck.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:09:38 AM EDT

[#22]

Aside from the whole Shall not be infringed thing; and the mandatory thing:
You think firearms instructors are qualified to evaluate someone's mental health; and to do so in the hour that it takes to complete the mandatory course?
Nothing that you wrote is good, none of it.

BTW free shit from the government isn't free.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:10:17 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Thoughts?

View Quote

FUCK NO!

Is that simple enough to understand. Not one fucking inch.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:10:18 AM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:

Cmon, I just don't see the issue if the

training is free of cost, the govt doesn't

know who is taking the class,

and no records are kept as to who

graduates, with the exception of

the citizen who receives paperwork

upon completion.

Hell, you have guys out there who pay for

tactical carbine classes.

These classes wouldn't be so advanced,

but would be free, and help keep guns

out of the hands of nuts.

Besides the fact that it might inconvenience some

prospective buyers, I don't see the big deal.

Like others said, you need a class to get hunter safety certified,

get a CCW. Why not this?

View Quote

Because those are horseshit too. The fuck out of here, dude

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:10:19 AM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:

That's the stupidest load of shit I've read in awhile.

Holy fuck.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Cmon, I just don't see the issue if the
training is free of cost, the govt doesn't
know who is taking the class,
and no records are kept as to who
graduates, with the exception of
the citizen who receives paperwork
upon completion.

Hell, you have guys out there who pay for
tactical carbine classes.

These classes wouldn't be so advanced,
but would be free, and help keep guns
out of the hands of nuts.

Besides the fact that it might inconvenience some
prospective buyers, I don't see the big deal.

Like others said, you need a class to get hunter safety certified,
get a CCW. Why not this?

That's the stupidest load of shit I've read in awhile.

Holy fuck.

Explain why this is stupid.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:10:20 AM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
I know this post is going to generate tons of heat,
so I post this with a fair bit of warning.

I'm not a huge proponent of mandatory gun training for
prospective gun buyers, but it is something I've thought about.

I think we all agree that good training is important to
a firearms owner. There are too many idiots out there
with no business owning a firearms. People too incompetent,
or worse, people like the guy in Oregon.

I'm starting to think that not only would mandatory training
help ensure that owners are more competent, but also be a
way for observant trainers to identify potentially unstable individuals.

I think this could be a win-win. Most criminals don't go through
the paperwork to obtain a gun, and most would avoid any mandatory
training that comes with it. This would increase the odds in the favor
of the legal owner when it comes to a deadly confrontation. Not
only that, but mandatory training would allow potential ant-social personality
types to be IDed.
I'm not saying that the trainer could necessarily stop someone from completing
training, but if he felt there might be an issue, he could recommend the individual
to a more lengthy screening process, just to be certain that the person isn't dangerous.

I know there are people who would argue that this would mean registration. It doesn't
have to. Licensing would be conducted, and no records would be sent kept by the
Govt. I mean, think about it. Every time you go to a LGS, you fill out a form
for an instant background check. The govt still doesn't keep a record of your purchase.
The class and licensing would be done in the same manner. The govt wouldn't keep
a record, the purchaser would, and he would simply show the license to the
LGS on every purchase.

The class should be offered for free, just like hunter safety courses are.

Thoughts?

View Quote

lol

With "gun owners" like this who needs the libs?

eta- Holy shit, you think "hunter safety" certifications are worth a jack shit?

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:12:30 AM EDT

[#27]

Quote History

Quoted:

What is DU?

And to the other poster saying it would be a costly several hour long class.
I suggest it should be a free, one day class for any firearm, and it lasts
a lifetime. It would also save people the hassle of having to fill out paperwork
at the LGS.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Cmon, I just don't see the issue if the
training is free of cost, the govt doesn't
know who is taking the class,
and no records are kept as to who
graduates, with the exception of
the citizen who receives paperwork
upon completion.

Hell, you have guys out there who pay for
tactical carbine classes.

These classes wouldn't be so advanced,
but would be free, and help keep guns
out of the hands of nuts.

Besides the fact that it might inconvenience some
prospective buyers, I don't see the big deal.

Like others said, you need a class to get hunter safety certified,
get a CCW. Why not this?

How long did DU groom you to come here? Did they give you a test? How much do they pay to troll this time of year?

What is DU?

And to the other poster saying it would be a costly several hour long class.
I suggest it should be a free, one day class for any firearm, and it lasts
a lifetime. It would also save people the hassle of having to fill out paperwork
at the LGS.

DU is the magical place you just came from....

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:12:35 AM EDT

[#28]

Quote History

Quoted:

Explain why this is stupid.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Cmon, I just don't see the issue if the
training is free of cost, the govt doesn't
know who is taking the class,
and no records are kept as to who
graduates, with the exception of
the citizen who receives paperwork
upon completion.

Hell, you have guys out there who pay for
tactical carbine classes.

These classes wouldn't be so advanced,
but would be free, and help keep guns
out of the hands of nuts.

Besides the fact that it might inconvenience some
prospective buyers, I don't see the big deal.

Like others said, you need a class to get hunter safety certified,
get a CCW. Why not this?

That's the stupidest load of shit I've read in awhile.

Holy fuck.

Explain why this is stupid.

Point by point?

AIN'T NO ONE GOT TIME FO DAT!

More free shit, huh? It's always more free shit.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:12:58 AM EDT

[#29]

If someone could politely
point out the bad parts of this suggestion, I will
gladly reconsider my idea.

But simply saying "shall not be infringed" isn't
working so well, is it?

We already require national mandatory background checks
and restrictions in some states.

What happened to the "shall not be infringed" in those
cases?

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:13:54 AM EDT

[#30]

Quote History

Quoted:

Training and oversight wouldn't be done by anyone govt related. It would be a non-govt entity,
such as the NRA.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I can see it now - biased trainers discriminating against blacks and claiming they may pose a danger because other blacks commit lots of crime. What a wonderful idea.

It will also come back to get you in the end. More hurdles = less owners. Less owners = less people caring for gun rights. When that happens, they'll make gun ownership too expensive for civilians and stores. And therefore, your gun rights will dry up.

There would be oversight to ensure that people are not being discriminated against.
I mean, it would require a more lengthy exam to bar someone. Probably before a panel,
and a lawyer in your defense, or whatever we deem is fair.

Because if there's one thing our .gov has proven good at its oversight.

Training and oversight wouldn't be done by anyone govt related. It would be a non-govt entity,
such as the NRA.

it's cute you think that the gov would institute mandatory training and then hand that power over to anyone but a corrupt alphabet agency to administer.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:13:57 AM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:

Explain why this is stupid.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Cmon, I just don't see the issue if the
training is free of cost, the govt doesn't
know who is taking the class,
and no records are kept as to who
graduates, with the exception of
the citizen who receives paperwork
upon completion.

Hell, you have guys out there who pay for
tactical carbine classes.

These classes wouldn't be so advanced,
but would be free, and help keep guns
out of the hands of nuts.

Besides the fact that it might inconvenience some
prospective buyers, I don't see the big deal.

Like others said, you need a class to get hunter safety certified,
get a CCW. Why not this?

That's the stupidest load of shit I've read in awhile.

Holy fuck.

Explain why this is stupid.

Your face, that's why.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:14:26 AM EDT

[#32]

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:14:51 AM EDT

[#33]

Quote History

Quoted:
Cmon, I just don't see the issue if the
training is free of cost, the govt doesn't
know who is taking the class,
and no records are kept as to who
graduates, with the exception of
the citizen who receives paperwork
upon completion.

Hell, you have guys out there who pay for
tactical carbine classes.

These classes wouldn't be so advanced,
but would be free, and help keep guns
out of the hands of nuts.

Besides the fact that it might inconvenience some
prospective buyers, I don't see the big deal.

Like others said, you need a class to get hunter safety certified,
get a CCW. Why not this?

View Quote

Did your mommy not make you dinner or something?

Go to bed.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:14:51 AM EDT

[#34]

Quote History

Quoted:

it's cute you think that the gov would institute mandatory training and then hand that power over to anyone but a corrupt alphabet agency to administer.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I can see it now - biased trainers discriminating against blacks and claiming they may pose a danger because other blacks commit lots of crime. What a wonderful idea.

It will also come back to get you in the end. More hurdles = less owners. Less owners = less people caring for gun rights. When that happens, they'll make gun ownership too expensive for civilians and stores. And therefore, your gun rights will dry up.

There would be oversight to ensure that people are not being discriminated against.
I mean, it would require a more lengthy exam to bar someone. Probably before a panel,
and a lawyer in your defense, or whatever we deem is fair.

Because if there's one thing our .gov has proven good at its oversight.

Training and oversight wouldn't be done by anyone govt related. It would be a non-govt entity,
such as the NRA.

it's cute you think that the gov would institute mandatory training and then hand that power over to anyone but a corrupt alphabet agency to administer.

I never said the govt would conduct training and screening. A private
entity such as the NRA or another would do just fine.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:14:59 AM EDT

[#35]

Quote History

Quoted:

Explain why this is stupid.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Cmon, I just don't see the issue if the
training is free of cost, the govt doesn't
know who is taking the class,
and no records are kept as to who
graduates, with the exception of
the citizen who receives paperwork
upon completion.

Hell, you have guys out there who pay for
tactical carbine classes.

These classes wouldn't be so advanced,
but would be free, and help keep guns
out of the hands of nuts.

Besides the fact that it might inconvenience some
prospective buyers, I don't see the big deal.

Like others said, you need a class to get hunter safety certified,
get a CCW. Why not this?

That's the stupidest load of shit I've read in awhile.

Holy fuck.

Explain why this is stupid.

People pay for tactical carbine classes by choice. People that have to take a class, and show paperwork proving it, to buy a fucking gun, are asking permission.

That is why it is stupid.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:15:25 AM EDT

[#36]

Quote History

Quoted:
If someone could politely
point out the bad parts of this suggestion, I will
gladly reconsider my idea.

But simply saying "shall not be infringed" isn't
working so well, is it?

We already require national mandatory background checks
and restrictions in some states.

What happened to the "shall not be infringed" in those
cases?

View Quote

Just because certain laws may be in place doesn't mean people have to agree with them

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:16:16 AM EDT

[#37]

Quote History

Quoted:

Just because certain laws may be in place doesn't mean people have to agree with them

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
If someone could politely
point out the bad parts of this suggestion, I will
gladly reconsider my idea.

But simply saying "shall not be infringed" isn't
working so well, is it?

We already require national mandatory background checks
and restrictions in some states.

What happened to the "shall not be infringed" in those
cases?

Just because certain laws may be in place doesn't mean people have to agree with them

I don't agree with them; I'm still forced to abide by them.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:16:19 AM EDT

[#38]

Quote History

Quoted:
If someone could politely
point out the bad parts of this suggestion, I will
gladly reconsider my idea.

But simply saying "shall not be infringed" isn't
working so well, is it?

We already require national mandatory background checks
and restrictions in some states.

What happened to the "shall not be infringed" in those
cases?

View Quote

Background checks and restrictions aren't infringements where you come from?

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:16:33 AM EDT

[#39]

Quote History

Quoted:

If someone could politely

point out the bad parts of this suggestion, I will

gladly reconsider my idea.

But simply saying "shall not be infringed" isn't

working so well, is it?

We already require national mandatory background checks

and restrictions in some states.

What happened to the "shall not be infringed" in those

cases.

View Quote

Mo' government - Mo' problems.

Requirements to exercise a inherent right - That's just a fine precedent to set.

Arguing that it's already been infringed so "might has well" is ridiculous.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:16:45 AM EDT

[#40]

Quote History

Quoted:
If someone could politely
point out the bad parts of this suggestion, I will
gladly reconsider my idea.

But simply saying "shall not be infringed" isn't
working so well, is it?

We already require national mandatory background checks
and restrictions in some states.

What happened to the "shall not be infringed" in those
cases?

View Quote

Shall not be infringed works fine; it is an argument. Right from the constitution, verbatim.

Firearms instructors aren't compliment to evaluate someone's mental health and they would never accept that responsibility.

Nothing from the government is free.

And in those cases they violated the constitution. Does not justify more violations.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:16:49 AM EDT

[#41]

Your whole niave concept is fundamentally flawed in that it rides upon the assumption that would be criminals would obey the system.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:17:21 AM EDT

[#42]

As a firearms instructor/owner of a training company, I think everyone should have training of some sort. But it shouldn't be required before you can exercise a right.

College degrees aren't a requirement before you get to speak your mind......

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:17:29 AM EDT

[#43]

Quote History

Quoted:
If someone could politely
point out the bad parts of this suggestion, I will
gladly reconsider my idea.

But simply saying "shall not be infringed" isn't
working so well, is it?

We already require national mandatory background checks
and restrictions in some states.

What happened to the "shall not be infringed" in those
cases?

View Quote

Look I'll break it down for you. What happened in OR and all the other mass shootings is a tragedy but the thing is more laws and regulations won't stop a criminal. That's the funny thing about criminals, they don't give 2 Shit's about laws. They do whatever the fuck they want. More laws will only act to further restrict law abiding citizens.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:17:52 AM EDT

[#44]

Why isn't there any MANDATORY TRAINING for the first amendment rights?

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:18:01 AM EDT

[#45]

OP probably tells

his friends

and possibly co

workers that

he is

pro-gun.

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:19:06 AM EDT

[#46]

Quote History

Quoted:
Sure. Right after everyone that votes takes a civics test.

Shall not be infringed.

View Quote

This

Posted: 10/4/2015 2:19:34 AM EDT

[#47]

Quote History

Quoted:
Your whole niave concept is fundamentally flawed in that it rides upon the assumption that would be criminals would obey the system.

View Quote

I hope criminals don't obey the training laws. I would rather have well
trained citizens, and poorly/non trained criminals.

I AM NOT SUGGESTING THE GOVT CONDUCT THE TRAINING.
A private org such as the NRA would suffice.