• 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

Das Sozialist said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

jamesrage said:
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
Click to expand...

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

American said:
Your comparison is flawed. First off some of your rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...

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

haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Das Sozialist said:
Do you believe Americans should have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firearm? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

I believe every able-bodied boy and girl in America should be taught gun safety and marksmanship from an early age.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

American said:
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.
Click to expand...

Feel free to quote from the US Constitution where it explains that.

The NAMBLA reference - I am sure that NAMBLA members would very much like a Constitution which protects their idea of pursing their own happiness. And that should tell you why such a "right" is ridiculous on its face.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Marksmanship training? No. Gun safety training? Yes.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...
Has the supreme court actually heard the case and actually addressed the so called assault weapon's ban? I don't believe it has. It took 33 years for DC vs Hellar to be heard and declared unconstitutional, this could have been due to the fact it required perfect timing to wait for the political makeup of the SC to change and a lawyer willing to take the case. So other constitutional laws like these assault weapon bans may take awhile to be struck down.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Das Sozialist said:
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?
Click to expand...


I doubt many here were a big a proponent of any effective measure that would reduce gun violence as I am, but in my view, almost none in use today and for sure none that you have suggested would pass constitutional muster, not now that we have a Supreme Court ruling that holds every American has a right to a own a gun.

As for some blanket ban on gun ownership by felons or the mentally ill, neither group even remotely selects only or mostly people I see as hazardous. You can be a felon in the US for a vast array of nonviolent crimes, or you could have a single incidence of violence in your past that did not involve a gun and was never repeated. And even more obviously, you could be mentally ill in that you have have some paralyzing fear of elevators that severely limited your functioning but had absolutely no relation to what risk you pose to others of gun violence. To me, there's just no rational relationship between overall mental health and future risk of criminal violence.

Ideally, we'd have some reliable predictors of who may commit such crimes and some effective means of eliminating their access to weapons in advance. In reality, we have nothing at all like this, never did, and likely never will.

If gun violence can be reduced -- and to me, this is a big "if" -- in the US, IMO, it will have to be a secondary benefit of reducing factors we believe cause crime and violence in general. Yanno, poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunity, etc.

All that stuff we also can't seem to get a handle on.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Cephus said:
Marksmanship training? No. Gun safety training? Yes.
Click to expand...

Senior year, High School
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Das Sozialist said:
You'd still be allowed to purchase and keep the firearm, you would just need to undergo training beforehand. Your right is not harmed in anyway.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they said basically the same thing when they tried to prevent blacks from voting.....
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Das Sozialist said:
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?
Click to expand...

There are already laws and procedures on the books concerning the above, and you want more laws.

There are pretty strict laws on the books against the trafficking of marijuana. How's that working out?
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

haymarket said:
And you do not get to make that call.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that Britain thought the same when we rebeled against them. To quote...

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

jamesrage said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

If I may ask, do you believe American citizens should be able to own rocket propelled grenades, or similar weaponry?

American said:
Your comparison is flawed. First off some of your rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...

Pursuit of happiness is not covered by the constitution, Life, Liberty, and Property are. But those three rights are allowed to be taken away by due process. [1] My voting could not harm your liberty in any way, I am not the President/Congress/Senate/etc. and I cannot do anything to harm you directly by voting, whereas I can harm you and deprive you of your rights with a firearm. While both open a gateway for harm to occur, only the firearm provides the user a direct way to cause it.

[1] - Amendment 14, Citizenship Rights
 
Last edited:
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Risky Thicket said:
There are already laws and procedures on the books concerning the above, and you want more laws.
Click to expand...

I know there are, my question is asking if you believe that a law/the law should be in place preventing the mentally incompetent and/or convicted felons from obtaining firearms.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Das Sozialist said:
I know there are, my question is asking if you believe that a law/the law should be in place preventing the mentally incompetent and/or convicted felons from obtaining firearms.
Click to expand...

that's pretty much a red herring. the issue is that many on the left and a few on the right don't want honest competent people owning guns. that is the area where discussion is pertinent
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Das Sozialist said:
Fair enough.

If I may ask, do you believe American citizens should be able to own rocket propelled grenades, or similar weaponry?
Click to expand...
Seeing how one of the reasons for the 2nd amendment is to take down their government should it become too tyrannical and to defend themselves against an invading I believe American citizens should be allowed to own what ever law enforcement and the military can get their hands on assuming they pay for it themselves and have a place to properly store it.

I know that many libs like to use the 'but they didn't have that back then' as an excuse for infringing on 2nd amendment rights?So would you mind if American citizens owned rockets, canons, Ballistas, bombs, grenades,Mortars, Hwacha, Ribauldequin, fire arrows and other types of weapons that were around during and before the 2nd amendment was written?
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

jamesrage said:
Seeing how one of the reasons for the 2nd amendment is to take down their government should it become too tyrannical and to defend themselves against an invading I believe American citizens should be allowed to own what ever law enforcement and the military can get their hands on assuming they pay for it themselves and have a place to properly store it.
Click to expand...

Missiles/Tanks/Armed Aircraft/Etc.? Does the same belief apply?
 
Last edited:
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Das Sozialist said:
Missiles/Tanks/Armed Aircraft/Etc.? Does the same belief apply?
Click to expand...

I did say what ever law enforcement and the military can get their hands on assuming they pay for it themselves and have a place to properly store it.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

jamesrage said:
I did say what ever law enforcement and the military can get their hands on assuming they pay for it themselves and have a place to properly store it.
Click to expand...

For me it is more about proportionality. Weapons like RPGs and tanks give an individual a disproportionate amount of power. A citizenry armed with handguns and various types of rifles, could overthrow a tyrannical government IF ENOUGH CITIZENS supported such an action. A lone wacko, or even several wackos, with assault rifles can still be taken out by local law enforcement or a SWAT Team. Some wackos with RPGs and tanks, well, they will be able to do a disproportionate amount of damage and thus I can’t support the right to own those weapons.

Also, your reasoning would open the way for biological weapons. They aren't cost prohibitive after all.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

jamesrage said:
I did say what ever law enforcement and the military can get their hands on assuming they pay for it themselves and have a place to properly store it.
Click to expand...

Biological, Chemical, and Nuclear weapons are fine as well, then?
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Das Sozialist said:
Missiles/Tanks/Armed Aircraft/Etc.? Does the same belief apply?
Click to expand...
Das Sozialist said:
Biological, Chemical, and Nuclear weapons are fine as well, then?
Click to expand...
I currently have 11 pre-written responses on the issue of gun control. Here is #10:

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

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

~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...
Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Automatic rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.

Boo Radley said:
OK. SO the only need required for owning crack is that I wish to own it? The only need for owning a meth lab is that I want to own it? The only need for me wanting a nuke is that I want to own it? A tank? A missile launcher? There are no lines, right?
Click to expand...
Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
Methamphetamine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
Meth-lab: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
Nuclear weapon: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.

Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted on, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own a tank. That does not mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can have the tank and the tank only. You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Criminals generally want easy targets. Having a gun makes you a harder target. When you're in a population which carries, you are safer even if you don't carry a gun yourself, because a criminal has no way of knowing if you're carrying concealed or not and doesn't want to risk finding out the hard way.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

jamesrage said:
Has the supreme court actually heard the case and actually addressed the so called assault weapon's ban? I don't believe it has. It took 33 years for DC vs Hellar to be heard and declared unconstitutional, this could have been due to the fact it required perfect timing to wait for the political makeup of the SC to change and a lawyer willing to take the case. So other constitutional laws like these assault weapon bans may take awhile to be struck down.
Click to expand...

Do you really doubt for a single minute that the NRA would not have found a way during those ten years to get a case to the Court for a ruling? And what about the states that still have similar laws on the books and are perfectly legal and valid? They have not been struck down.

The fact is a simple one: nobody has a unlimited right to have any arm they want to possess and use. And the reality of that is indeed an infringement - which is permissible. We are only arguing about what the reasonable limits are.
 
Re: Should Americans have to undergo marksmanship training to be able to own a firear

Jerry said:
I currently have 11 pre-written responses on the issue of gun control. Here is #10:


Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Automatic rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.


Crack Cocaine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
Methamphetamine: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
Meth-lab: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.
Nuclear weapon: In common use at the time: No. Is dangerous and unusual: Yes.

Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted on, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own a tank. That does not mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can have the tank and the tank only. You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Criminals generally want easy targets. Having a gun makes you a harder target. When you're in a population which carries, you are safer even if you don't carry a gun yourself, because a criminal has no way of knowing if you're carrying concealed or not and doesn't want to risk finding out the hard way.
Click to expand...

Loved this post Jerry.

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

TurtleDude said:
that's pretty much a red herring. the issue is that many on the left and a few on the right don't want honest competent people owning guns. that is the area where discussion is pertinent
Click to expand...

Actually it is not. The issue of felons and the mentally ill NOT being able to have the right to keep and bear arms is indeed relevant because it is an INFRINGEMENT which is permitted by law and is perfectly Constitutional. As such it is a reminder that the right is NOT unlimited or absolute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom