Argue for Mandated Training So As To Exercise a Basic Civil Right

[InitialKev]

And now you are putting words in people's mouth's. We are not against safety training, we are against MANDATORY safety training before we can exercise our 2 Amd rights .
Looks like you still have not taken the mandatory internet posting class. You MAY NOT post on the internet without it. You MAY NOT exercise your 1Amd rights. Wrong ideas killed way too many people in this country. You are unable to follow the logical discussion without mandatory 1st Amd training.

What words am I putting in his mouth? What is the purpose of safety training courses? Is it not to educate people on safe gun handling? If he says he is against safety training courses because it is unconstitutional then doesn't it mean that he is against educating people on safe gun handling?

His words, not mine. I'm sure he'll go back and edit his post to include "mandatory" safety training to try to recover from this.

I don't see the point you're trying to make with this mandatory internet posting or 1st amendment training joke. I can't kill someone by simply talking. In fact it's the opposite. If I say something wrong to the wrong person, I could get killed.

Please explain why, even if it's a joke, that I should take this non existent posting class. What will this course of yours cover?

 

[Kaikias]

What words am I putting in his mouth? What is the purpose of safety training courses? Is it not to educate people on safe gun handling? If he says he is against safety training courses because it is unconstitutional then doesn't it mean that he is against educating people on safe gun handling?

His words, not mine. I'm sure he'll go back and edit his post to include "mandatory" safety training to try to recover from this.

I don't see the point you're trying to make with this mandatory internet posting or 1st amendment training joke. I can't kill someone by simply talking. In fact it's the opposite. If I say something wrong to the wrong person, I could get killed.

Please explain why, even if it's a joke, that I should take this non existent posting class. What will this course of yours cover?

I'm bored so I'm going to jump in. There have been several recent occurrences of bullied kids killing them self's over words. Boom. Your turn right? Is this how it works? (This proves words kill) Now we need 1st amendment training right?

 

[batoncolle]

What words am I putting in his mouth? What is the purpose of safety training courses? Is it not to educate people on safe gun handling? If he says he is against safety training courses because it is unconstitutional then doesn't it mean that he is against educating people on safe gun handling?

His words, not mine. I'm sure he'll go back and edit his post to include "mandatory" safety training to try to recover from this.

I don't see the point you're trying to make with this mandatory internet posting or 1st amendment training joke. I can't kill someone by simply talking. In fact it's the opposite. If I say something wrong to the wrong person, I could get killed.

Please explain why, even if it's a joke, that I should take this non existent posting class. What will this course of yours cover?

I have no reason to edit my posts, and there is certainly nothing to recover from here. You might want to go back and reread the post where I told you I have taken 100s of hours of firearm's training courses. I think everyone should take training classes for the purpose of becoming more proficient with a firearm, but it is my opinion. However I do not think training should be mandatory for someone wanting to exercise their Constitutional Right.

And for the last time, I never said you were a hypocrite because you had not taken a class. I called you a hypocrite because you want others to take a training class, but you will not take one yourself.

And finally I think the below has to be one of the most pathetic things I have ever seen written on this forum. It might be worth it to get my first infraction just to call you what you are.

It's nice to know that you are against educating people on gun safety though. I hope you don't have kids. I would hate to see on the news that a child blew their brains out because their dad "simply do not care."

 

[RamRoddoc]

It's nice to know that you are against educating people on gun safety though. I hope you don't have kids. I would hate to see on the news that a child blew their brains out because their dad "simply do not care."

The 2nd amendment cannot be absolute and taken as it is written due to common sense. If you preach the 2nd amendment but try to put ANY personal restrictions on it you become a hypocrite.

What a totally ignorant thing to post..... WTF, NO ONE, NOT ONE PERSON has said they are against training. Hell, I would say all here are for training.

Those of us who are freaking aware of how rights are stripped, are wholeheartedly against "MANDATED" "REQUIRED TRAINING" in order to exercise a right, any damn one of them. You getting it yet? You sir have no understanding of what a right is.

Thankfully there are a bunch of good responsible American's here to pick the slack for you and those who think like you. They/we hopefully will help set precedence that secures your rights and those of our future generations or not.

The second amendment was written to be absolute for a wise purpose. For as soon as the people allowed the government access to the right then the right was doomed. The founding fathers knew this and it is the reason why they worded the second the way they worded it.

You may want to educate yourself and make attempt to make a informed opinion. Read the federalist papers and the mindset of those that wrote them. It provides a clear interpretation and clarity of thought that created "our" defining bill of rights.

Yes it's lengthy and time consuming but anyone who takes the effort will be wiser and aware of just who we are.




Alexander Hamilton, Published Wednesday, January 9, 1788:

This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”

We were always intended to be as well armed as the military foot soldier and were until 1986 when we allowed new select fire firearms to be prohibited/verboten, allowing our government to secure a monopoly on new select fire, firearms.

The first step of federal infringment occurred in 1934 with the NFA and the precedent was set in place that we are currently fighting with every massacre in a "gun free" zone.

You, me and every American have a duty and responsibility to this nation, some understand it, some just ignore it.

 

[WakeSS]

Okay I see your point about the 2nd amendment being the foundation to gun rights. Maybe I should have elaborated on why I said it was weak. I believe that the natural right to defend oneself is universal and that you or I shouldn't need a piece of paper to tell us that we can do so. The current and past administrations has trampled over the constitution and we need more than just relying on that to fight the ever looming battle on gun control.



What about active criminals? Should they have guns? Should kids be able to walk into a gun store and buy guns? Why does your children need your supervision if it is their constitutional right? Where in the 2nd amendment does it say there needs to be supervision?

What I'm trying to get at is that the 2nd amendment cannot be absolute and taken as it is written due to common sense. If you preach the 2nd amendment but try to put ANY personal restrictions on it you become a hypocrite.

I am so confused... I need to start at the beginning obviously.
Are two people using your account baiting this argument??
How can a man understand natural law and preach common sense in one post and want to add more regulation / infringement on those natural rights?

 

[InitialKev]

I have no reason to edit my posts, and there is certainly nothing to recover from here. You might want to go back and reread the post where I told you I have taken 100s of hours of firearm's training courses. I think everyone should take training classes for the purpose of becoming more proficient with a firearm, but it is my opinion. However I do not think training should be mandatory for someone wanting to exercise their Constitutional Right.

And for the last time, I never said you were a hypocrite because you had not taken a class. I called you a hypocrite because you want others to take a training class, but you will not take one yourself.

And finally I think the below has to be one of the most pathetic things I have ever seen written on this forum. It might be worth it to get my first infraction just to call you what you are.

I came to my conclusion based on what you said in your previous post. "I am against safety training classes because they are not Constitutional." The purpose of a safety training class is to teach so saying you're against the class is the same as saying you're against teaching. Had you included "mandatory" in that statement I wouldn't have said what I said. The reason why I said you should have edited your post.

Since you dodged this the first time I'll ask you again. What's the difference between a formal in classroom lesson and an informal lesson outside of a classroom if I still learn about safe gun handling? I still leave with the knowledge and that is what is important.

You all should get off your constitutional high horses and really think just how unrealistic an absolute 2nd amendment would be. You guys want no regulations of any kind right? Criminals whether they have served their time or not would be able to buy guns. No background checks, no license no nothing to stop them. They can just walk into a gun store and buy one just like any other person. Psychopaths and sociopaths can do the same. Kids can do the same. You can say that criminals already can get guns but now they can do it freely without the fear of getting caught.

When you preach the 2nd amendment, there are no "ifs" or "buts". If you have kids and have guns in the house, locking them up and restricting their use to only with supervision is an infringement of their rights. Forcing them to learn proper gun safety if they don't want to is an infringement to their rights. Not letting them do whatever they want with it is an infringement of their rights. If you preach the 2nd amendment but you impose those limitations on your kids or anyone else or even THINK that dangerous people should not be allowed to have guns you are a hypocrite.

 

[InitialKev]

I'm bored so I'm going to jump in. There have been several recent occurrences of bullied kids killing them self's over words. Boom. Your turn right? Is this how it works? (This proves words kill) Now we need 1st amendment training right?

Actually that doesn't prove that words kill. You or I cannot control the actions of others. People don't instantly keel over and die if you are mean to them but you can instantly kill someone with a gun.

If words can kill a lot more people would be dead.

 

[InitialKev]

I am so confused... I need to start at the beginning obviously.
Are two people using your account baiting this argument??
How can a man understand natural law and preach common sense in one post and want to add more regulation / infringement on those natural rights?

I need one of those "Well that escalated quickly" memes.

Let me just get this out there...I'm only suggesting that licenses and training be the only regulation. If someone is deemed competent, sound minded, safe and don't pose a threat to others they should be able to own and use whatever they want. I believe that we should be able to carry anywhere we choose and also own full auto guns, suppressors, short barreled rifles, and even things that make big explosions without having to jump through hoops and pay a stupid $200 tax "stamp" which serve no other purpose than to make money for the government.

Is that really too much to ask for?

 

[Jeddak]

Is that really too much to ask for?

Yes it is too much to ask for.

You asked why I brought up the 1st Amendment. Very simple, ideas and ideology killed far more people around the globe and in this country than guns. Hitler and Aryan ideas used gas chambers. Stalin and Communism used Kolyma and labor camps. Both killed millions. Far more than any accidental discharges.
Uncensored, uneducated speech and contempt for Constitution are far more dangerous to the society and individuals. Look at the culture of dependency on the government that FDR forced upon this country without a single shot being fired. Should we require you to pass constitutional knowledge test before you vote or speak publicly? Why are you willing to restrict one right, but not the others?

Yes, carry permits are unconstitutional. I still have one because I want to comply with the law, and change it from within.
I am originally from Alaska. We had carry permits and required classes 20 years ago. About 10 years ago we convinced the State Legislature, and Alaska now has constitutional carry. No permits are required to carry in the state; you can get one, with a class, to be able to carry in other states. In AK I could leave a gun in the open view on the passenger seat, and police was not allowed to question me about it, unless the traffic stop was DIRECTLY related to the said firearm. We could carry in churches. My board of elders made a choice that shepherding the flock meant ensuring their physical safety. At any given time on Sunday morning there were at least 6 loaded guns in the congregation, and that's only the people I knew about. Nobody died, guns did not go off by themselves.
My 5-year old already knows about gun safety. When he plays with his toy guns he asks me if he can pretend to shoot the cats. He knows not to point guns at living beings. But it was MY choice and not the government mandate that educated him.

 

[InitialKev]

Yes it is too much to ask for.

You asked why I brought up the 1st Amendment. Very simple, ideas and ideology killed far more people around the globe and in this country than guns. Hitler and Aryan ideas used gas chambers. Stalin and Communism used Kolyma and labor camps. Both killed millions. Not many guns were to kill people. Far more than any accidental discharges.
Uncensored, uneducated speech and contempt for Constitution are far more dangerous to the society and individuals. Look at the culture of dependency on the government that FDR forced upon this country without a single shot being fired. Should we require you to pass constitutional knowledge test before you vote or speak publicly? Why are you willing to restrict one right, but not the others?

Yes, carry permits are unconstitutional. I still have one because I want to comply with the law, and change it from within.
I am originally from Alaska. We had carry permits and required classes 20 years ago. About 10 years ago we convinced the State Legislature, and Alaska now has constitutional carry. No permits are required to carry in the state; you can get one, with a class, to be able to carry in other states. In AK I could leave a gun in the open view on the passenger seat, and police was not allowed to question me about it, unless the traffic stop was DIRECTLY elated to the said firearm. We could carry in churches. My board of elders made a choice that shepherding the flock meant ensuring their physical safety. At any given time on Sunday morning there were at least 6 loaded guns in the congregation, and that's only the people I knew about. Nobody died, guns did not go off by themselves.
My 5-year old already knows about gun safety. When he plays with his toy guns he asks me if he can pretend to shoot the cats. He knows not to point guns at living beings. But it was MY choice and not the government mandate that educated him.

The genocides of the past were initiated by power hungry people in charge bent on ruling the world. I have no doubt that the power of the word is more powerful than a bullet. What I am talking about is average people in everyday situations. A gun can kill instantly. I can tell you to go kill yourself a million times but by me simply doing that won't kill you. That is the difference I'm trying to point out.

You talk about the people at your church carry. That's great. I believe that responsible gun owners should be able to carry wherever they want to carry. People who go to church are usually decent people and don't have the intent to harm others. Of course no one died.

I think it's great that you teach your son gun safety. I think all kids should be taught that instead of telling them avoid them at all cost. Nutnfancy's video "Children of the Gun" expresses this perfectly.

In the ideal world we would be able to have constitutional carry without any sort of regulations. But we don't live in an ideal world. Criminals and dangerous people exist. Kids are curious about things and don't have the knowledge built within them to keep them safe. We have current regulations such as age restrictions, licenses and in some states safety classes to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Those are realistic and reasonable limitations. As sad as it seems we can't count on other people to take on personal responsibility.

Training classes doesn't necessary have to be expensive or inconvenient. People are able to get degrees online nowadays. For those of you who are actively trying to fight ever looming gun laws here's an idea. Why don't you try to set up online training classes that are recognized by the state or feds where people can participate in from the comforts of their very own homes? Plenty of YouTube videos already exist. People can sign up to the website. Watch some videos and at the end take a test. The test can be as simple as listing the 4 basic rules of safe gun handling because they are self explanatory. If they past the test they can print out a certificate from their own printers and submit that when they apply for a license.