• 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!

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

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 8.3%
  • No

    Votes: 40 83.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 4 8.3%

  • Total voters
    48
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

I'll take a Remington 850 over that thing any day.

let me know what that is-I never have heard of a 850 remington.

I have owned a half dozen or more 870 Remingtons though

good shotguns, for home defense the Mossberg 500 is slightly better though
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

I used a Perazzi Mirage choked full and extra full with 3.5 dram remington shells with nickel plated 7.5 shot
That's more money than I care to spend for a scatter gun. Had an 850, cost was low enough that I didn't care if it got a little beat up, and reliability was excellent.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

let me know what that is-I never have heard of a 850 remington.

I have owned a half dozen or more 870 Remingtons though

good shotguns, for home defense the Mossberg 500 is slightly better though

I meant 870. I'm sloshed right now.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Normally I'd say yes, but with the incrementalism slippery slope of the left I'll have to say no. Irrational partisan exuberance steps on rationality society, again.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

they had something like that in the Nam. a M2 Browning 50 loaded with 50 caliber shot shells. if a vc sniper was in a treelike the chopper pilot would have his gunner spray it with thousands of bird shot and if that didn't do charlie in he'd be naked as a jaybird with a bunch of real pissed off marines or Rangers right there holding some serious firepower

You know your day is abd when you have a bunch of unhappy marines around you. Sleep tight buddy
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Do you believe Americans should have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firearm? Why or why not?

No. It would be an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. There are already enough unconstitutional infringements in the 2nd Amendment.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

No. It would be an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. There are already enough unconstitutional infringements in the 2nd Amendment.

i don't think necessarily that it's an infringement, it's just highly unnecessary and wasteful
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Only if you want to carry a handgun around all the time. Otherwise, not just no - but hell no!
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

I would advocate stress/crisis management over marksmanship.

We're talking about someone who's already up on you, hitting and yelling....not a relaxed day shooting harmless targets some distance away.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

I would advocate stress/crisis management over marksmanship.

We're talking about someone who's already up on you, hitting and yelling....not a relaxed day shooting harmless targets some distance away.

Pistol Whip. Nobody dies, he ain't yellin no mo, and the only side effect is your beautiful pistol has a little blood on it. Hopefully he'll be wearing clothes so you can wipe it off. Problem resolved :lol:
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

In context to the argument, I have to agree. There are plenty of morons around me with enough money to buy explosives and such. I do feel completely comfortable with close gunshots around me which is odd because I don't trust the drunk bastards to hit the broadside of a barn let alone whatever they're shooting at
You know, now that I think about it....it's a strange thing....I feel perfectly at home around gun fire.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

You know, now that I think about it....it's a strange thing....I feel perfectly at home around gun fire.

I have no problem with it. I just peeked at your location and realized why you are comfortable :lol:
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

There is no leeway in the first amendment, you cannot prohibit the establishment or exercising of religion and you cannot abridge freedom of speech, press, or the right to assembly. That means no hindrance/reduction whatsoever. The second amendment is more vague, claiming:

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


It says nothing about not being able to regulate it, in fact, it says specifically, a well regulated (controlled) militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

What, then, do you think is meant by the words, “…shall not be infringed”, in reference to the right that is affirmed just before those words. It seems clear to me that this means, very clearly that there is not to be allowed any leeway to abridge or prohibit the exercise of that right. No hindrance or reduction of that right whatsoever. If anything, the language of the Second Amendment is stronger and clearer than that of the First Amendment. It mentions one right, and in no uncertain terms, forbids any infringement of that right.

The Second Amendment is only “vague” to those who do not agree with it, and who do not wish for it to be obeyed.

By the way, “regulated” does not mean what you think it means, and even if it did, it would not support any infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

I'm originally from Chicago, where a man had the right to vote as many times as he could get away with. Dead pets too!

—————
580797_10150965576711884_755161352_n.jpg
—————
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

and just as an FYI.

COngress is mandated by the constitution to promote firedarms training and marksmanship.
This is now the national matches at Camp Perry OH. (20 years ago anyway)
Of course it is now just for the military (98%) and people have never heard of it.

I went there one year to support it.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

If anything, the language of the Second Amendment is stronger and clearer than that of the First Amendment.
I've got a less restrictive outlook on weapons than most people in the NRA but this is bull****.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

I don't believe folks should be required by law to undergo training (safety or marksmanship) before purchasing a firearm. That said, it's a darn good idea to opt to go for it. However, we could make law that says, if you **** up with said weapon and shoot someone and if you also opted to not complete safety courses, a depraved indifference charge is added onto the incident.

So, instead of an accidental shooting, the charge would become depraved indifference.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

I don't believe folks should be required by law to undergo training (safety or marksmanship) before purchasing a firearm. That said, it's a darn good idea to opt to go for it. However, we could make law that says, if you **** up with said weapon and shoot someone and if you also opted to not complete safety courses, a depraved indifference charge is added onto the incident.

So, instead of an accidental shooting, the charge would become depraved indifference.

That is nonsense unless that same would apply to ALL "accidents", including home, workplace and motor vehicle related. I do not need a course for handgun use, although I would gladly take a test, just as I did for driving. You, and the NRA, wish to make "CCW tests" into a mandatory gold mine for the mighty "certifiers" and "trainers". How about we make that liability joint for all that take your mandated classes and get "certified" but later have an "accident"? For every dollar of fine or day in jail given to the "accident causer", your gun safety instructor/certifier gets the same sentence?
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

That is nonsense unless that same would apply to ALL "accidents", including home, workplace and motor vehicle related. I do not need a course for handgun use, although I would gladly take a test, just as I did for driving. You, and the NRA, wish to make "CCW tests" into a mandatory gold mine for the mighty "certifiers" and "trainers". How about we make that liability joint for all that take your mandated classes and get "certified" but later have an "accident"? For every dollar of fine or day in jail given to the "accident causer", your gun safety instructor/certifier gets the same sentence?

Someone who has no license or drivers training takes a car for a joyride and kills someone accidentally may face charges of depraved indifference. What I was trying to achieve is not the creation of some certifying authority - those already exist in number (you can get a training cert from any range), but a clear message that if you go untrained you are responsible for that decision when the problems occur.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Do you believe Americans should have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firearm? Why or why not?
Because it's one more excuse for government to interfere with our lives. It's easy to dream up legislation and get it passed. It can be a total pain in the butt to have to live with it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Someone who has no license or drivers training takes a car for a joyride and kills someone accidentally may face charges of depraved indifference. What I was trying to achieve is not the creation of some certifying authority - those already exist in number (you can get a training cert from any range), but a clear message that if you go untrained you are responsible for that decision when the problems occur.

Having a DL does not make you "not liable" for errors in your judgment, nor should having a "gun degree". I see that you are confused with what constitutes an accident vs. what constitutes criminal intent. You wish to transform carrying "uninformed" into intent to cause harm, with absolutely no evidence that it even played any part in the decision to discharge a round. Criminal intent is still something that requires proof, with or without training. You do not become presumed guilty, simply because you refuse to pay fees and tolerate infringements on your rights. Name one range that will certify me for the same price as a driver's license and I will go there, until then it is simply infringement on a constitutional right.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

It is not true that all gun owners already do some sort of training. My state, SD, is an example. We do not require a permit to buy any firearm. We do not require a permit to carry in your home or place of business. We do not require a permit to carry openly in public.

We only require a permit to carry concealed. No class of any kind is required to obtain this permit. $10 and a simple application to the Sheriff's office will get you a permit in the mail within 2 weeks, provided you pass the background check.

Further, we are moving away from requiring a permit at all, to carry concealed or otherwise (link). Permits will still be available so that citizens may take advantage or reciprocity laws with other states.

We view the right to carry a firearm anywhere in public as fundamental a right as religion and speech.

However, we also honor the concern over untrained persons carrying a lethal weapon. Our compromise, therefore, is to add basic gun safety as part of the mandatory highschool curriculum; a class taught by law local enforcement which would cover law, maintenance and basic marksmanship, to include range qualification.

The end result would be a trained citizen lawfully enjoying their right to carry without be infringed upon by permit requirements. Both sides of the issue would get everything they want.

I spent 2 years of my life in Ellsworth / Rapid City... SD is a lovely state from March to October... :)
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Having a DL does not make you "not liable" for errors in your judgment, nor should having a "gun degree". I see that you are confused with what constitutes an accident vs. what constitutes criminal intent. You wish to transform carrying "uninformed" into intent to cause harm, with absolutely no evidence that it even played any part in the decision to discharge a round. Criminal intent is still something that requires proof, with or without training. You do not become presumed guilty, simply because you refuse to pay fees and tolerate infringements on your rights. Name one range that will certify me for the same price as a driver's license and I will go there, until then it is simply infringement on a constitutional right.



Even IF it were free it would still be an infringement on your rights... period.
 
Back
Top Bottom