If they are no longer an active threat, do not shoot

[paliknight]

^^^^^so you would prefer people with no training and no weapon familiarity purchase and use firearms, potentially putting your life in danger? I never said extreme regulation, just mandatory training in order to purchase a firearm. Proving you're competent with a firearm before purchasing seems logical IMO.

You cant prevent stupidity, obviously, but if you can reduce it, why not?

 

[Bear44]

^^^^^so you would prefer people with no training and no weapon familiarity purchase and use firearms, potentially putting your life in danger? I never said extreme regulation, just mandatory training in order to purchase a firearm. Proving you're competent with a firearm before purchasing seems logical IMO.

You cant prevent stupidity, obviously, but if you can reduce it, why not?

So, who sets the standard of competence? Would this also include the mental competence of the applicant? How about their history? Have they ever experienced anything in their life that could effect their judgment? What do their neighbors think of them?

All of this and much more could be part of judging a person's competence. What do you think would happen to the standard of competence every time there was a mass shooting under a liberal administration?

See how that "shall not be infringed" line is important?

 

[Radar363]

^^^^^so you would prefer people with no training and no weapon familiarity purchase and use firearms, potentially putting your life in danger? I never said extreme regulation, just mandatory training in order to purchase a firearm. Proving you're competent with a firearm before purchasing seems logical IMO.

You cant prevent stupidity, obviously, but if you can reduce it, why not?

Because you open a giant can of worms...who gets to decide the definition of 'proficient'? Who decides how much training is required? When and where training is offered?

 

[paliknight]

Because you open a giant can of worms...who gets to decide the definition of 'proficient'? Who decides how much training is required? When and where training is offered?

So, who sets the standard of competence? Would this also include the mental competence of the applicant? How about their history? Have they ever experienced anything in their life that could effect their judgment? What do their neighbors think of them?

All of this and much more could be part of judging a person's competence. What do you think would happen to the standard of competence every time there was a mass shooting under a liberal administration?

See how that "shall not be infringed" line is important?

I agree with what you guys are saying, but its a game of predicting the future.

Standards can easily be set by the NRA and the most qualified Subject Matter Experts. It's like driving, proper driving is taught based on the most qualified agreeing upon a set of standards. Its not bulletproof, but its better than nothing.

At this rate, it seems inevitable. Eventually we will have liberals in control imposing all these strict regulations that are present in Commifornia. I just think that if we can reduce the number of firearm incidents through education, it'll prolong the inevitable.

 

[Bear44]

I agree with what you guys are saying, but its a game of predicting the future.

Standards can easily be set by the NRA and the most qualified Subject Matter Experts. It's like driving, proper driving is taught based on the most qualified agreeing upon a set of standards. Its not bulletproof, but its better than nothing.

At this rate, it seems inevitable. Eventually we will have liberals in control imposing all these strict regulations that are present in Commifornia. I just think that if we can reduce the number of firearm incidents through education, it'll prolong the inevitable.

It's not inevitable. In fact, firearms laws have been going our way for quite some time now. The last thing we need to do give the antis an opening that they can expand upon.

This is a lesson I learned from Zell Miller. While he was still Governor I trained his dogs and we got to talking about how there were no regulatory standards for someone to call themselves a Professional Trainer in Georgia. I was all in favor of them because there are so many "professionals" that have no clue what they are dong. He pointed out that as soon as it became a political issue, the last people that would have any real input on what the standards should be were the people that did know what they were doing.

Serious food for thought there.

 

[paliknight]

It's not inevitable. In fact, firearms laws have been going our way for quite some time now. The last thing we need to do give the antis an opening that they can expand upon.

This is a lesson I learned from Zell Miller. While he was still Governor I trained his dogs and we got to talking about how there were no regulatory standards for someone to call themselves a Professional Trainer in Georgia. I was all in favor of them because there are so many "professionals" that have no clue what they are dong. He pointed out that as soon as it became a political issue, the last people that would have any real input on what the standards should be were the people that did know what they were doing.

Serious food for thought there.

That is the sad part. The skilled stay silent and the fools open their mouths. Very unfortunate.

The biggest issue is stereotypes really. A black man commits a crime, black people are all criminals. A muslim blows himself up, all Muslims are terrorists, a hispanic sells drugs, all hispanics are drug dealers, and so on and so forth.

I dont want to see the day where we start banning firearms because someone legally purchased a firearm and used it in an illegal manner; creating yet another inaccurate stereotype. You see how the public views the above stereotypes, I dont want us firearms enthusiasts to be bunched up in a group.

 

[Kman]

Sad story, but if he is going to take the rap for a murder charge, he could of at least finished the job thoroughly.

 

[Bear44]

That is the sad part. The skilled stay silent and the fools open their mouths. Very unfortunate.

The biggest issue is stereotypes really. A black man commits a crime, black people are all criminals. A muslim blows himself up, all Muslims are terrorists, a hispanic sells drugs, all hispanics are drug dealers, and so on and so forth.

I dont want to see the day where we start banning firearms because someone legally purchased a firearm and used it in an illegal manner; creating yet another inaccurate stereotype. You see how the public views the above stereotypes, I dont want us firearms enthusiasts to be bunched up in a group.

To late, we already are by many left wingers. With that said, what special restrictions apply to any of the groups you list because of those stereotypes? None of any real consequence, because it would be unconstitutional. Though many more unconstitutional restrictions already apply to gun owners, nothing good would come from us voluntarily giving up even more Constitutional protections, such as proficiency testing. There is just no way that would not eventually be abused by anti gunners. If we gave them the ability to single out individual law abiding citizens and say "No, you do not qualify to have this Right.", then the end of the Second Amendment really would be inevitable.

 

[troutman]

To late, we already are by many left wingers. With that said, what special restrictions apply to any of the groups you list because of those stereotypes? None of any real consequence, because it would be unconstitutional. Though many more unconstitutional restrictions already apply to gun owners, nothing good would come from us voluntarily giving up even more Constitutional protections, such as proficiency testing. There is just no way that would not eventually be abused by anti gunners. If we gave them the ability to single out individual law abiding citizens and say "No, you do not qualify to have this Right.", then the end of the Second Amendment really would be inevitable.

That about explains it. If you give politicians an opening, they will exploit it until your rights are taken away.

Just look at income tax. My granparents told me they paid less than 10% when they were young. What is it now? 30-40%.

And your driving analogy, driving is not a right, it's a privilege.

 

[Ken Ford]

I agree. I think all states should impose mandatory firearms training course requirements. Just as they do with driving. I have seen so many idiots unaware of how dangerous they are with a weapon simply because they're unaware. Muzzle violations, trigger violations, and more ****. Moreover, I've seen guys at the range with an AR-15 just looking at their rifle wondering how to use it. I help them out to avoid getting shot by accident while at the range, and to help prevent them shooting others. It's like buying a car then learning how to drive. It'll be a disaster.

There is no mandatory class for driving a car. You do have to show proficiency, but not a required class for adults.
And we are talking Right vs Priviledge.