View Poll Results: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firearm?

Voters
56. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    8 14.29%
  • No

    43 76.79%
  • Other

    5 8.93%
Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 200

Thread: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firearm?

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Last Seen
    10-12-14 @ 05:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    407

    Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Yes, yes it would.
    If you would allow one group to have their rights restricted/removed, like you said here:

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    If one is found to be so extremely infirm, then it can be reasonable to restrict their exercise of certain rights. But I wouldn't say that anyone buying a gun should be subjected to mental health evaluations either. There is an extreme in which it is reasonable to regulate I suppose, but that regulation will have to be spelled out and limited.
    ...then you are infringing upon the 2nd Amendment which you believe should never be infringed upon, are you not?

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    Those declared mentally incompetent have guardians, which puts them in the classification with children, so that's really a moot point.
    It is most certainly not a moot point. Are they not American citizens by law? Does the Constitution not grant this right to EVERY citizen?

    So I ask again:

    Quote Originally Posted by Das Sozialist View Post
    ...are you for or against allowing those declared mentally incompetent to exercise their second amendment right without infringement?
    There are only two answers to pick from, you can of course elaborate, but I am looking for an answer that is either "For." or "Against."
    Last edited by Das Sozialist; 08-09-12 at 02:45 PM.

  2. #122
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Last Seen
    10-12-14 @ 05:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    407

    Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    The regulated militia is a separate right.Just like Religion is a separate right from freedom of speech, press,peaceful assembly and to petition grievances.
    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.
    That doesn't make sense, at least not to me. If they were separate, why would the Militia part be an incomplete sentence?

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...
    That is not a complete thought/sentence, which would lead me to believe that they are not two separate rights. When pieced together with "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" it sounds like it's talking about the people within the Militia shall not have their rights infringed.

    I could of course be completely wrong and it could mean everyone in the U.S. can own any type of armament.
    Last edited by Das Sozialist; 08-09-12 at 03:06 PM.

  3. #123
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,075

    Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

    Quote Originally Posted by Das Sozialist View Post
    That doesn't make sense, at least not to me. If they were separate, why would the Militia part be an incomplete sentence?
    That is not a complete thought/sentence, which would lead me to believe that they are not two separate rights. When pieced together with "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" it sounds like it's talking about the people within the Militia shall not have their rights infringed.
    If they are not separate then why bother mentioning "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"? Why not just say the right of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms?



    I could of course be completely wrong and it could mean everyone in the U.S. can own any type of armament.
    Contrary to liberal belief the purpose of the 2nd amendment was not so that people can hunt.It is so citizens have a means of defending themselves should there be an invasion,remove the government should it get to tyrannical, and to defend themselves and families.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  4. #124
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

    Quote Originally Posted by Das Sozialist View Post
    That doesn't make sense, at least not to me. If they were separate, why would the Militia part be an incomplete sentence?

    That is not a complete thought/sentence, which would lead me to believe that they are not two separate rights. When pieced together with "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" it sounds like it's talking about the people within the Militia shall not have their rights infringed.

    I could of course be completely wrong and it could mean everyone in the U.S. can own any type of armament.
    There is the projected right itself, which is of the people to keep and bear, and the right is imediatly preceded by a prefatory clause, which stipulates militia duty.

    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
    ~snip~

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

    FindLaw | Cases and Codes
    The prefatory clause (militia duty) frames what sort of 'arms' are being protected, and the projected right protects the citizen's right to personaly own and carry those arms.

    I hope that helps
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-09-12 at 04:02 PM.

  5. #125
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

    Quote Originally Posted by Das Sozialist View Post
    ...then you are infringing upon the 2nd Amendment which you believe should never be infringed upon, are you not?
    On average it shouldn't. And on average, we are not talking about the mentally infirm; but rather nominal and fully functioning adults. We have mechanics already to protect the infirm from abuse and that revolves around legally defining them as children and requiring guardians.

    The real thing here is you're trying to confuse two issues. One is the nominal use of our rights and the restrictions government bears in that regard. Under those, I oppose almost all forms of gun regulation, as I do regulation on any of our rights. The other issue is consideration of the edges of the distribution, such as what happens when an individual is incapable of understanding their rights or exercising them while understanding the consequences to do so. Those are low probability events that are taken as special exceptions. In fact, it's quite literally the exceptions which prove the rule. The rule is that our rights may not be infringed upon, and if you want to make regulation against that, you must first prove your point and then obtain an exception to the rule.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  6. #126
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

    Quote Originally Posted by Das Sozialist View Post
    Being able to vote and being able to posses a deadly weapon are two different things. You can't end someone's life by voting for President.

    I only believe you should go through marksmanship training before you're allowed to own a firearm, that's the only right I think you should have to 'prove' yourself for. If you're going to own a weapon, at least know how to use it.
    Your comparison is flawed. First off some of your rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Using your argument I could construct my own argument under the premise that what you do with your vote could gravely harm my liberty and my pursuit of happiness. Why do you think the founders originally wanted only property owners to vote? Because you'd have to have some skin in the game for the right to vote. Now we have people voting who don't own any property, and therefore their self interest is in taking from those who have, and giving it to themselves. They have nothing at all to lose. So now I'm going to require that they be trained in conservative thought, but make sure their vote doesn't harm me.
    Last edited by American; 08-09-12 at 04:16 PM.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  7. #127
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,074

    Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
    There is no leeway in the 2nd amendment, it specifically says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.That means the government has no business infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.It means it is illegal for the government to require you to jump through hoops prior to exercising that right.

    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


    James - how then do you explain that for a decade we had a ban on certain types of firearms and it was NOT declared as unconstitutional by the Court? And several states have their own bans on assault weapons and they have stood as constitutional.
    Last edited by haymarket; 08-09-12 at 04:27 PM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  8. #128
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,074

    Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Your comparison is flawed. First off some of your rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
    You are confusing the Declaration of Independence with the US Constitution. There is not a damn thing in the Constitution stating you any right to pursue happiness - whatever the heck that means to you or the member of NAMBLA down the street.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  9. #129
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You are confusing the Declaration of Independence with the US Constitution. There is not a damn thing in the Constitution stating you any right to pursue happiness - whatever the heck that means to you or the member of NAMBLA down the street.
    That's only because you are ignorant of what the pursuit of happiness is synonymous with. As for NAMBLA, not sure what you are getting at.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  10. #130
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

    Quote Originally Posted by Das Sozialist View Post
    Do you believe Americans should have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firearm? Why or why not?
    I believe every able-bodied boy and girl in America should be taught gun safety and marksmanship from an early age.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

Page 13 of 20 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •