Posted: 3/1/2010 2:52:09 PM EDT
|
I believe that no one should need state permission to own or carry a gun.
I also believe that everyone should have basic firearm safety training, regardless of whether they own or want to carry a gun. I think VT is on the right track, but needs refinement. Registering non-gun owners is de facto gun registration. Perhaps every adult should be required to take a state sponsored gun safety course once every five years, but may opt out of the course for a fee. The fees collected can pay for the courses and parents would have the option of bringing their children. If successful, the program could be expanded to public schools as mandatory safety training (think Eddie the Eagle). Voluntary marksmanship and defense courses might even be added if enough fees were collected. It would not be registration, because some gun owners would not attend because of convenience (especially if they have attended previously) and some non-gun owners would attend to avoid the fee. The fee to avoid attendance should be fairly nominal, say $25, and would be assessed on state taxes every year. To avoid it, a person simply needs to submit proof of attending the state safety course. Prohibited possessors could still attend the course as there would be no marksmanship component or handling of real firearms or ammunition. If you pay the fee to avoid taking the course, you can still carry concealed, or in the open if you are not a prohibited posessor. What says the hivemind? ETA: It seems I wasn’t clear. What I’m saying is that everyone should attend a gun safety course, whether they intend to own a gun or not. The cost of the course should be covered by folks who opt out of the course. This is independent of the idea that people shouldn’t require anything from the government to exercise their God given natural rights. |
|
Quoted:
Isn't a state requirement that you take a course a "Permission"? You would be required to attend the safety course whether you wished to carry or not and the fees paid by those who choose not to attend would cover the costs of the course. Sorry, two separate concepts, I guess. One is permitless carry, the other is the idea that I believe everyone should take a gun safety course. I'm not Irish, so I don't need to eat my kids. |
| Your modest proposal sucks. The 2nd Amendment does not stipulate anything but the ownership of firearms. We do not have to "qualify" to please the government any more than you require a class on how to excercise your freedom of speech, or any other right stipulated in the Constitution. |
| I kinda like your idea, but I also think that every citizen should be required to go through basic military training (with absolutely no requirement to serve in the military) that way if something happens we have a huge base of trained personnel. Think how much faster we could deploy troops in a pinch if the basic training were already completed. |
|
Quoted:
A requirement to take a course, even tho everyone has to take it, is a condition. IMO..this is a Permission. If they had a requirement to take parenting classes, before you can have a child, would that be OK with you also? i think many here are missing the OP's point. The class is not a requirement to own a gun. It is just a mandatory class that everyone must take. It would be similar to requiring that all children attend school (already in place almost everywhere). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
A requirement to take a course, even tho everyone has to take it, is a condition. IMO..this is a Permission. If they had a requirement to take parenting classes, before you can have a child, would that be OK with you also? i think many here are missing the OP's point. The class is not a requirement to own a gun. It is just a mandatory class that everyone must take. It would be similar to requiring that all children attend school (already in place almost everywhere). Exactly. Carry of a gun is independent of taking the course. Everyone is allowed to carry a gun if they like. Everyone is also required to take a "free" gun safety course unless they pay an anual fee to opt out. Whether or not you take the course, you can carry. |
| I personally think the 2nd is already over regulated. Why is the 1st not regulated in the same manner? Because its still respected and thought of as a freedom. The fact that fed and states can make so many stipulations on the second amendment is already unconstitutional. Is there a state law that says you have the right to free speech but you have to acquire a permit to voice your opinion?.........wait..............WTF happened to America? |
|
Quoted:
I personally think the 2nd is already over regulated. Why is the 1st not regulated in the same manner? Because its still respected and thought of as a freedom. The fact that fed and states can make so many stipulations on the second amendment is already unconstitutional. Is there a state law that says you have the right to free speech but you have to acquire a permit to voice your opinion?.........wait..............WTF happened to America? I fail to see how this is relevant to the original topic. OP isn't advocating any new restrictions on anything. In fact, he is doing the opposite by proposing that states remove the permit requirement to carry. He is also suggesting that states adapt a mandatory firearms training class in the same way that they require elementary and high school education, not as a prerequisite to exercise any rights, but as a way of promoting firearms safety for everyone, gun owner or not. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then why require a course??.Revenue Enhancement? To promote safe firearm handling among the entire populace. you have a better chance of passing anti gay laws in San Franqueero!!! No one ever said the idea had a snowball's chance in hell, but that doesn't make it a bad idea. |
| Wouldn't requiring forced state education in itself be regulation of the 2nd amendment? are you saying that if you refuse to take state or fed required education courses then you cant own a firearm? That's just another way to let the state interfere into a right that was promised by the amendment in the first place. I'm all for education about firearms.....making it a requirement to me seems like it would be unconstitutional. My point, which was made poorly was this, The fact that we have constitutional rights guaranteed by the founding fathers were promised to us. If they were meant to be regulated, Then I believe they would have read the same as several of the later amendments, which state, "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" Requiring forced education would be a way of telling many gun owners that they have to hand over arms. Why? Because you failed the required education classes. I think firearms education should be common sense. If you own a firearm......go train with it. Seek out training classes. Required education opens another door that big government would love to kick down. We shouldn't have CWP.....I believe the 2nd gives us that right anyway. To me its the same as telling someone you have to apply to the state to practice your 1st amendment right to free speech. Regulate the 2nd in such a way......the 1st will be regulated the same........Just my opinion. |
|
Quoted:
Wouldn't requiring forced state education in itself be regulation of the 2nd amendment? are you saying that if you refuse to take state or fed required education courses then you cant own a firearm? That's just another way to let the state interfere into a right that was promised by the amendment in the first place. I'm all for education about firearms.....making it a requirement to me seems like it would be unconstitutional. My point, which was made poorly was this, The fact that we have constitutional rights guaranteed by the founding fathers were promised to us. If they were meant to be regulated, Then I believe they would have read the same as several of the later amendments, which state, "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" Requiring forced education would be a way of telling many gun owners that they have to hand over arms. Why? Because you failed the required education classes. I think firearms education should be common sense. If you own a firearm......go train with it. Seek out training classes. Required education opens another door that big government would love to kick down. We shouldn't have CWP.....I believe the 2nd gives us that right anyway. To me its the same as telling someone you have to apply to the state to practice your 1st amendment right to free speech. Regulate the 2nd in such a way......the 1st will be regulated the same........Just my opinion. The OP specifically stated (and it has been reiterated) that the class was NOT a requirement to own a firearm. It is a required class for everyone, with an opt-out that would not impact anyones right to own or carry a gun. |
|
Quoted:
I believe that no one should need state permission to own or carry a gun. ETA: It seems I wasn’t clear. What I’m saying is that everyone should attend a gun safety course, whether they intend to own a gun or not. The cost of the course should be covered by folks who opt out of the course. This is independent of the idea that people shouldn’t require anything from the government to exercise their God given natural rights. So you want to make other people pay for things that they do not want or support. Nice. Yay Freedom. TRG |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe that no one should need state permission to own or carry a gun. ETA: It seems I wasn’t clear. What I’m saying is that everyone should attend a gun safety course, whether they intend to own a gun or not. The cost of the course should be covered by folks who opt out of the course. This is independent of the idea that people shouldn’t require anything from the government to exercise their God given natural rights. So you want to make other people pay for things that they do not want or support. Nice. Yay Freedom. TRG The fee would be paid by many simply for convenience. I pay for all sorts of things I don't agree with. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would seriously oppose reasonable gun safety measures, don't you? I mean, what kind of sicko would stand in the way of simple, common sense, gun safety courses? It's for the children. If only one life were saved... 
|
| There are only three things I know of that I have to do: Pay income taxes, but I don't have to work; register for the draft and report for induction, if authorized by congress; and report for jury duty if called. We have compulsory education for children below the age of 16 unless they are home schooled, so a government public school gun education program would fit with existing laws. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe that no one should need state permission to own or carry a gun. ETA: It seems I wasn’t clear. What I’m saying is that everyone should attend a gun safety course, whether they intend to own a gun or not. The cost of the course should be covered by folks who opt out of the course. This is independent of the idea that people shouldn’t require anything from the government to exercise their God given natural rights. So you want to make other people pay for things that they do not want or support. Nice. Yay Freedom. TRG The fee would be paid by many simply for convenience. I pay for all sorts of things I don't agree with. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would seriously oppose reasonable gun safety measures, don't you? I mean, what kind of sicko would stand in the way of simple, common sense, gun safety courses? It's for the children. If only one life were saved... Odd, but I don't need to have any sort of fee, safety course, or public tax on exercising any other right. Freedom of religion...no fee. Freedom of speech .. no fee. Not even a poll tax to vote. TRG |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe that no one should need state permission to own or carry a gun. ETA: It seems I wasn’t clear. What I’m saying is that everyone should attend a gun safety course, whether they intend to own a gun or not. The cost of the course should be covered by folks who opt out of the course. This is independent of the idea that people shouldn’t require anything from the government to exercise their God given natural rights. So you want to make other people pay for things that they do not want or support. Nice. Yay Freedom. TRG The fee would be paid by many simply for convenience. I pay for all sorts of things I don't agree with. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would seriously oppose reasonable gun safety measures, don't you? I mean, what kind of sicko would stand in the way of simple, common sense, gun safety courses? It's for the children. If only one life were saved... Odd, but I don't need to have any sort of fee, safety course, or public tax on exercising any other right. Freedom of religion...no fee. Freedom of speech .. no fee. Not even a poll tax to vote. TRG Why is this so hard for people to get? The courses would not be a condition of carrying. You would be required to take the courses even if you do not own a gun. Further, if you own or carry a gun, you can still avoid the course by paying a nominal fee. I made two, completely separate, points. I stated in my first sentence that I don’t believe any sort of state permission should be attached to the possession or carry of arms. How can I be more clear? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:[/span]
Why is this so hard for people to get? Which part do you not get? TRG Are you fucking with me? My post makes no reference to a requirement for owning or carrying a weapon, yet you and some others cling to this idea. I can only guess that is because many states do require training for a CCW permit. Arizona is one of them, though we are working on that. I proposed an alternative that would have the dual benefit of making the entire populace safer around guns, whether they have any or not, and removing any state restrictions on a God given natural right. How could I possibly be more explicit? |
|
Quoted:
I believe that no one should need state permission to own or carry a gun. Okay I also believe that everyone should have basic firearm safety training, regardless of whether they own or want to carry a gun. Okay, but this is a job reserved to Dads, Grandpa's, Uncle's, and husbands. Not the state. I think VT is on the right track, but needs refinement. Registering non-gun owners is de facto gun registration. It's not, at least not in a system that puts the burden of proof on the government. Perhaps every adult should be required to take a state sponsored gun safety course once every five years, but may opt out of the course for a fee. A punitive tax with zero benefit for the payer. That doesn't strike you as philosophically wrong? The fees collected can pay for the courses and parents would have the option of bringing their children. What happens if the participation is too high to pay for the courses? If successful, the program could be expanded to public schools as mandatory safety training (think Eddie the Eagle). Voluntary marksmanship and defense courses might even be added if enough fees were collected. It would not be registration, because some gun owners would not attend because of convenience (especially if they have attended previously) and some non-gun owners would attend to avoid the fee. The fee to avoid attendance should be fairly nominal, say $25, and would be assessed on state taxes every year. To avoid it, a person simply needs to submit proof of attending the state safety course. So only persons that file taxes are subject to this new tax? What about those that are not required to file? Prohibited possessors could still attend the course as there would be no marksmanship component or handling of real firearms or ammunition. If you pay the fee to avoid taking the course, you can still carry concealed, or in the open if you are not a prohibited posessor. So prohibited persons have a loop hole as large as a 747 that won't stop them from owning or carrying concealed? This part of your proposal is missing important details. What says the hivemind? This corner of the hive says this post is so poorly thought through it ranks in the top two or three in memory. ETA: It seems I wasn’t clear. What I’m saying is that everyone should attend a gun safety course, whether they intend to own a gun or not. The cost of the course should be covered by folks who opt out of the course. Unacceptable taxation. Period, dot. This is independent of the idea that people shouldn’t require anything from the government to exercise their God given natural rights. How's that? Government mandates, which your proposal requires, precisely inhibits and interferes with the natural rights of people to be free of government. The title of your thread should have been, "A Poorly Considered Proposal that Further Restricts Freedom and Increases Taxes". |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe that no one should need state permission to own or carry a gun. Okay I also believe that everyone should have basic firearm safety training, regardless of whether they own or want to carry a gun. Okay, but this is a job reserved to Dads, Grandpa's, Uncle's, and husbands. Not the state. They can still do so, but might do it more effectively. More tools in the toolbox, etc. I think VT is on the right track, but needs refinement. Registering non-gun owners is de facto gun registration. It's not, at least not in a system that puts the burden of proof on the government. I’m not speaking hypothetically. I’m referring to the proposed registration and taxation of non-gun owners in VT. Although I agree with it in principle, it is de facto gun registration. Perhaps every adult should be required to take a state sponsored gun safety course once every five years, but may opt out of the course for a fee. A punitive tax with zero benefit for the payer. That doesn't strike you as philosophically wrong? The libertarian in me agrees. So you would stop requiring those without children to bear the educational expense burden of parents, right? The fees collected can pay for the courses and parents would have the option of bringing their children. What happens if the participation is too high to pay for the courses? I believe that many (gun owners and non-gun owners alike) would skip the course, just for convenience, especially if they had attended in the past so I don’t think this would be the case, but it would be a serious funding problem if that happened. If successful, the program could be expanded to public schools as mandatory safety training (think Eddie the Eagle). Voluntary marksmanship and defense courses might even be added if enough fees were collected. It would not be registration, because some gun owners would not attend because of convenience (especially if they have attended previously) and some non-gun owners would attend to avoid the fee. The fee to avoid attendance should be fairly nominal, say $25, and would be assessed on state taxes every year. To avoid it, a person simply needs to submit proof of attending the state safety course. So only persons that file taxes are subject to this new tax? What about those that are not required to file? Yes, only people who are required to pay tax are required to pay tax. 
Prohibited possessors could still attend the course as there would be no marksmanship component or handling of real firearms or ammunition. If you pay the fee to avoid taking the course, you can still carry concealed, or in the open if you are not a prohibited posessor. So prohibited persons have a loop hole as large as a 747 that won't stop them from owning or carrying concealed? This part of your proposal is missing important details. They would still not be able to carry, no matter what, but they could still attend the safety course and thus avoid the fee. What says the hivemind? This corner of the hive says this post is so poorly thought through it ranks in the top two or three in memory. ETA: It seems I wasn’t clear. What I’m saying is that everyone should attend a gun safety course, whether they intend to own a gun or not. The cost of the course should be covered by folks who opt out of the course. Unacceptable taxation. Period, dot. What types of taxation are you okay with? This is independent of the idea that people shouldn’t require anything from the government to exercise their God given natural rights. How's that? Government mandates, which your proposal requires, precisely inhibits and interferes with the natural rights of people to be free of government. Completely “free” of government inevitably results in slavery. Anarchy =/= freedom. We are talking about a smaller burden than jury duty. A two hour class on how not to accidentally kill people and the consequences of being flippant about weapons. Plus, it can be avoided by paying a nominal fee. Or more accurately, a new tax that can be avoided by the simple expedient of attending a brief course. The title of your thread should have been, "A Poorly Considered Proposal that Further Restricts Freedom and Increases Taxes". Thank you. At least you mostly get what I was trying to say and offered real criticism. I'm not being sarcastic. |