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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Yes... a poll tax for gun rights!
Gun safety/training should be taught in high school.
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.
I agree, but weapons proficiency is a skill that quickly fades without practice.
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?
no it isnt, its more about hand eye coordination than anything. Playing FPS videos games is nearly as good as actually training.
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 shooting a gun under stress is like riding a bike to you then consider yourself fortunate.
If I am being obtuse I assure you it is not intentional.
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.
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
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?
I agree, but weapons proficiency is a skill that quickly fades without practice.
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?
I agree, but weapons proficiency is a skill that quickly fades without practice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?