testtest

Should training be mandatory? Answer: No!

Ranger715

Operator
Well, I wanted to start a conversation, and it looks like I did. Now for the second part of why I oppose mandatory training. Several of you have expressed a fear that new, untrained gun owners will be a danger to everyone if they carry their guns around. You propose training as the solution, but you are assuming a problem which has yet to be demonstrated.

I just don't see the evidence of a plague of untrained gun owners causing terrible accidents everywhere. The number of people carrying has increased greatly over the last twenty years or so. Sometimes they have to get training and sometimes they don't. But I don't believe there has been a parallel rise in accidents. Training has never been required in my state (WA), and there is no rash of incidents to blame on that fact.

Training is great. I strongly encourage it. But I will never support it as a precondition. I think you are proposing a solution to a non existent problem.
 

10mmLife

Moderator
Staff member
Founding Member
Just a thought but I'm pretty sure negligent discharge's or indiscriminate self defense shooting is hardly a safety issue and the most people that are shot are by criminals in crappy cities with strict anti 2A laws already in place so how would mandatory training be the answer?

Do we require training to the criminals and thugs that are causing the majority of the indiscriminate shootings and negligent discharges or is the idea of mandatory training a feel good exercise for the some while being wielded as an anti 2A political tool for others.

Mandatory training is a slippery slope to total government control over your 2A rights as seen in repressive states like Massachusetts where I'm originally from. I currently reside just over the border in NH where the law is constitutional carry and no training is required to purchase or carry a firearm only a hunters safety course if you're in the woods.

Thoughts?
 

C. Sumpin

Custom
No offense, but there is most certainly a preamble, which is the part that contains the phrase, "unalienable rights".
There are actually 3 parts to the declaration itself. It's also a seperate document from the Constitution. I don't have a dog in the fight, but this is obviously an important topic.
A dot gov website..............now it must be official.......
 

papa

Professional
Founding Member
The right to keep and bear arms cannot be compered to the privilege of driving a car. People like to argue that training is needed to keep people , who are new to the carry life style , from shooting up everyone within a mile of them.
Several states have had carry laws in place without any training requirement. Indiana , Washington , and then there is Vermont which lets a person buy and then start carrying a firearm.

Training is a good idea but not as a requirement from the state because then it becomes a privilege to keep and bear arms , not a right.
 

ScottJ

Professional
Founding Member
"...The right to keep and bear arms cannot be compered to the privilege of driving a car...."

Never said I was comparing, just stating a fact/observation that no matter what item/skill some folks practice/train with, even over a long period of time, they'll never be proficient at it. I've always heard even lawyers and doctors are said to be "practicing" law or medicine. 😉
 

Grifter

Custom
Founding Member
I'm of mixed minds on that. Yes, 2A. But also, can you imagine the carnage if some schmuck who just bought his first pistol for self defense pulls it and starts shooting? How likely do you think it would be for him to hit a bunch of bystanders? I really want to make sure a person carrying a gun, which they might use, only hits what they want to hit and not someone else, like me. I don't think it's unreasonable AT ALL to have someone show proficiency with a gun before carrying one in public. I dare say such a restriction would pass strict scrutiny, too. Compelling government interest and narrowly tailored to meet that interest.
Go watch some law enforcement shoot.

It can be a little scary.
 
Just a thought but I'm pretty sure negligent discharge's or indiscriminate self defense shooting is hardly a safety issue and the most people that are shot are by criminals in crappy cities with strict anti 2A laws already in place so how would mandatory training be the answer?

Do we require training to the criminals and thugs that are causing the majority of the indiscriminate shootings and negligent discharges or is the idea of mandatory training a feel good exercise for the some while being wielded as an anti 2A political tool for others.

Mandatory training is a slippery slope to total government control over your 2A rights as seen in repressive states like Massachusetts where I'm originally from. I currently reside just over the border in NH where the law is constitutional carry and no training is required to purchase or carry a firearm only a hunters safety course if you're in the woods.

Thoughts?

A dot gov website..............now it must be official.......
Would you like me to include the myriad of sites that aren't official government sites? Just take the L; you couldn't be more wrong here. I was respectful in my approach to you as I'm new here, but you seem to be an arrogant and snarky individual, as evidenced by your response to me and another individual. It's okay to be wrong. 3 parts to the Declaration of Independence; the first being the preamble, as in, introduction.



 

somorris

Custom
Founding Member
I am opposed to mandatory training, Ranger. It could be dangerous if a criminal or mentally ill person decided to start shooting folks at the local grocery store and other folks who had no training pulled out guns and started trying to shoot the shooter, but I will accept that risk. I do not believe government reach into the lives of citizens of the United States needs to be increased. Our rights are guaranteed in our Constitution, but infringement on our rights has been gradually increasing during my lifetime. I think a lot of younger folks accept the way things are because they do not have a frame of reference.
 

C. Sumpin

Custom
Would you like me to include the myriad of sites that aren't official government sites? Just take the L; you couldn't be more wrong here. I was respectful in my approach to you as I'm new here, but you seem to be an arrogant and snarky individual, as evidenced by your response to me and another individual. It's okay to be wrong. 3 parts to the Declaration of Independence; the first being the preamble, as in, introduction.



Well thank you Logic, I love to be highly thought of and receive high compliments.
You are offended that Government is not a great source of information?
I simply am not so interested in Preamble, opening, body, conclusion, etc.
If you or anyone are not interested in the "inalienable rights" that's fine, but you shan't deny me and others.
 
Well thank you Logic, I love to be highly thought of and receive high compliments.
You are offended that Government is not a great source of information?
I simply am not so interested in Preamble, opening, body, conclusion, etc.
If you or anyone are not interested in the "inalienable rights" that's fine, but you shan't deny me and others.
How do you surmise that I'm offended by the government not being a good source of information? You made the claim so I provided the same information from other sources that aren't government. You're willfully ignoring truth because it doesn't align with your perception or interpretation. It's okay that you're not interested in a subject or topic but that doesn't negate truth. You're also purposely misconstruing what was said. I didn't see anybody, including myself, say that we aren't interested in "inalienable rights", we said that the term comes from the preamble of the Declaration of Independence; which is factually accurate. You either care about accuracy and truth or you don't. You also make quite a few assumptions without any discourse and use logical fallacies without being able to stay on topic or argue a valid point. So, be well, take care, and stay free, because regardless of what you think, I've fought for and will always fight for, EVERYBODY'S inalienable right to be autonomous and free. I'm here to learn and meet good people, not to argue with imbeciles; that's what FB is for.
 

cico7

Custom
24F31179-66AE-42AC-8821-5104BA872146.gif
 

10mmLife

Moderator
Staff member
Founding Member
Would you like me to include the myriad of sites that aren't official government sites? Just take the L; you couldn't be more wrong here. I was respectful in my approach to you as I'm new here, but you seem to be an arrogant and snarky individual, as evidenced by your response to me and another individual. It's okay to be wrong. 3 parts to the Declaration of Independence; the first being the preamble, as in, introduction.



I'm not sure why my statements are included in this quoted post as nothing I've said in my post has anything to do with your response.

Was I quoted in error?
 
I'm not sure why my statements are included in this quoted post as nothing I've said in my post has anything to do with your response.

Was I quoted in error?
I may have hit something incorrectly but I don't see any statements made by you in my quoted post, only my previous post. I see what I wrote and the links that I provided. Am I missing something?
 
Top