Shouldn’t we require all gun owners to pass a gun safety class?
If we have to pass a driving test to get a drivers license, why not one for owning a handgun or rifle?
To me it is only common sense. Of course others will use the “slippery slope” argument . . . “if they require us to take gun training, then they will take all of our guns away” . .. . That just doesn’t follow.
Why doesn’t the US Army just hand out M-16s to the soldiers and let them figure out for themselves how to shoot them? Why does the Army train and test the soldiers?
As more people have been killed by the pen than by the sword, we should require all writers, Internet or not, to take a safety course before being allowed to write or post to the Internet. I mean, ideas are more dangerous than bullets, so we should restrict them equally.
Now, I’ve *actually* had a writing safety class. Have you? If not, I’m sorry, you should not be permitted to post or write anything.
Better still, REQUIRE everyone to have a gun, AND train them on how to use it. That would probably be the closest thing to what the founders called a “well regulated militia.”
Because owning a firearm is a right under the Constitution. Driving an automobile on public roads is a privilege, though you may note that one does not need to have a drivers license or take any kind of test to drive on private property.
Broad brush including 'all gun owners', don't you think? What criteria would you use?
Your 'common sense' sounds a lot like the anti-gunners.
The right to own and operate a car is NOT enshrined in our Constitution.
As for the Army, they also train:
Machine guns
Grenades
Man portable rockets
Mortars
And improvised explosives
... and with all of this training they still have weapon related injuries and accidents. BTW, the VAST majority of the training is NOT safety training. By in large, the majority of training is how to load, aim accurately, fire, clean and maintain the weapon.
To this mix, add in all the Police training and their mishaps and you will come to learn that their will always be people who do dumb things, regardless of how much you train them.
Require? No. Just no.
>>Shouldn’t we require all gun owners to pass a gun safety class?>>
As a CCW holder for years, I want to agree with you, but idiots are careless with guns, with or without training. Alcohol disregards training in favor of idiocy.
The debate in government over such a requirement would wind up denying some legal citizens the right to keep and bear, so I will have to deny this requirement and side with the second amendment in its whole.
Let me lay it out for you. Let's say....The government requires "safety training". The government then decides not just anyone can be a safety trainer.
In order to be a government approved safety trainer, you have to jump through an increasingly complex series of hoops, tests, and vacuous regulations which are changed on an irregular basis without notification.
Fail to catch one of the changes and you are not only no longer a safety trainer, but may be facing a Felony conviction (which would bar you from firearms ownership)and of course, there is the certification fee, which will ever increase.
The net effect is a dearth of trainers who are government approved, and the average schmuck could not afford the classes to get the piece of paper which says they are "safety trained".
Just like D.C.'s new registration scheme which initially required the firearm be purchased from a FFL holder in D.C. (and there were exactly zero FFL holders in business in D.C.). The oppotunities for setting up 'catch-22' situations are endless.
Behold the BATFE's 'war' on FFL holders, which dates back to the Clinton Era, and realize only about 1 dealer in 3 are still in business.
Aside from that, driving is a priveledge, the RKBA is a Right.
If we have to pass a driving test to get a drivers license, why not one for owning a handgun or rifle?
To me it is only common sense. Of course others will use the “slippery slope” argument . . . “if they require us to take gun training, then they will take all of our guns away” . .. . That just doesn’t follow.
Why doesn’t the US Army just hand out M-16s to the soldiers and let them figure out for themselves how to shoot them? Why does the Army train and test the soldiers?
Given that one of the reasons for the right to bear arms is that it is a check on the power of the government you need to minimize the government's control on arms.
Further, the "slippery slope" can't be discounted as you have done here because it's not just academic. There is example after example after example of increased gun control leading to more gun control.
Consider this more effective and line of thinking: Criminal control rather then gun control.
As for accidents, while obviously tragic and heartbreaking there are exceedingly rare. And no amount of training is going to end someone doing a stupid thing.
Guns are simple to be safe with. Don't point them at anything you don't want to kill. Don't touch the trigger if you don't want it to "go off".
I hope you will research this important topic further and if you do I am sure you will understand why so many of us are so staunch in defense of our right to keep and bear arms without the government's approval.
There is a lot of fear concerning guns that make what you are arguing seem "reasonable". I beleive if you dive deeper you will see that the fear, as well as what you are suggesting we do, are anything but reasonable.
No person who cannot be trusted with a gun should be free in our society without supervision. And that's not just about guns, but everything. Freedom REQUIRES responsibility.
Ill read the rest now and see how hot ig gets...
LOLOLOL
LFOD...
dang near every anti-2A-troll talkin point in one post...
Shouldn’t we require all gun owners to pass a gun safety class?
No license or government registration is required to:
Own a car, even if a juvenile.
Transport a car, even across state lines, openly or concealed, fueled or not.
Operate a car on private property.
Modify a car to make it more powerful or lethal.
Sell a car to anyone, anywhere.
Buy a car.
Etc.
When you treat guns as freely as you do cars (requiring only that they be registered for use on taxpayer-funded shooting ranges, and providing such ranges convenient to every soul on the nation) then get back to me.
To me it is only common sense. Of course others will use the “slippery slope” argument . . . “if they require us to take gun training, then they will take all of our guns away” . .. . That just doesn’t follow.
Why doesn’t the US Army just hand out M-16s to the soldiers and let them figure out for themselves how to shoot them? Why does the Army train and test the soldiers?
**********************
All of the above comes back to one point: That we supposedly need more government control of firearms.
That goes against what the founders of our great country envisioned. The entire point of the second amendment is to allow the citizens of this country the ability to defend themselves from a government that has acquired too much power.
Have you ever fired a gun?
"Common sense gun control," hmmm...where have I heard that one before?
I have an idea: why don't we have people take an intelligence test before they can vote?
You certainly don't want the ignorant, lazy or mentally retarded deciding the course of this country do you?
Oh wait, you're that Huffington post liberal from the Saddleback thread, so you do.
You’re getting quite a reputation.
I hold a Small Arms Marksmanship Ribbon from the USAF, I grew up with firearms, I got my first firearm at age 9. I have never neglected the BASIC rules of firearm handling. Why do you think that might be?
Would you care to test me?
I wouldn’t have a problem requiring training before being allowed to possess, but there’s no way to enforce compliance without having your name on the paperwork, which scares me more than people owning guns without training. Besides, you can’t train out stupid.