• 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

haymarket said:
I believe the suggestion is that there is a large group of people who tend to vote Democratic that may be on the end of the socio-economic spectrum where the obtaining of proper ID may pose a financial burden akin to a poll tax. Another group is the elderly who may not have seen their proper papers in decades.
Click to expand...

Whether or not we agree on this matter, this is a threadjack IMO, haymarket. Ensuring/controlling voting rights in no way present the same challenges to government that voting rights do, and continuing to refer to this nonsequiter is a dishonest debating technique IMO.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

ttwtt78640 said:
yet ALL assert that voter ID laws will affect MOSTLY demorat voters, how can that assertion be proven?
Click to expand...

Why do you think this is so important to Republicans? If they thought it affected Republicans they'd be leading the charge against it.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

I have no problem requiring an ID...as long as the default positon is to allow people to vote. I do not beleive there is widespread voter fraud in the US, and voter fraud is a felony. If someone presents themselves at the polls without ID, take pics, fingerprints etc and follow up after allowing them to vote. If they were fraudlent, arrest them and fine them and throw them in jail. If there is any fraud out there, it would stop after a couple of prosecutions. I believe this issue is used by the Republicans, in a very small percnetage of the population to hinder poor democrats from voting. The real reason they make such a big deal of it is it fires up their base. More evils by "them" people which helps justify the Right Wings behaviors, next thing you know they will want free healthcare...
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

May I ask all of you that oppose any modification to the second amendment and increased gun control:

Do you believe those who are mentally unstable should be able to possess a firearm? If no, do you believe there should be a law prohibiting the mentally unstable from obtaining firearms? Why or why not?

and

Do you believe convicted felons, specifically those who commit violent crimes (assault, battery, murder) should be able to own a firearm? If no, do you believe there should be a law that prohibits those offenders from acquiring those guns? Why or why not?
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Pinkie said:
Whether or not we agree on this matter, this is a threadjack IMO, haymarket. Ensuring/controlling voting rights in no way present the same challenges to government that voting rights do, and continuing to refer to this nonsequiter is a dishonest debating technique IMO.
Click to expand...

I agree. If you go back on previous pages you will see that the voting comparison was introduced by others. I merely replied to it. I would greatly prefer that voting comparisons NOT be a part of this discussion.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Das Sozialist said:
Do you believe those who are mentally unstable should be able to possess a firearm? If no, do you believe there should be a law prohibiting the mentally unstable from obtaining firearms? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

Perchance, it would depend on the level we are going for here. In general there are some mental illnesses which do severely limit rational thinking, morality, consequence, etc. 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.

Das Sozialist said:
Do you believe convicted felons, specifically those who commit violent crimes (assault, battery, murder) should be able to own a firearm? If no, do you believe there should be a law that prohibits those offenders from acquiring those guns? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

I think that any individual whom has completed their punishment with the State should once again have the full exercise of their rights recognized again.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Ikari said:
Perchance, it would depend on the level we are going for here. In general there are some mental illnesses which do severely limit rational thinking, morality, consequence, etc. 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.
Click to expand...

Do you believe the second amendment should be modified in any way?
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Das Sozialist said:
Do you believe those who are mentally unstable should be able to possess a firearm? If no, do you believe there should be a law prohibiting the mentally unstable from obtaining firearms? Why or why not?

and

Do you believe convicted felons, specifically those who commit violent crimes (assault, battery, murder) should be able to own a firearm? If no, do you believe there should be a law that prohibits those offenders from acquiring those guns? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

With the mentally unstable, that would be a very difficult thing to show or prove, unless there was a violent history already, and the individual had been declared incompetent to make sound decisions.

As for felons, I am of the opinion that once someone has paid their debt to society, they should regain full rights of the general population. If they are not deemed safe enough to own firearms, they should not be parolled and put back into society in the first place.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Das Sozialist said:
Do you believe the second amendment should be modified in any way?
Click to expand...

Only in that it should say "No seriously, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

lizzie said:
With the mentally unstable, that would be a very difficult thing to show or prove, unless there was a violent history already, and the individual had been declared incompetent to make sound decisions.
Click to expand...

If the person is declared incompetent, I ask the same question. Should they be allowed to possess firearms?
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Ikari said:
Only in that it should say "No seriously, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be infringing upon someone's rights by not allowing them to own a firearm if they're declared incompetent?
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Das Sozialist said:
If the person is declared incompetent, I ask the same question. Should they be allowed to possess firearms?
Click to expand...

If they are deemed incompetent, then they don't have the legal capability, nor the freedoms necessary to own firearms. This would be like children having the legal right to buy guns.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

lizzie said:
If they are deemed incompetent, then they don't have the legal capability, nor the freedoms necessary to own firearms. This would be like children having the legal right to buy guns.
Click to expand...

I am assuming since you responded to the original question, you are a supporter of the second amendment as is. They are still a United States citizen, denying them any rights/freedoms that the constitution provides would be hypocritical. If you don't believe we should be able to regulate firearms for the competent, then (assuming you are a supporter of the 2nd Amendment) regulating firearms for the incompetent should be a no-go as well.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Das Sozialist said:
I am assuming since you responded to the original question, you are a supporter of the second amendment as is. They are still a United States citizen, denying them any rights/freedoms that the constitution provides would be hypocritical. If you don't believe we should be able to regulate firearms for the competent, then (assuming you are a supporter of the 2nd Amendment) regulating firearms for the incompetent should be a no-go as well.
Click to expand...

It depends on what factors a legal incompetency status, and guardianship has been court-ordered in relation to. Iow, would I give a gun to a mentally retarded individual with violent tendencies? Of course not. He is not competent to make sound judgements, any more than a 5 year-old would be.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

lizzie said:
It depends on what factors a legal incompetency status, and guardianship has been court-ordered in relation to. Iow, would I give a gun to a mentally retarded individual with violent tendencies? Of course not. He is not competent to make sound judgements, any more than a 5 year-old would be.
Click to expand...

But are you for or against allowing those declared mentally incompetent to exercise their second amendment right without infringement?
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Das Sozialist said:
Wouldn't that be infringing upon someone's rights by not allowing them to own a firearm if they're declared incompetent?
Click to expand...

Yes, yes it would. To exercise force you must demonstrate the need to do so. Which is why I wouldn't have any form of active regulation along this mark. But we have certainly seen cases of the mentally infirm and their rights being restricted. From Contract to Speech, those declared mentally infirm can have the lot infringed upon. So we already do this. And for extreme cases I can understand the desire to keep guns out of the hands of the truly crazy. If there is evidence that they are infirm, then perhaps it is reasonable to say we can regulate on it given the aggregate probabilities of abuse and (as is true in many cases of the mentally infirm) the lack of ability to understand it. But we'd have to be very careful with HOW we allow it, and the government cannot be allowed unfettered movement. I'd rather the crazy guy get the gun than government run wild with unrestricted power.

But this dynamic already exists, so we don't really need more laws. Now, what was your point?
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Das Sozialist said:
But are you for or against allowing those declared mentally incompetent to exercise their second amendment right without infringement?
Click to expand...

Those declared mentally incompetent have guardians, which puts them in the classification with children, so that's really a moot point.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Das Sozialist said:
You still did not answer my questions.


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:
Click to expand...

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


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

most of this thread is just replowing the same old ground but planting nothing.

The right to bear arms is infringed on in many ways, most of which the NRA is onboard for. The 2nd A makes no age qualification, no mental competency, no prior convictions clause, no limit on rate of fire, or caliber size for that matter.

Yet we have many restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear.

Now I have no problem with no training before purchase, would like to see a more complete training requirement for concealed carry and for hunters. Keeping a weapon for home defense is one thing, carrying out in public to include hunting is a different story. A musket in 1776 isn't anything like my 308 LTR. Hamilton's dueling pistol is a wimp compared to my XD45.

As far as private ownership of firearms resisting a tyrannical Gubmint, seems most of those spouting that crap already claim we have one, yet I see no populous uprising... :2razz:

Might be because for all the tough guy talk, they have enough sense to realize armed insurrection is a lot different from the one-way ranges they play on.

A bit less pompass posturing and a lot more reasonable dis-cuss-ion.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

notquiteright said:
most of this thread is just replowing the same old ground but planting nothing.

The right to bear arms is infringed on in many ways, most of which the NRA is onboard for. The 2nd A makes no age qualification, no mental competency, no prior convictions clause, no limit on rate of fire, or caliber size for that matter.

Yet we have many restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear.

Now I have no problem with no training before purchase, would like to see a more complete training requirement for concealed carry and for hunters. Keeping a weapon for home defense is one thing, carrying out in public to include hunting is a different story. A musket in 1776 isn't anything like my 308 LTR. Hamilton's dueling pistol is a wimp compared to my XD45.

As far as private ownership of firearms resisting a tyrannical Gubmint, seems most of those spouting that crap already claim we have one, yet I see no populous uprising... :2razz:

Might be because for all the tough guy talk, they have enough sense to realize armed insurrection is a lot different from the one-way ranges they play on.

A bit less pompass posturing and a lot more reasonable dis-cuss-ion.
Click to expand...

Armed revolt is the last option of a desperate people. We are not quite there yet. You do not want to haphazardly engage in it because you never really know what the outcome may be. Which is why it must be left as a last resort option.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Ikari said:
Yes, yes it would.
Click to expand...

If you would allow one group to have their rights restricted/removed, like you said here:

Ikari said:
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.
Click to expand...

...then you are infringing upon the 2nd Amendment which you believe should never be infringed upon, are you not?

lizzie said:
Those declared mentally incompetent have guardians, which puts them in the classification with children, so that's really a moot point.
Click to expand...

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:

Das Sozialist said:
...are you for or against allowing those declared mentally incompetent to exercise their second amendment right without infringement?
Click to expand...

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

jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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...
Click to expand...

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

Das Sozialist said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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

Das Sozialist said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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 :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Das Sozialist said:
...then you are infringing upon the 2nd Amendment which you believe should never be infringed upon, are you not?
Click to expand...

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 must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom