Taxpayer-funded gun control?? lobyists on city payrolls ?

[jcountry]

Plenty of states already require it to get your license to carry so what's the difference? Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure they are NRA classes and not gov't classes too.

I really don't see what the big deal is. If someone can't spell out the 4 rules of firearm safety then they don't deserve a firearm IMO.

It is a slippery slope. What if the govt requires a class, then says they don't have the funding for more than 2 students per year?

I have taken classes. I know how to handle firearms safely-and the NRA does its part in educating as many people as practical, but keep the govt out of the ownership issue. It would be a very easy way for them to disarm us all.

 

[tv_racin_fan]

The government hasn't weaseled its way into the NRA safety courses that other states require yet,

Actually this is not quite true. The NRA course does not surfice for a person living in DC to OWN a firearm much less attempt to get a carry permit.


so that fear is a little exaggerated.

According to who exactly? You seriously think the fear of govt is exaggerated? I suggest you read the US Constitution and think about how any part of the govt in the US requiring one to have a permit to carry squares with "shall not be infringed". Maybe you can explain how "Obamacare" squares with the US Constitution or how about Social Security as a retirement insurance squares with the US Constitution. (I full well know that Social Security is simply a TAX as ruled by the Supreme Court but that is not what officials of the US govt tell you)


And if you're all about not forcing people to do things, why would you want to force your fellow man to sacrifice his safety by allowing people to tote guns around when they haven't the slightest clue how to be safe with them?

It ain't about forcing anyone to sacrifice a little bit of safety by allowing others to keep and bear arms. It is however about the founding fathers knowing full well that if you sacrificed a bit of liberty for the semblance of security you would in fact have neither and deservedly so. (you might want to read the writings of Benjamin Franklin/Thomas Jefferson and some others to help with the understanding of that tidbit of wisdom)

Check out the quality of the education system to understand how poorly the govt can impart knowledge on its subjects.

The door swings both ways you know.

Liberty and freedom have a price BUT they are generally well worth the cost.

 

[Billrube]

Would a training class really be all that cumbersome? I, for one, think it should be a requirement for all first time gun buyers. Have you ever been to a public range? There's too many people walking around with guns that don't know the first thing about gun safety.

Our constitutional rights are not conditional. Based on your example, we should not exercise freedom of speech until we go take a government approved course in the English language.
Or exercise freedom of religion, one must take a government approved course at a seminary.

Apples and oranges you may say....no...Rights are Rights without conditions.

What really is scary here is that many people share your belief that our rights hinge on conditions placed on us by the government...all in the guise of "public safety" or "public health" or "for the safety of the children". (All three of these have been used for pushing gun control, by the way--there's no "news flash" here.)

The government schools and progressive media have done an outstanding job of convincing Americans that they really don't know how to conduct themselves without some government guideline or approval.
Individual responsibility is dying in this country...you can send a person to college to get a government approved degree in gun handling safety and they can still be a dum bass with a gun.

What I can't get over is the amount of people who seem to be surprised that our government is corrupt and wasting taxpayer money...

 

[Vman]

Our constitutional rights are not conditional. Based on your example, we should not exercise freedom of speech until we go take a government approved course in the English language.
Or exercise freedom of religion, one must take a government approved course at a seminary.

Apples and oranges you may say....no...Rights are Rights without conditions.

What really is scary here is that many people share your belief that our rights hinge on conditions placed on us by the government...all in the guise of "public safety" or "public health" or "for the safety of the children". (All three of these have been used for pushing gun control, by the way--there's no "news flash" here.)

The government schools and progressive media have done an outstanding job of convincing Americans that they really don't know how to conduct themselves without some government guideline or approval.
Individual responsibility is dying in this country...you can send a person to college to get a government approved degree in gun handling safety and they can still be a dum bass with a gun.

What I can't get over is the amount of people who seem to be surprised that our government is corrupt and wasting taxpayer money...

Yes, Yes, YES!! Amen to every word brother!

 

[Bulldawg165]

Our constitutional rights are not conditional.

Yes they are... You have freedom of speech, but you don't have the right to slander against someone. You have a right to bear arms, but you don't have a right to carry a firearm onto private property when the owner forbids it. You make all kinds of concessions to your constitutional rights all the time if you really think about it.

Based on your example, we should not exercise freedom of speech until we go take a government approved course in the English language.

Like I just mentioned, you don't have complete freedom to say whatever you want. If a corporate lawyer speaks of insider information to one of his stock trading friends, he'll go to prison. If you go to the white house and speak about having a bomb in your bag, you're going to go to prison. However, you ARE required to take a government approved course on the English language. It's called public schools, where you are required to attend until the age of 16 unless you obtain some other form of education. Those schools teach english to pretty much every single grade of school. Even if you choose to attend a private school, you still have to pay taxes to fund those public schools. So, technically, you already have taken your "government required" class on the English language.

Or exercise freedom of religion, one must take a government approved course at a seminary.

Each and every church has to meet certain characteristics as defined by the IRS in order to qualify as tax free, otherwise part of your tithes that you give will be payable to the government in the form of income taxes. So yes, even religion isn't COMPLETELY immune from government regulation because if your religious organization doesn't meet certain characteristics as outlined by the IRS (a GOVERNMENT agency), then the funds your organization raises are taxable.

Further, you can go to prison if your religion advocates violence, polygamy, sex with minors, etc. So yes, your freedom of religion is, in some respects, subject to certain restrictions as imposed by the government.

Apples and oranges you may say....no...Rights are Rights without conditions.

See above. Rights are rights, with conditions, and you are already making a considerable amount of concessions on your right to bear arms. For example, you can't carry them into government buildings, convicted felons can't own them, and the list goes on. Are these regulations unconstitutional?

What really is scary here is that many people share your belief that our rights hinge on conditions placed on us by the government...all in the guise of "public safety" or "public health" or "for the safety of the children". (All three of these have been used for pushing gun control, by the way--there's no "news flash" here.)

The government schools and progressive media have done an outstanding job of convincing Americans that they really don't know how to conduct themselves without some government guideline or approval.
Individual responsibility is dying in this country...you can send a person to college to get a government approved degree in gun handling safety and they can still be a dum bass with a gun.

What I can't get over is the amount of people who seem to be surprised that our government is corrupt and wasting taxpayer money...

I'm not going to directly respond to the rest of your comment because I believe I've already covered just about everything in my response already. Either way, who would have thought people would be this outraged over a safety class requirement for first time gun buyers. Wow lol

 

[chucklenut]

you never said first time gun buyers, and of course most folks would be fervently opposed to the government restricting anyones rights

 

[Bulldawg165]

you never said first time gun buyers...

Look at post #15 in this thread, which just so happens to be my very first post. I specifically said first time gun buyers. Perhaps you should change the policy you outlined for yourself in post #29 in this thread:

...i honestly didnt even bother reading most of your post...

Zing!

 

[Bulldawg165]

...and of course most folks would be fervently opposed to the government restricting anyones rights

Yeah, the main argument I was receiving as to why a gun safety class shouldn't be required were A) it would be unconstitutional, and B) it would turn into a slippery slope.

The last few posts were trying to prove that 1) the slippery slope argument is a little over the top (yes, it really is folks, but I'm done arguing about it because I've made my point numerous times throughout my posts) and 2) that constitutional rights (and NOT just the right to bear arms) can be, and frequently are, reasonably restricted.

I wanted to get those two arguments out of the way in the hopes of having a legitimate conversation about other peoples' thoughts on the matter (not withstanding those two points), but unfortunately it appears I was unable to do so. I wasn't really trying to stir the pot as much as I ended up doing, but I guess that's what I get for bringing such matters up on a gun forum lol. You win some, you lose some.

 

[RamRoddoc]

The basis for this pot stirring is the inclination that there needs to be a restriction on an individual God given right. The concern is once the precedence is set then we all are doomed to follow it.

It's good to debate it and hopefully comprehend the mindset of the founding fathers and their intent as to who we are and how we should conduct ourselves.

 

[Billrube]

I'm not going to directly respond to the rest of your comment because I believe I've already covered just about everything in my response already. Either way, who would have thought people would be this outraged over a safety class requirement for first time gun buyers. Wow lol

What's really ironic here is your responses perfectly describe the freedoms that have been revoked, suppressed or restricted--by an intrusive government. You are making a lot of my argument for me. I agree with you on carrying a firearm on someone else's property against the owners wishes...that's HIS property.
But quickly:
Slander: back in the day you said what you felt and if the offended party didn't like it you settled it man to man.
Corporate insiders: camel of another color--they have contracts and privacy agreements--you break a contract you're liable
Schools -it's called public schools where you are 'REQUIRED' by the government to make your children attend; and no they don't teach English...most public school teachers can't speak English. Kids are graduating the "required" public school system that can not spell or speak the language correctly. The modern public school system is the biggest educational failure in United States history. It's been a smashing success at steering young minds away from conservative values into accepting alternate lifestyles, re-writing history and failing to teach even fundamental economics. (other than capitalism and profits are evil)
First grade is the children's first introduction to socialism. Think I'm kidding? When my oldest started school we were given a list of items that filled two grocery bags that each child was to bring to school. We did. The second day my daughter came home and informed that the teacher collected everyone's supplies would hand them out to whoever needed them. (yep..half the class didn't bring squat--we were already paying for their lunches, groceries and rent-I was not going to hand over my daughter's school supplies too)

The biggest religion advocating violence, polygamy, sex with minors, persecution against women and sexual mutilation gets a pass on every offense--you know which one I'm referring to but you let a Christian minister say homosexuality is a sin and all of sudden it's hate speech.

Oh, I am not outraged...I'd like to hold on the few pieces of freedom that we have for as long as possible. I guess it's a generational thing...I'm working on being an old fart...to younger folks this is just how it is and easier to accept I guess.