Posted on 07/11/2010 9:15:56 AM PDT by Kaslin
Useful or at least harmless. Even if you grew up with guns and know everything about them it is useful to take one of these courses to find out how the laws in your state can do to you if you use your gun.
If they really want to save lives, they should concentrate on the 40 thousand deaths caused each year by motor vehicle accidents. But they don’t really want to save lives. They really want to control gun owners.
The left hates guns. Yet the left passes laws that make it more likely that gun owners will hit what they’re shooting at, and will be more likely to NOT shoot someone accidentally. I can support that.
I learned to shoot when I was 12 and was taught by my dad and older family members. When I got my permit, the course on law was more beneficial to me than the shooting test. I shot a 92 on my shooting test with a gun I bought only two weeks prior to the test and didn’t get dinged for any unsafe behaviors. I was already a decent shot and safe. I think the course is a good idea but I don’t know that it should be required.
And the voters.
Theoretically speaking, we require people to pass a driving test to get a driver’s license, which is supposed to show a minimum understanding of how to drive.
So if there was going to be gun-use training, then I’d say that it should be along the same lines, ie - you must have proof of training (gun-use license) to buy a gun. But just like cars, you could buy as many as you could afford.
So in Tn if you don’t hit the target they can deny you a license?
Driving is not a freedom specifically protected in the Constitution, the Right to Bear Arms is. Requiring a test could easily lead to denial of that right for specious reasons - see "literacy tests and voting" for examples.
Should it be mandatory? No.
Is there "mandatory training" to vote?
Is there "mandatory training" to exercise free specch or assembly?
Ah... it's always that evil 2nd Amendment Right...
I would vote for term limits. So much more practical.
You have to make a passing grade on the shooting test, 75 I think, and you have to pass the written exam. When I took my test there were only two women in the class and 24 men. The other woman failed because she passed the written exam but failed the shooting test.
Now, I've taken four week-long Gunsite courses, but I found the CCW a valuable resource to learn the finer points of Arizona CCW law. The range session was also useful, and I took the one-day "tune up" range session the next day.
I was struck by the ignorance some of my fellow students had about when they could use deadly force. Most of them also had no idea about what to do after a shooting incident. As our instructor drilled into our heads, call for police and an ambulance, and say nothing else to the 911 operator. The only thing you should say to the police is, "I was in fear for my life, I need to talk to my attorney."
In the range session some students could barely operate their pistols. One guy had a wrong-sized magazine for his gun. Without this mere couple hours of range time, these students would be facing certain disaster in an actual self-defense situation. I believe that a 5-day course like the Gunsite 250 Defensive Pistol, or its equivalent, is the bare minimum to make one competent with the pistol.
Bottom line is, get as much quality training and practice as possible.
Then, why should there be mandatory government training to exercise another Constitutionally guaranteed right?
Didn't that sort of cleverly constructed method to deny civil rights get thrown out along with the voter "literacy" tests Southern Democrats were so fond of giving negroes years ago to keep them from voting?
I am all in favor of the *voluntary* production and distribution of “gun culture” DVDs. The purpose of this being to restore ‘family gun culture’ that has been lost over the last 60 or so years.
Much of this should be common knowledge, but has faded from society. And yet once the information is conveniently out there, it will stick around in the public sphere for a very long time.
The gun control movement is very dependent on both ignorance and fear to get its agenda advanced. But with knowledge, fear fades.
When the founders said “well-regulated” they meant “well-trained,” to use our modern vernacular.
If we were actually training the militia, which includes all able-bodied adult men, it seems to me that safety training would be fully covered as part of that.
We should emulate Switzerland: every citizen should have a fully auto military rifle in their home, and know how to use it.
Even Hitler didn’t mess with the Swiss.
Okay, then you’d simply make the requirement for a ‘gun license’ to be that you attended a gun training course from some organization that would do a good job at it, like the NRA.
With no test involved, no one could then ‘fail’, so there could be no one that conceivably would be denied the exercise of their 2nd amendment right.
And society would then know that everyone owning a gun would have the knowledge of how to properly use it.
Plus, it would help educate the young and uninformed about how not to stick a loaded gun in their mouth with the safety off.
;-P
Who gets to determine how much ‘training’ you need?
How often would you have to undergo re-training?
How much would all of this training cost?
Who would test this training – i.e. who get s to determine if you have trained enough?
At some point, people would decide it’s not worth the hassle in order to be able to defend yourself.
When do all of these ‘Training’ requirements become an Infringement on our right of self-defense?
Thread answer winner!
You are exactly right. This would be a slippery slope and unconstitutional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.