Should background checks and training be required?

[sgtdemeo]

ADDED BY EDDIECOYLE: I broke these posts out of the "People you or others didn't know were pro gun" thread to avoid crapping that one up. Please continue the discussion here, and be civil about it.


sorry, it just irks me that people can be so close minded and blatantly hateful to an entire segment of the population then turn around and call that segment Hateful.
I, like a good number of dems have NO interest in taking guns from people. Hell, I have to jump through the same hoops as all of you do! Would I like to see it easier to get guns here in mass? Absolutely. do I think that Anti gun legislation helps stop crime? Hell No.
Do I think that there should be training and background checks when purchasing a firearm? Hell yes. Never hurt anyone to be trained.

 

[Jose]

Do I think that there should be training and background checks when purchasing a firearm? Hell yes.

Even more ignorance. Don't push your ma**h*** bullshit on the rest of us.

 

[sgtdemeo]

Even more ignorance. Don't push your ma**h*** bullshit on the rest of us.

ok, Jose, I'll bite. Why are training and background checks possibly a bad idea?? if you can manage to answer maturely, using facts, and without swearing, please, enlighten me to your views. I am genuinely curious as to what possible detriment there could be to taking an NRA approved safety course could be. I would'nt let one of my men use a forklift with out a safety course, And I don't think any of us would let our children just hop behind the wheel of a car unattended the first day the recieve their drivers permit. this is NOT a political viewpoint, its just common sense. firearms are as potentialy dangerous tools, the same as an automobile.
And Background checks? How else would you keep felons from purchasing firearms? the honor system? if there is a better way, please tell me, i am all ears.

 

[PaulD]

ok, Jose, I'll bite. Why are training and background checks possibly a bad idea?? if you can manage to answer maturely, using facts, and without swearing, please, enlighten me to your views. I am genuinely curious as to what possible detriment there could be to taking an NRA approved safety course could be. I would'nt let one of my men use a forklift with out a safety course, And I don't think any of us would let our children just hop behind the wheel of a car unattended the first day the recieve their drivers permit. this is NOT a political viewpoint, its just common sense. firearms are as potentialy dangerous tools, the same as an automobile.
And Background checks? How else would you keep felons from purchasing firearms? the honor system? if there is a better way, please tell me, i am all ears.

Personally, I'm fine with background checks as currently implimented with NICS.

On training, does the law require you to have training before exercising any of your other constitutionally guaranteed rights?

 

[sgtdemeo]

Do any other constitutional rights involve potential bodily harm to yourself or others? The 2nd amendment is the only one that deals with a definate physical object.

 

[Admin]

Do any other constitutional rights involve potential bodily harm to yourself or others? The 2nd amendment is the only one that deals with a definate physical object.

If you choose to exercise your 1st Amendment in the wrong way to me you'll have some bodily harm done as well.

 

[Mike-Mike]

Do any other constitutional rights involve potential bodily harm to yourself or others? The 2nd amendment is the only one that deals with a definate physical object.

SGT, What does that have to do with anything? That is exactly why we need them! The founders wanted to make sure that YOU have no say in the matter. What part of "Shall not be infringed" Do you not get?

 

[stoneypete]

Do any other constitutional rights involve potential bodily harm to yourself or others? The 2nd amendment is the only one that deals with a definate physical object.

How many millions world wide have been have been murdered based on what a person has said? How many millions have been killed because of what they said? Yet there is no "official training" (yet) involved before a person is allow to exercise their 1A rights and speak their mind.

It's not about the object, it's about control. The .gov should NOT have control over anyone getting a firearm. IF they commit a crime then punishment is done AFTER the fact. .gov should NOT be allowed to restrict anyone because of something they MIGHT do.

As for criminals having guns. If the person has served their time and is let out of jail then they should enter society with ALL rights intact. If there is any chance of them commiting violent acts then they should not be let out. Those convicted of violent crime should never get out of jail. In fact I don't believe they should go anywhere except the electric chair.

 

[Beansie_Time]

The issue of required training is that it impedes some people from exercising their right. Such as those who cannot afford the training.

There are also times when the training for a license and the procedures for acquiring a license become ridiculous and arbitrary ( a la MA) and preclude some people from being able to carry or even acquire an effective firearm for self defense because of where they live. A requirement for training will almost always degrade into an obstruction for people to exercise their right. How many people in MA per year do you think just say screw it to getting a gun because they see they are going to have to spend 150 on training and 100 dollars on an application for a license that may not even be granted. For some people $250 is nothing, for some (like myself who has a child and a mortgage) $250 is a lot of money. As a matter of fact I have not even taken the class to get my non res MA LTC because of the expense associated with it. $100 a year is awful.

A solution to this would be free firearms safety instruction taught from a young age in either schools or by the local police/state police. (though this will NEVER happen)

 

[Bob P]

Personally, I'm fine with background checks as currently implimented with NICS.

On training, does the law require you to have training before exercising any of your other constitutionally guaranteed rights?

+1

Do I think training is a good idea? Of course. Do I think all gun owners should be exposed to some form of it? Absolutely. Do I want the government mandating it? Hell no.

So you say, 'well, if you don't make it required, the people that need it most won't do it. The ones that do are the ones that will be careful anyway etc' Fine. Let the private sector get involved. You want liability insurance & you're a new gun owner with no safety track record? Take this safety class and we won't exclude firearms liability from your homeowner's policy.

NOW you've got both carrot AND stick AND it's still voluntary. You don't want to do it? Fine, you don't have to, you're just on your own if you have a ND and hurt someone or damage property.

 

[Gonzo]

Who determines what is acceptable training? The farmer out west with a mini-14 for pest control and the young professional city dwelling female with a .38 snubbie are using their tools for entirely different purposes. Should they recieve the same training? Who is going to pay for the training? Why should I have to pay to be able to excersize an inalienable right protected by the constitution? Is their a grade that has to be passed? If I fail the training but I'm not a felon am I not allowed around firearms? Who enforces and pays for that?

 

[sgtdemeo]

So when the yahoo in the next apt over brings home his new pistol, woth no idea how to use it, and in the process puts a round through the drywall into ypur place, what then? I'll Stand by training, thanks. So just out of curiosity, do you feel that all mandated safety standards are bad, or just for firearms?? Do you think electricians and plumbers should have to pass proficiency tests before being allowed tovpractice their skills?

 

[Admin]

You're on the wrong website to be arguing about mandatory training for the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Du510]

Do I think that there should be training and background checks when purchasing a firearm? Hell yes. Never hurt anyone to be trained.

To reply point-by-point:

Q: Do I think there should be training when purchasing a firearm?

A: No, I don't see how any training is required to purchase a firearm. Granted the paperwork process can be rather tedious, but I dont think it requires training.

OK, kidding aside, I do believe training should be carried out by an individual prior deciding to own or carry a firearm. However, I do not see how the government is within right to require that, as an argument can be made that it infringes upon a fundamental right.

The same reply can apply to a background check. I think we can all agree that the last thing we want is a to see Jack Nicholson muttering REDRUM walking around with a pistol in his hand, legally (an illustration, but you get the point). However, I do not see how the government is within right to require that, as an argument can be made that it infringes upon a fundamental right. Therefore, I feel it a tough water to navigate.

 

[dixidawg]

For those that believe firearms training should be mandatory..... do you also believe that "journalists" in the MSM should be required to undergo "training" on how to present a truly unbiased story?


The damage done to this country by a biased media is as great or greater than could have been accomplished by a well armed militia.

 

[pdm]

Should I need to get a license to exercise the Fifth?

 

[Mike-Mike]

So when the yahoo in the next apt over brings home his new pistol, woth no idea how to use it, and in the process puts a round through the drywall into ypur place, what then? I'll Stand by training, thanks. So just out of curiosity, do you feel that all mandated safety standards are bad, or just for firearms?? Do you think electricians and plumbers should have to pass proficiency tests before being allowed tovpractice their skills?

Where in the constitution does it say you have the right to be an electrician. Oh and by the way YES, I don't think you should need a license to be one. An individual should be able to decide if he wants to hire a trained guy or an untrained.

 

[Bob P]

So when the yahoo in the next apt over brings home his new pistol, woth no idea how to use it, and in the process puts a round through the drywall into ypur place, what then? I'll Stand by training, thanks. So just out of curiosity, do you feel that all mandated safety standards are bad, or just for firearms?? Do you think electricians and plumbers should have to pass proficiency tests before being allowed tovpractice their skills?

Why does it have to be government run? You have a guild or union. They have minimum proficiancy standards for entry. They offer services and advertise membership in the group. The public knows they've got a minimum competency level while at the SAME time retaining the option to hire someone NOT in the group.

Why do you seem bent on removing the individual's ability to choose?

 

[dixidawg]

Should I need to get a license to exercise the Fifth?

I'll take the 5th on that...

 

[sig shooter]

If you support background checks,training and licensing for the RTKBA you must also support government approved background checks,training and licensing for free speech, free press...ect. It is called the Bill of rights not the bill compromises or privileges. You cannot take away a right or regulate it. Government licensing is done on total arbitrary grounds by people who are just as human and no more or no less qualified than any other person.

 

[livefreeorhere]

So when the yahoo in the next apt over brings home his new pistol, woth no idea how to use it, and in the process puts a round through the drywall into ypur place, what then? I'll Stand by training, thanks. So just out of curiosity, do you feel that all mandated safety standards are bad, or just for firearms?? Do you think electricians and plumbers should have to pass proficiency tests before being allowed tovpractice their skills?

technically everybody on the road in MA has been "trained" but they still manage to get in accidents every single day. Hell, somebody manages to almost take me out every time I ride a bike. Government should have nothing to do with my right to bear arms. Safety training is a great idea but in no way should it be required.

The fundamental difference between a liberal and a conservative is the liberal wants the government to solve all his/her problems while the conservative wants the government to keep its nose out of his/her friggin' business.

It's the responsibility of the gun owner to make sure they know how to safely operate the firearm. I'll take my chances with a retarded neighbor rather than make training required for everybody.

 

[EddieCoyle]

Do you think electricians and plumbers should have to pass proficiency tests before being allowed tovpractice their skills?

Nope, but I'm not going to hire one unless he or she can demonstrate - to my satisfaction - that they know what they're doing.

I happen to know enough about plumbing and electrical to know if the person I've hired is any good. If I didn't, I'd hire someone that was certified by some third party.

Just for the record, I owned guns for a long time before I had any state-required training, and I never hurt myself or someone else. If you're so stupid that you don't realize you shouldn't be pointing a gun at anything you don't want to destroy, training ain't going to help.

 

[M1911]

Accidental firearms deaths have been declining for decades, even as guns are becoming more prevalent. But most states do not have a requirement for training. So why is mandatory training required?

I'm all for voluntary firearms training. I've had about 200 hours of such training, and I'm an NRA certified instructor. Mandatory training? No, I do not support that.

 

[Marcus5aurelius]

How many millions world wide have been have been murdered based on what a person has said? How many millions have been killed because of what they said? Yet there is no "official training" (yet) involved before a person is allow to exercise their 1A rights and speak their mind.

It's not about the object, it's about control. The .gov should NOT have control over anyone getting a firearm. IF they commit a crime then punishment is done AFTER the fact. .gov should NOT be allowed to restrict anyone because of something they MIGHT do.

As for criminals having guns. If the person has served their time and is let out of jail then they should enter society with ALL rights intact. If there is any chance of them commiting violent acts then they should not be let out. Those convicted of violent crime should never get out of jail. In fact I don't believe they should go anywhere except the electric chair.

+1, the problem is not that felons can get guns. It's that felons are let back into society to mingle freely and continue being criminals.

 

[livefreeorhere]

So when the yahoo in the next apt over brings home his new pistol, woth no idea how to use it, and in the process puts a round through the drywall into ypur place, what then? I'll Stand by training, thanks. So just out of curiosity, do you feel that all mandated safety standards are bad, or just for firearms?? Do you think electricians and plumbers should have to pass proficiency tests before being allowed tovpractice their skills?

Honestly, I think my viewpoint is best summed up by Benjamin Franklin:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

 

[sgtdemeo]

So you would support funding the massive prison requirements needed to house criminals for life?

 

[Gonzo]

So just out of curiosity, do you feel that all mandated safety standards are bad, or just for firearms?? Do you think electricians and plumbers should have to pass proficiency tests before being allowed tovpractice their skills?

Nope.

 

[dixidawg]

I would suggest that by taking those criminals off the street we would reduce the overall cost to society by more than the cost of prisons.


That and capital punishment.....

 

[sgtdemeo]

So you are all suggesting that there are NOpersons unsuitible for firearms ownership?

 

[Lynne]

So you would support funding the massive prison requirements needed to house criminals for life?

If it kept the door from revolving and more innocent people from being injured/robbed/killed/raped, etc. etc. etc, then yeah, I would.