• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Requiring training/proof of proficiency

BrewerBob said:
I know many here think anyone who proposes any sort of gun control is a gun banner at heart, and often they are right. But I am most definitely not a gun banner. I carry and support others' right to carry. I believe civilians should, at a minimum, be able to own any firearm that civilian law enforcement is permitted to have. I am also against gun registries, full stop.

So, keep that in mind before tearing me a new one, fellow gun owners. :)

I recently moved and obtained a license to carry concealed. It is a shall issue state and I just had to pass a criminal background check and show proof of gun proficiency. My military service was apparently sufficient proof of that so I didn't have to take any classes or anything. I used to be very proficient with a handgun but I hadn't fired in over a year and to be honest it was pretty embarrassing the first day I went back to a range. I had lost a lot of that muscle memory. Fortunately it didn't take me long to get it back.

But it got me to thinking, while I believe every free adult, not on probation or parole, should have the right to own any fire arm they wish, I think there is a compelling public interest that the person show some level of proficiency in its use. We require that with cars. I get it, there is no Constitutional right to drive a car. But the 2nd Amendment also refers to a well REGULATED militia. No, I don't think that refers to the National Guard. I think the militia is everyone capable of taking up arms against an enemy, foreign or domestic.

It seems to me at a bare minimum "regulated" would mean the ability to require those of us who bear arms to maintain proficiency and knowledge of gun safety. This would be in the best interest of EVERYBODY and does not deprive anybody of the right to bear arms.

Exactly what kind of training and how often it would be required would certainly be up for debate. I think there would be a benefit in requiring recertification every couple years or so. Yes, some people may not do well shooting under the pressure of being tested but if they can't handle that then they will be worse than useless in a real-life scenario.

You wouldn't necessarily have to qualify on every single weapon you own (I know some of you are collectors) but you would need to show proficiency with the category of weapons you would like to use for defense, such as pistols, revolvers, shot guns, semi-automatic rifles and such.

All right, tear away. :)
Click to expand...

I am a firm believer in firearm safety and proficiency course. There is nothing anti 2nd about that, and I will argue the point till the cows come home.
 
BrewerBob said:
I know many here think anyone who proposes any sort of gun control is a gun banner at heart, and often they are right. But I am most definitely not a gun banner. I carry and support others' right to carry. I believe civilians should, at a minimum, be able to own any firearm that civilian law enforcement is permitted to have. I am also against gun registries, full stop.

So, keep that in mind before tearing me a new one, fellow gun owners. :)

I recently moved and obtained a license to carry concealed. It is a shall issue state and I just had to pass a criminal background check and show proof of gun proficiency. My military service was apparently sufficient proof of that so I didn't have to take any classes or anything. I used to be very proficient with a handgun but I hadn't fired in over a year and to be honest it was pretty embarrassing the first day I went back to a range. I had lost a lot of that muscle memory. Fortunately it didn't take me long to get it back.

But it got me to thinking, while I believe every free adult, not on probation or parole, should have the right to own any fire arm they wish, I think there is a compelling public interest that the person show some level of proficiency in its use. We require that with cars. I get it, there is no Constitutional right to drive a car. But the 2nd Amendment also refers to a well REGULATED militia. No, I don't think that refers to the National Guard. I think the militia is everyone capable of taking up arms against an enemy, foreign or domestic.

It seems to me at a bare minimum "regulated" would mean the ability to require those of us who bear arms to maintain proficiency and knowledge of gun safety. This would be in the best interest of EVERYBODY and does not deprive anybody of the right to bear arms.

Exactly what kind of training and how often it would be required would certainly be up for debate. I think there would be a benefit in requiring recertification every couple years or so. Yes, some people may not do well shooting under the pressure of being tested but if they can't handle that then they will be worse than useless in a real-life scenario.

You wouldn't necessarily have to qualify on every single weapon you own (I know some of you are collectors) but you would need to show proficiency with the category of weapons you would like to use for defense, such as pistols, revolvers, shot guns, semi-automatic rifles and such.

All right, tear away. :)
Click to expand...

The main problem with that idea is that it creates a de facto registration process while still not impacting those who obtain and use firearms illegally. The fact of the matter is that the majority of shootings involve gang violence, drugs and domestic violence. No proficiency standard is going to fix that. In fact, no proficiency standard is going to prevent accidental discharges and cases where a loaded firearm is left in the reach of a child either. You can't legislate away careless and/or stupid.
 
natsb said:
I didn't think you were being obtuse, not now you are getting dangerously close. I didn't ask if rights can be regulated, clearly they can. I asked if you are willing to apply a training and proficiency requirement to all of our rights.

Grammar and context are important in communication. Therefore, I am sure you noticed that the 2nd only refers to a militia being regulated. It does not refer to the people's right to bear arms as needing regulation. As a mater of fact the exact words for the people's right is "shall not be infringed". Regulated and "shall not be infringed" clearly do not mean the same thing.



Again, the 2nd is not about the militia. it is about the people. The "people" would be all of us, not just those who qualify for militia.

It appears you are attempting to conflate a regulated militia, with the people's right to bear arms. There are several SCOTUS rulings that explain in legal and layman's terms that they are two separate clauses. We can talk about a well regulated militia, or the people's right to bear arms, but not in the same breath as they can both exist without the other.

Grammar alert!!! In the sentence: " In order to get a good night's sleep, a comfortable bed is required". Does that sentence imply that a bed can only be used at night and for sleep? Now apply that context to the 2nd.
Click to expand...

That bed mattress sentence was actually very helpful.

Alright. Thanks all. Some good points made.
 
BrewerBob said:
I know many here think anyone who proposes any sort of gun control is a gun banner at heart, and often they are right. But I am most definitely not a gun banner. I carry and support others' right to carry. I believe civilians should, at a minimum, be able to own any firearm that civilian law enforcement is permitted to have. I am also against gun registries, full stop.

So, keep that in mind before tearing me a new one, fellow gun owners. :)

I recently moved and obtained a license to carry concealed. It is a shall issue state and I just had to pass a criminal background check and show proof of gun proficiency. My military service was apparently sufficient proof of that so I didn't have to take any classes or anything. I used to be very proficient with a handgun but I hadn't fired in over a year and to be honest it was pretty embarrassing the first day I went back to a range. I had lost a lot of that muscle memory. Fortunately it didn't take me long to get it back.

But it got me to thinking, while I believe every free adult, not on probation or parole, should have the right to own any fire arm they wish, I think there is a compelling public interest that the person show some level of proficiency in its use. We require that with cars. I get it, there is no Constitutional right to drive a car. But the 2nd Amendment also refers to a well REGULATED militia. No, I don't think that refers to the National Guard. I think the militia is everyone capable of taking up arms against an enemy, foreign or domestic.

It seems to me at a bare minimum "regulated" would mean the ability to require those of us who bear arms to maintain proficiency and knowledge of gun safety. This would be in the best interest of EVERYBODY and does not deprive anybody of the right to bear arms.

Exactly what kind of training and how often it would be required would certainly be up for debate. I think there would be a benefit in requiring recertification every couple years or so. Yes, some people may not do well shooting under the pressure of being tested but if they can't handle that then they will be worse than useless in a real-life scenario.

You wouldn't necessarily have to qualify on every single weapon you own (I know some of you are collectors) but you would need to show proficiency with the category of weapons you would like to use for defense, such as pistols, revolvers, shot guns, semi-automatic rifles and such.

All right, tear away. :)
Click to expand...

I have one very big reason to oppose this: I have epilepsy. They included that on the list of things to report in the UK for owning a firearm. I've had exactly 0 tonic clinic seizures. None. I was diagnosed due to an irregular brain waive pattern when not on medication. I take my medicine. But I could still find myself on that list, while still being completely normal and having no issue with stress or sleep. My alleged triggers.

So if you are wondering what I'm driving at? Who is writing the standards? What is barring people from taking classes? And who is writing the insurance in those classes? That terrifies me. Insurance and liability concerns already make concealed carry a nightmare in states that provide weight of law to no carry signs.

I'd rather have no laws barring my rights than excessive laws on my rights written by people who aren't concerned with anything other than bottom lines.
 
BrewerBob said:
I know many here think anyone who proposes any sort of gun control is a gun banner at heart, and often they are right. But I am most definitely not a gun banner. I carry and support others' right to carry. I believe civilians should, at a minimum, be able to own any firearm that civilian law enforcement is permitted to have. I am also against gun registries, full stop.

So, keep that in mind before tearing me a new one, fellow gun owners. :)

I recently moved and obtained a license to carry concealed. It is a shall issue state and I just had to pass a criminal background check and show proof of gun proficiency. My military service was apparently sufficient proof of that so I didn't have to take any classes or anything. I used to be very proficient with a handgun but I hadn't fired in over a year and to be honest it was pretty embarrassing the first day I went back to a range. I had lost a lot of that muscle memory. Fortunately it didn't take me long to get it back.

But it got me to thinking, while I believe every free adult, not on probation or parole, should have the right to own any fire arm they wish, I think there is a compelling public interest that the person show some level of proficiency in its use. We require that with cars. I get it, there is no Constitutional right to drive a car. But the 2nd Amendment also refers to a well REGULATED militia. No, I don't think that refers to the National Guard. I think the militia is everyone capable of taking up arms against an enemy, foreign or domestic.

It seems to me at a bare minimum "regulated" would mean the ability to require those of us who bear arms to maintain proficiency and knowledge of gun safety. This would be in the best interest of EVERYBODY and does not deprive anybody of the right to bear arms.

Exactly what kind of training and how often it would be required would certainly be up for debate. I think there would be a benefit in requiring recertification every couple years or so. Yes, some people may not do well shooting under the pressure of being tested but if they can't handle that then they will be worse than useless in a real-life scenario.

You wouldn't necessarily have to qualify on every single weapon you own (I know some of you are collectors) but you would need to show proficiency with the category of weapons you would like to use for defense, such as pistols, revolvers, shot guns, semi-automatic rifles and such.

All right, tear away. :)
Click to expand...




Make it a class for Seniors in High School, along with "Basic Militia Infantry Skills 101".


I wouldn't mind if it was mandatory myself, with provision for the Conscientious Objectors I suppose.



The idea isn't a terrible one, and if our government was TRUSTWORTHY I might not mind... problem is you give 'em an inch and they take a mile.
 
BrewerBob said:
I agree, but weapons proficiency is a skill that quickly fades without practice.
Click to expand...



Most civilian shooting incidents occur at less than 7 yards. Many at less than 7 feet. Rarely are more then 3 shots fired.


Doesn't take Wild Bill Hickock to be reasonably accurate at that range.
 
Goshin said:
Most civilian shooting incidents occur at less than 7 yards. Many at less than 7 feet. Rarely are more then 3 shots fired.


Doesn't take Wild Bill Hickock to be reasonably accurate at that range.
Click to expand...

Well, that at least makes me feel a bit better when I am forced to carry my snub nosed 5 shot revolver. 7 yards is about where I can consistently, and quickly, get all 5 shots into a paper plate. :)
 
BrewerBob said:
Well, that at least makes me feel a bit better when I am forced to carry my snub nosed 5 shot revolver. 7 yards is about where I can consistently, and quickly, get all 5 shots into a paper plate. :)
Click to expand...

Hey man!! Whaddaya have against paper plates?
 
Goshin said:
Most civilian shooting incidents occur at less than 7 yards. Many at less than 7 feet. Rarely are more then 3 shots fired.


Doesn't take Wild Bill Hickock to be reasonably accurate at that range.
Click to expand...

My shooting-it was a contact hit-meaning I stuck the gun in his gut and pulled the trigger
 
BrewerBob said:
I know many here think anyone who proposes any sort of gun control is a gun banner at heart, and often they are right. But I am most definitely not a gun banner. I carry and support others' right to carry. I believe civilians should, at a minimum, be able to own any firearm that civilian law enforcement is permitted to have. I am also against gun registries, full stop.

So, keep that in mind before tearing me a new one, fellow gun owners. :)

I recently moved and obtained a license to carry concealed. It is a shall issue state and I just had to pass a criminal background check and show proof of gun proficiency. My military service was apparently sufficient proof of that so I didn't have to take any classes or anything. I used to be very proficient with a handgun but I hadn't fired in over a year and to be honest it was pretty embarrassing the first day I went back to a range. I had lost a lot of that muscle memory. Fortunately it didn't take me long to get it back.

But it got me to thinking, while I believe every free adult, not on probation or parole, should have the right to own any fire arm they wish, I think there is a compelling public interest that the person show some level of proficiency in its use. We require that with cars. I get it, there is no Constitutional right to drive a car. But the 2nd Amendment also refers to a well REGULATED militia. No, I don't think that refers to the National Guard. I think the militia is everyone capable of taking up arms against an enemy, foreign or domestic.

It seems to me at a bare minimum "regulated" would mean the ability to require those of us who bear arms to maintain proficiency and knowledge of gun safety. This would be in the best interest of EVERYBODY and does not deprive anybody of the right to bear arms.

Exactly what kind of training and how often it would be required would certainly be up for debate. I think there would be a benefit in requiring recertification every couple years or so. Yes, some people may not do well shooting under the pressure of being tested but if they can't handle that then they will be worse than useless in a real-life scenario.

You wouldn't necessarily have to qualify on every single weapon you own (I know some of you are collectors) but you would need to show proficiency with the category of weapons you would like to use for defense, such as pistols, revolvers, shot guns, semi-automatic rifles and such.

All right, tear away. :)
Click to expand...


If its to stop crime then requiring firearms proficiency is a horrible idea.Because who is more lethal? A criminal who is proficient in the use of firearms or someone without any firearms proficiency?

From a constitutional perspective it is also a horrible idea because your rights shouldn't be dependent on you taking a mandatory class to exercise that right.

As for safety goes I don't think the number of accidental deaths and injuries warrants mandating that adults take safety classes. I think that firearm safety should be taught in schools.After all we tell our kids to not talk to strangers so that Chester the child molester doesn't kidnap them.We tell our kids to not run with scissors so that they don't stab themselves or others.We tell our kids to not do drugs so that way they don't end up as junkies. We even have sex ed classes to warn of the dangers of STDs and unwanted pregnancies.I have even seen a PSA on telling girls to not send nude selfie of themselves to their boyfriends because he may decide to share that picture with everyone thus damaging your reputation or making you a social pariah.So in a country with at least over 300 million firearms in the hands of civilians firearm safety being a mandatory subject in school makes sense.
 
BrewerBob said:
I know many here think anyone who proposes any sort of gun control is a gun banner at heart, and often they are right. But I am most definitely not a gun banner. I carry and support others' right to carry. I believe civilians should, at a minimum, be able to own any firearm that civilian law enforcement is permitted to have. I am also against gun registries, full stop.

So, keep that in mind before tearing me a new one, fellow gun owners. :)

I recently moved and obtained a license to carry concealed. It is a shall issue state and I just had to pass a criminal background check and show proof of gun proficiency. My military service was apparently sufficient proof of that so I didn't have to take any classes or anything. I used to be very proficient with a handgun but I hadn't fired in over a year and to be honest it was pretty embarrassing the first day I went back to a range. I had lost a lot of that muscle memory. Fortunately it didn't take me long to get it back.

But it got me to thinking, while I believe every free adult, not on probation or parole, should have the right to own any fire arm they wish, I think there is a compelling public interest that the person show some level of proficiency in its use. We require that with cars. I get it, there is no Constitutional right to drive a car. But the 2nd Amendment also refers to a well REGULATED militia. No, I don't think that refers to the National Guard. I think the militia is everyone capable of taking up arms against an enemy, foreign or domestic.

It seems to me at a bare minimum "regulated" would mean the ability to require those of us who bear arms to maintain proficiency and knowledge of gun safety. This would be in the best interest of EVERYBODY and does not deprive anybody of the right to bear arms.

Exactly what kind of training and how often it would be required would certainly be up for debate. I think there would be a benefit in requiring recertification every couple years or so. Yes, some people may not do well shooting under the pressure of being tested but if they can't handle that then they will be worse than useless in a real-life scenario.

You wouldn't necessarily have to qualify on every single weapon you own (I know some of you are collectors) but you would need to show proficiency with the category of weapons you would like to use for defense, such as pistols, revolvers, shot guns, semi-automatic rifles and such.

All right, tear away. :)
Click to expand...

Wouldn't this harm minorities? I mean, if requiring ID to vote is a heavy burden, isn't this even more involved and expensive?
 
jamesrage said:
If its to stop crime then requiring firearms proficiency is a horrible idea.Because who is more lethal? A criminal who is proficient in the use of firearms or someone without any firearms proficiency?

From a constitutional perspective it is also a horrible idea because your rights shouldn't be dependent on you taking a mandatory class to exercise that right.

As for safety goes I don't think the number of accidental deaths and injuries warrants mandating that adults take safety classes. I think that firearm safety should be taught in schools.After all we tell our kids to not talk to strangers so that Chester the child molester doesn't kidnap them.We tell our kids to not run with scissors so that they don't stab themselves or others.We tell our kids to not do drugs so that way they don't end up as junkies. We even have sex ed classes to warn of the dangers of STDs and unwanted pregnancies.I have even seen a PSA on telling girls to not send nude selfie of themselves to their boyfriends because he may decide to share that picture with everyone thus damaging your reputation or making you a social pariah.So in a country with at least over 300 million firearms in the hands of civilians firearm safety being a mandatory subject in school makes sense.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. How many schools still have shop class or art class? We still have mandatory testing standards that require students to know things they will never use in their entire lives.
 
X Factor said:
Wouldn't this harm minorities? I mean, if requiring ID to vote is a heavy burden, isn't this even more involved and expensive?
Click to expand...

I'm wondering why showing ID is a problem?
 
blackjack50 said:
I'm wondering why showing ID is a problem?
Click to expand...



Irony.


Many of the same people that think showing photo ID to vote is some kind of great burden that will unfairly impact minorities, have NO problem making gun owners jump through hoops like background checks, mandatory training, psych evals, etc etc etc.


Even though voting includes choosing whose finger is on the "War" button....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom