• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Requiring training/proof of proficiency

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I know many here think anyone who proposes any sort of gun control is a gun banner at heart, and often they are right. But I am most definitely not a gun banner. I carry and support others' right to carry. I believe civilians should, at a minimum, be able to own any firearm that civilian law enforcement is permitted to have. I am also against gun registries, full stop.

So, keep that in mind before tearing me a new one, fellow gun owners. :)

I recently moved and obtained a license to carry concealed. It is a shall issue state and I just had to pass a criminal background check and show proof of gun proficiency. My military service was apparently sufficient proof of that so I didn't have to take any classes or anything. I used to be very proficient with a handgun but I hadn't fired in over a year and to be honest it was pretty embarrassing the first day I went back to a range. I had lost a lot of that muscle memory. Fortunately it didn't take me long to get it back.

But it got me to thinking, while I believe every free adult, not on probation or parole, should have the right to own any fire arm they wish, I think there is a compelling public interest that the person show some level of proficiency in its use. We require that with cars. I get it, there is no Constitutional right to drive a car. But the 2nd Amendment also refers to a well REGULATED militia. No, I don't think that refers to the National Guard. I think the militia is everyone capable of taking up arms against an enemy, foreign or domestic.

It seems to me at a bare minimum "regulated" would mean the ability to require those of us who bear arms to maintain proficiency and knowledge of gun safety. This would be in the best interest of EVERYBODY and does not deprive anybody of the right to bear arms.

Exactly what kind of training and how often it would be required would certainly be up for debate. I think there would be a benefit in requiring recertification every couple years or so. Yes, some people may not do well shooting under the pressure of being tested but if they can't handle that then they will be worse than useless in a real-life scenario.

You wouldn't necessarily have to qualify on every single weapon you own (I know some of you are collectors) but you would need to show proficiency with the category of weapons you would like to use for defense, such as pistols, revolvers, shot guns, semi-automatic rifles and such.

All right, tear away. :)
 

11Bravo

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
3,697
Reaction score
899
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I know many here think anyone who proposes any sort of gun control is a gun banner at heart, and often they are right. But I am most definitely not a gun banner. I carry and support others' right to carry. I believe civilians should, at a minimum, be able to own any firearm that civilian law enforcement is permitted to have. I am also against gun registries, full stop.

So, keep that in mind before tearing me a new one, fellow gun owners. :)

I recently moved and obtained a license to carry concealed. It is a shall issue state and I just had to pass a criminal background check and show proof of gun proficiency. My military service was apparently sufficient proof of that so I didn't have to take any classes or anything. I used to be very proficient with a handgun but I hadn't fired in over a year and to be honest it was pretty embarrassing the first day I went back to a range. I had lost a lot of that muscle memory. Fortunately it didn't take me long to get it back.

But it got me to thinking, while I believe every free adult, not on probation or parole, should have the right to own any fire arm they wish, I think there is a compelling public interest that the person show some level of proficiency in its use. We require that with cars. I get it, there is no Constitutional right to drive a car. But the 2nd Amendment also refers to a well REGULATED militia. No, I don't think that refers to the National Guard. I think the militia is everyone capable of taking up arms against an enemy, foreign or domestic.

It seems to me at a bare minimum "regulated" would mean the ability to require those of us who bear arms to maintain proficiency and knowledge of gun safety. This would be in the best interest of EVERYBODY and does not deprive anybody of the right to bear arms.

Exactly what kind of training and how often it would be required would certainly be up for debate. I think there would be a benefit in requiring recertification every couple years or so. Yes, some people may not do well shooting under the pressure of being tested but if they can't handle that then they will be worse than useless in a real-life scenario.

You wouldn't necessarily have to qualify on every single weapon you own (I know some of you are collectors) but you would need to show proficiency with the category of weapons you would like to use for defense, such as pistols, revolvers, shot guns, semi-automatic rifles and such.

All right, tear away. :)

Who's going to tear up? That will never be a national regulation. Way too expensive.
 

Carjosse

Sit Nomine Digna
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
14,512
Reaction score
6,238
Location
Montreal, QC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Who's going to tear up? That will never be a national regulation. Way too expensive.

We ahve it here in Canada, in order to get your PAL (Possession and Acquisition License) you must complete safety courses. It does not have to be expensive especially if you contracted to companies that could provide it.
 

11Bravo

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
3,697
Reaction score
899
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
We ahve it here in Canada, in order to get your PAL (Possession and Acquisition License) you must complete safety courses. It does not have to be expensive especially if you contracted to companies that could provide it.

Haha this was one of the first ideas Bill Clinton had. It's too expensive because there are too many owners already present in America. That was in the 90's. SO many more people have guns now.

100% it will never happen on a national level, so it's irrelevant. If a town can afford it, they might switch to doing that but I doubt they'll get the votes.
 

Winchester

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
6,665
Reaction score
6,277
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I know many here think anyone who proposes any sort of gun control is a gun banner at heart, and often they are right. But I am most definitely not a gun banner. I carry and support others' right to carry. I believe civilians should, at a minimum, be able to own any firearm that civilian law enforcement is permitted to have. I am also against gun registries, full stop.

So, keep that in mind before tearing me a new one, fellow gun owners. :)

I recently moved and obtained a license to carry concealed. It is a shall issue state and I just had to pass a criminal background check and show proof of gun proficiency. My military service was apparently sufficient proof of that so I didn't have to take any classes or anything. I used to be very proficient with a handgun but I hadn't fired in over a year and to be honest it was pretty embarrassing the first day I went back to a range. I had lost a lot of that muscle memory. Fortunately it didn't take me long to get it back.

But it got me to thinking, while I believe every free adult, not on probation or parole, should have the right to own any fire arm they wish, I think there is a compelling public interest that the person show some level of proficiency in its use. We require that with cars. I get it, there is no Constitutional right to drive a car. But the 2nd Amendment also refers to a well REGULATED militia. No, I don't think that refers to the National Guard. I think the militia is everyone capable of taking up arms against an enemy, foreign or domestic.

It seems to me at a bare minimum "regulated" would mean the ability to require those of us who bear arms to maintain proficiency and knowledge of gun safety. This would be in the best interest of EVERYBODY and does not deprive anybody of the right to bear arms.

Exactly what kind of training and how often it would be required would certainly be up for debate. I think there would be a benefit in requiring recertification every couple years or so. Yes, some people may not do well shooting under the pressure of being tested but if they can't handle that then they will be worse than useless in a real-life scenario.

You wouldn't necessarily have to qualify on every single weapon you own (I know some of you are collectors) but you would need to show proficiency with the category of weapons you would like to use for defense, such as pistols, revolvers, shot guns, semi-automatic rifles and such.

All right, tear away. :)

Yes... a poll tax for gun rights!
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
79,389
Reaction score
47,239
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I know many here think anyone who proposes any sort of gun control is a gun banner at heart, and often they are right. But I am most definitely not a gun banner. I carry and support others' right to carry. I believe civilians should, at a minimum, be able to own any firearm that civilian law enforcement is permitted to have. I am also against gun registries, full stop.

So, keep that in mind before tearing me a new one, fellow gun owners. :)

I recently moved and obtained a license to carry concealed. It is a shall issue state and I just had to pass a criminal background check and show proof of gun proficiency. My military service was apparently sufficient proof of that so I didn't have to take any classes or anything. I used to be very proficient with a handgun but I hadn't fired in over a year and to be honest it was pretty embarrassing the first day I went back to a range. I had lost a lot of that muscle memory. Fortunately it didn't take me long to get it back.

But it got me to thinking, while I believe every free adult, not on probation or parole, should have the right to own any fire arm they wish, I think there is a compelling public interest that the person show some level of proficiency in its use. We require that with cars. I get it, there is no Constitutional right to drive a car. But the 2nd Amendment also refers to a well REGULATED militia. No, I don't think that refers to the National Guard. I think the militia is everyone capable of taking up arms against an enemy, foreign or domestic.

It seems to me at a bare minimum "regulated" would mean the ability to require those of us who bear arms to maintain proficiency and knowledge of gun safety. This would be in the best interest of EVERYBODY and does not deprive anybody of the right to bear arms.

Exactly what kind of training and how often it would be required would certainly be up for debate. I think there would be a benefit in requiring recertification every couple years or so. Yes, some people may not do well shooting under the pressure of being tested but if they can't handle that then they will be worse than useless in a real-life scenario.

You wouldn't necessarily have to qualify on every single weapon you own (I know some of you are collectors) but you would need to show proficiency with the category of weapons you would like to use for defense, such as pistols, revolvers, shot guns, semi-automatic rifles and such.

All right, tear away. :)

Gun safety/training should be taught in high school.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
13,315
Reaction score
7,561
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I know many here think anyone who proposes any sort of gun control is a gun banner at heart, and often they are right. But I am most definitely not a gun banner. I carry and support others' right to carry. I believe civilians should, at a minimum, be able to own any firearm that civilian law enforcement is permitted to have. I am also against gun registries, full stop.

So, keep that in mind before tearing me a new one, fellow gun owners. :)

I recently moved and obtained a license to carry concealed. It is a shall issue state and I just had to pass a criminal background check and show proof of gun proficiency. My military service was apparently sufficient proof of that so I didn't have to take any classes or anything. I used to be very proficient with a handgun but I hadn't fired in over a year and to be honest it was pretty embarrassing the first day I went back to a range. I had lost a lot of that muscle memory. Fortunately it didn't take me long to get it back.

But it got me to thinking, while I believe every free adult, not on probation or parole, should have the right to own any fire arm they wish, I think there is a compelling public interest that the person show some level of proficiency in its use. We require that with cars. I get it, there is no Constitutional right to drive a car. But the 2nd Amendment also refers to a well REGULATED militia. No, I don't think that refers to the National Guard. I think the militia is everyone capable of taking up arms against an enemy, foreign or domestic.

It seems to me at a bare minimum "regulated" would mean the ability to require those of us who bear arms to maintain proficiency and knowledge of gun safety. This would be in the best interest of EVERYBODY and does not deprive anybody of the right to bear arms.

Exactly what kind of training and how often it would be required would certainly be up for debate. I think there would be a benefit in requiring recertification every couple years or so. Yes, some people may not do well shooting under the pressure of being tested but if they can't handle that then they will be worse than useless in a real-life scenario.

You wouldn't necessarily have to qualify on every single weapon you own (I know some of you are collectors) but you would need to show proficiency with the category of weapons you would like to use for defense, such as pistols, revolvers, shot guns, semi-automatic rifles and such.

All right, tear away. :)

Yes lets create a bureaucratic cluster**** on an explicit constitutional right, awesome idea!
 

natsb

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
1,632
Reaction score
681
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So... I have a test for reasonable restrictions on our rights. That test is; can the restriction be applied to all rights. So here are the test questions. Are you willing to apply a training and proficiency prefix to the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to vote, etc?
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Yes lets create a bureaucratic cluster**** on an explicit constitutional right, awesome idea!

But that constitutional right does allow for regulation. It is right there in the text. Now, we can discuss at what level it should happen. The federal level probably isn't the best place for it since we are talking about the militia anyway.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Yes... a poll tax for gun rights!

Well, until guns and ammo are free there is a defacto "poll tax" on guns. We can certainly take steps to keep at as inexpensive as possible or even subsidize the training. In most places you can take CPR classes for "free".
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Gun safety/training should be taught in high school.

I agree, but weapons proficiency is a skill that quickly fades without practice.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
13,315
Reaction score
7,561
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
But that constitutional right does allow for regulation. It is right there in the text. Now, we can discuss at what level it should happen. The federal level probably isn't the best place for it since we are talking about the militia anyway.

The way you are using regulation is not the way the founders used, nor the way the SCOTUS interprets it. You darn well know this and are being intentionally obtuse.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
13,315
Reaction score
7,561
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I agree, but weapons proficiency is a skill that quickly fades without practice.

no it isnt, its more about hand eye coordination than anything. Playing FPS videos games is nearly as good as actually training.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
So... I have a test for reasonable restrictions on our rights. That test is; can the restriction be applied to all rights. So here are the test questions. Are you willing to apply a training and proficiency prefix to the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to vote, etc?

Well, in some case your speech actually CAN be regulated and the Constitution doesn't even explicitly allow such regulation. It explicitly mentions regulation in the 2nd Amendment.

I get that most pro-gun people, me included, get annoyed when people say the militia in the 2nd Amendment refers to the National Guard today. I'm not saying that. I am saying we are ALL the militia. But I am getting the impression some here want to pretend the first part of the 2nd Amendment doesn't even exist. If you want to amend it further that is fine, but if you claim to support the 2nd Amendment as it is currently written then what level of regulation do you think there should be in order to meet its intent?
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
no it isnt, its more about hand eye coordination than anything. Playing FPS videos games is nearly as good as actually training.

If shooting a gun under stress is like riding a bike to you then consider yourself fortunate.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The way you are using regulation is not the way the founders used, nor the way the SCOTUS interprets it. You darn well know this and are being intentionally obtuse.

If I am being obtuse I assure you it is not intentional. :)
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
13,315
Reaction score
7,561
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If shooting a gun under stress is like riding a bike to you then consider yourself fortunate.

Now you are just going out there with the training requirements not just the standard accuracy proficiency but training for firing at live targets under stress seems a bit excessive.
 

Crovax

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 15, 2014
Messages
13,315
Reaction score
7,561
Location
South Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If I am being obtuse I assure you it is not intentional. :)

Regulation never was meant to infer a govt regulation however that is irrelevant as DC v Heller (2010) ruled that the individual right to bear arms is disconnected from the militia clause
 

Exquisitor

Educator
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2014
Messages
6,470
Reaction score
905
Location
UP of Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
High schools should offer gun training course and gun purchasing license and no gun list eliminating need for background checks.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Now you are just going out there with the training requirements not just the standard accuracy proficiency but training for firing at live targets under stress seems a bit excessive.

Of course, you will never be able to recreate the stress of a live fire situation economically on a large scale. But simply being tested can create a good amount of stress, especially for someone who isn't proficient.
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Regulation never was meant to infer a govt regulation however that is irrelevant as DC v Heller (2010) ruled that the individual right to bear arms is disconnected from the militia clause

That may be a fair point.
 

natsb

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2015
Messages
1,632
Reaction score
681
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, in some case your speech actually CAN be regulated and the Constitution doesn't even explicitly allow such regulation. It explicitly mentions regulation in the 2nd Amendment.

I didn't think you were being obtuse, not now you are getting dangerously close. I didn't ask if rights can be regulated, clearly they can. I asked if you are willing to apply a training and proficiency requirement to all of our rights.

Grammar and context are important in communication. Therefore, I am sure you noticed that the 2nd only refers to a militia being regulated. It does not refer to the people's right to bear arms as needing regulation. As a mater of fact the exact words for the people's right is "shall not be infringed". Regulated and "shall not be infringed" clearly do not mean the same thing.

I get that most pro-gun people, me included, get annoyed when people say the militia in the 2nd Amendment refers to the National Guard today. I'm not saying that. I am saying we are ALL the militia. But I am getting the impression some here want to pretend the first part of the 2nd Amendment doesn't even exist. If you want to amend it further that is fine, but if you claim to support the 2nd Amendment as it is currently written then what level of regulation do you think there should be in order to meet its intent?

Again, the 2nd is not about the militia. it is about the people. The "people" would be all of us, not just those who qualify for militia.

It appears you are attempting to conflate a regulated militia, with the people's right to bear arms. There are several SCOTUS rulings that explain in legal and layman's terms that they are two separate clauses. We can talk about a well regulated militia, or the people's right to bear arms, but not in the same breath as they can both exist without the other.

Grammar alert!!! In the sentence: " In order to get a good night's sleep, a comfortable bed is required". Does that sentence imply that a bed can only be used at night and for sleep? Now apply that context to the 2nd.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
79,389
Reaction score
47,239
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
I agree, but weapons proficiency is a skill that quickly fades without practice.

True, but I'm unwilling to allow government the freedom to set "proficiency" and the price tag on it to demonstrate. Just teach everyone in school, stress the importance that if you have a firearm, you should practice and train with it.
 

countryboy

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
18,765
Reaction score
7,408
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, in some case your speech actually CAN be regulated and the Constitution doesn't even explicitly allow such regulation. It explicitly mentions regulation in the 2nd Amendment.

I get that most pro-gun people, me included, get annoyed when people say the militia in the 2nd Amendment refers to the National Guard today. I'm not saying that. I am saying we are ALL the militia. But I am getting the impression some here want to pretend the first part of the 2nd Amendment doesn't even exist. If you want to amend it further that is fine, but if you claim to support the 2nd Amendment as it is currently written then what level of regulation do you think there should be in order to meet its intent?

You keep repeating this. The 2A does not mention regulation as a condition or requirement for keeping and bearing arms. In fact, it explicitly states that right shall not be infringed.
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
31,617
Reaction score
8,561
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I agree, but weapons proficiency is a skill that quickly fades without practice.

So now we require not only a class.. but now continual certification of proficiency and training.?

I think this is a good example of why second amendment supports are leery of the so called "common sense" regulation.

First it was "well maybe some people don't know how to handle a firearm so "well we should require a course and training"..

Now its "well weapons proficiency is a skill that quickly fades without practice".. and whats the logical extension of that " now you should continually certify as proficient".

Then next it will be "well, different firearms require different skills so there should be training for each type of firearm you own".

NONE of it makes sense.

All are predicated on the idea that the average person is stupid, unknowing and irresponsible and won't be responsible with a firearm unless they get a government course.

One of the reasons that firearms are so effective is that they require very little skill to operate safely. And very little knowledge as well.

"treat every firearm like its loaded"
Never point a firearm at something or someone you aren't willing to destroy
Never handle a firearm that you don't know how to operate safely.

Right there covers everything that a person really needs to be safe.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom