[bobtheelf]

Originally Posted by Spiffums

Every new gun I ever bought at the gun shop had a flyer of the 4 rules of gun safety.

If I worked in a gun shop, I would just as a matter of good practice make sure all my customers knew how to handle a gun safely. I just think it's the right thing to do.

[TheExplorer]

If it wasn't a constitutional right, I'd say we should, just like a driver's license. However it is, so we should not.

[kenpoprofessor]

Originally Posted by Recalcitrant

To own a firearm and keep it at your home, perhaps not. But I'd be fine with training or testing as a requirement for concealed carry. I believe some states have this in place.

Mrs Brady, is that you?

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

[.45Super-Man]

Well, how many regulations and contingencies does it take to alter the definition of your freedom and liberty?

[countrygun]

It wouldn't have any effect on the crimes that catch attention and as a safety issue I don't see a major problem mandatory training would fix. My LGS doe as excellent job on that without being regulated and, again, I can't find the problem this would solve.

[Simpleman71]

I took a basic and advance concealed carry course. Not only does it help with weapon proficiency, they keep me updated on local and state carry laws. I also shoot uspsa and train at a local outdoor range 3 times a month. I have seen some people handling firearms at ranges that have no business in doing so. Not everyone is cut out to handle the responsibility to conceal carry a deadly weapon.

[spork]

Take a test or a government approved class in order to access and practice my constitutional rights?

No, absolutely not.

[Bren]

Originally Posted by dvrdwn72

Im sure ill get some negitive responses, but due to the fact that most people are just plain stupid without an ounce of common sense, should we require some form of real traing/testing to own firearms?? Mabye even just a simple iq test. Sorry but ive seen a lifetimes worth of stupid in the past week at the range and lgs.

We haven't needed any since they were invented and the objections the liberals have to them are based on criminals and crazies, so I don't really see the point in a self-imposed and unnecessary regulation of our own.

As you said, people are stupid - a class isn't going to help.

[Atlas]

"Mandatory training.."
Do you mean that if I don't receive the training I cannot own a gun?


What part do you not understand of:

"it's my fundamental right to own a firearm, a right enumerated in and protected by the Constitution of the United States" ?














....... where the hell do these people come from, anyway???

[RussP]

No....

[M&P15T]

I'm just gonna ask one question, and not post any replies. I've already been involved in another scrum over basically this same topic, so I really am not interested in arguing anymore.

If anti-gun legislation is on the horizon, and it's something we absolutely can't avoid, is there any compromises we should consider, rather than getting absolutely crushed?

My thought is that our elected officials are getting pounded with phone calls, e-mails and letters demanding anti-gun legislation, from folks that normally don't care one way or another about gun-control, but are very upset by what happened in CT.

It's possible that if we could find a compromise that settles-down all those people that are upset over the Sandy Hook shooting, the anti-gun legislators would lose their political momentum, and therefore their ability to pass really restrictive anti-gun legislation.

Any ideas on possible compromises that would calm down all those folks that are raising cane with their elected representatives? Just to avoid any truly damaging anti-gun legislation?

A lesser of two evils so to speak?

I have this mental image of gun-control debates on the House and Senate floors, and the anti-gunners bringing in Mothers and Fathers of the children that were killed at Sandy Hook to support their anti-gun legislation.

That would be really bad.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

.
If anti-gun legislation is on the horizon, and it's something we absolutely can't avoid, is there any compromises we should consider, rather than getting absolutely crushed?
..

ANY taxation or permit requirement serves legally to re-define your 2a-protected RIGHT to keep and bear arms as a privilege.

Do you understand what that means?
A privilege is the legal opposite of a right.

An activity, such as owning firearms, cannot be both a fundamental individual right and be a privilege.
It's one or it's the other.

If the state can impose control over an activity, any control such as imposing a tax, or requiring a license or permit, then that activity is, at law, a privilege.


I have a RIGHT to own firearms.
I will not compromise that right.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by M&P15T

I'm just gonna ask one question, and not post any replies. I've already been involved in another scrum over basically this same topic, so I really am not interested in arguing anymore.

If anti-gun legislation is on the horizon, and it's something we absolutely can't avoid, is there any compromises we should consider, rather than getting absolutely crushed?

My thought is that our elected officials are getting pounded with phone calls, e-mails and letters demanding anti-gun legislation, from folks that normally don't care one way or another about gun-control, but are very upset by what happened in CT.

It's possible that if we could find a compromise that settles-down all those people that are freaking out over the Sandy Hook shooting, the anti-gun legislators would lose their political momentum, and therefore their ability to pass really restrictive anti-gun legislation.

Any ideas on how we could slow-down looming anti-gun legislation? Any ideas on possible compromises that would calm down all those folks that are raising cane with their elected representatives? Just to avoid any truly damaging anti-gun legislation?

A lesser of two evils so to speak?

M&P15T, that is way off the topic of this thread.

Let's confine that discussion to its original thread Gun show loop hole?? also here in GNG.

Do not troll and hijack another thread on a totally different topic.

[eagle359]

May I offer this idea. You go through a reasonable national training course. At the end you get a "purchasing card" that allows you to make a purchase without a NICS check and it serves as a national carry permit that ALL states and CITIES must honor.

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by eagle359

May I offer this idea. You go through a reasonable national training course. At the end you get a "purchasing card" that allows you to make a purchase without a NICS check and it serves as a national carry permit that ALL states and CITIES must honor.

Sure, as long as completion of that training course is not a legal requirement to my purchasing or owning a firearm.

[kenpoprofessor]

Originally Posted by Simpleman71

I took a basic and advance concealed carry course. Not only does it help with weapon proficiency, they keep me updated on local and state carry laws. I also shoot uspsa and train at a local outdoor range 3 times a month. I have seen some people handling firearms at ranges that have no business in doing so. Not everyone is cut out to handle the responsibility to conceal carry a deadly weapon.

And Wayne LaPierre isn't qualified to speak on behalf of the NRA, what's your point?

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

[HollowHead]

Originally Posted by Simpleman71

I took a basic and advance concealed carry course. Not only does it help with weapon proficiency, they keep me updated on local and state carry laws.

I did the same exact thing voluntarily, as it should be. HH

[itisbruno]

Originally Posted by RussP

M&P15T, that is way off the topic of this thread.

Let's confine that discussion to its original thread Gun show loop hole?? also here in GNG.

Do not troll and hijack another thread on a totally different topic.

You may not be much to look at, but you are good people

[el_jewapo]

New rule.

To own a firearm, you must be able to hit a shiny new penny at 100 yards with this snub nose .22 revolver.

Some people may laugh at that, I say try getting a marijuana tax stamp.

ETA: That's not something I wish to see. Just saying that's the can of worms that would be opened if you had to get some kind of government mandated training. Felt the need to clarify, lest I be labeled anti gun.

[Scotsman]

The objection is simple...

"We just passed a bill mandating this great new training program. It's cheap, only $100 and 8 hours of time, and will make us all safer!"

Some time later...

"We've found that the costs of the class are higher than expected, so we need to up the price to $500."

Some time later...

"We've consolidated training sites and lowered the number of trained instructors in order to better standardize the regimen. Also, considering the the amount of gun deaths we still have in this country we will be upping the training time to 40 hours. Classes will now only be available in the capitol of your state and training fees have necessarily been raised to $1000."

Now, who gets to exercise their constitutional rights?

[Atlas]

Originally Posted by el_jewapo

New rule.

To own a firearm, you must be able to hit a shiny new penny at 100 yards with this snub nose .22 revolver.

Some people may laugh at that, I say try getting a marijuana tax stamp.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

The objection is simple...

"We just passed a bill mandating this great new training program. It's cheap, only $100 and 8 hours of time, and will make us all safer!"

Some time later...

"We've found that the costs of the class are higher than expected, so we need to up the price to $500."

Some time later...

"We've consolidated training sites and lowered the number of trained instructors in order to better standardize the regimen. Also, considering the the amount of gun deaths we still have in this country we will be upping the training time to 40 hours. Classes will now only be available in the capitol of your state and training fees have necessarily been raised to $1000."

Now, who gets to exercise their constitutional rights?

Exactly.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by Scotsman

The objection is simple...

"We just passed a bill mandating this great new training program. It's cheap, only $100 and 8 hours of time, and will make us all safer!"

Some time later...

"We've found that the costs of the class are higher than expected, so we need to up the price to $500."

Some time later...

"We've consolidated training sites and lowered the number of trained instructors in order to better standardize the regimen. Also, considering the the amount of gun deaths we still have in this country we will be upping the training time to 40 hours. Classes will now only be available in the capitol of your state and training fees have necessarily been raised to $1000."

Now, who gets to exercise their constitutional rights?

That sounds about right...

[oldman11]

That really isn't going to be help to the school shootings as most of these people don't buy the guns used, they steal them. These people that steal them have absolutely no formal training on their use, but they sure know how to handle them anyway, don't they?

[kylenewman]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I think we've allowed enough infringement on our rights.

[eagle359]

Originally Posted by Atlas

Sure, as long as completion of that training course is not a legal requirement to my purchasing or owning a firearm.

Not a problem for me.

I am 62 years old. I have been through the '68 GCA forward. Every time the Feds tighten the screws just a bit more. The big court said we could have them. So why do not they STFU and stay in DC if they feel safe there.