I'm in favor of mandatory training to own a gun

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Status
    Not open for further replies.

    woodstock

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jun 28, 2009
    4,172
    Mandatory training? Not necessary to exercise a right. :nono:

    Good idea? One should obtain all the quality training they can.

    exactly, before the whole FS-2013 i had students who owned guns and WANTED to know how to use them. now they have to know how, when, where and how did this become different?
     

    madchestermonkey

    Pond straddler
    Oct 10, 2012
    1,494
    Lowcountry SC
    I think the hardest part is selling training for a right, like you state, there is no training given for the first amendment.

    Also “ big fella” would just be a friendly team to me, like chief, champ or mate. No need to read anything else into it.
     

    woodstock

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jun 28, 2009
    4,172
    Um.. yes, I believe that I am... what is your point. My 19 year old son is severely autistic and can only read at about a kindergarten level... are you suggesting that he isn't entitled to express his first amendment rights, or vote for that matter. He is entitled to both and does both.

    unfortunately, i have no words of solace for your situation, but if your son is of voting age and has the reading and comprehension skills of a kindergartner, i would suggest the comprehension factor to be the issue. many folks in assisted living centers who have alzheimers are convinced to vote one way or the other, by the influences present, conservative or liberal.
     

    iH8DemLibz

    When All Else Fails.
    Apr 1, 2013
    25,396
    Libtardistan
    mandatory gun training.

    please read the opening page in full, thanks.

    I think people should receive training or become very familiar with a firearm prior to going out and using that firearm. The world would be a safer place.

    If you shoot enough, you will eventually see some Douchenozzle doing something dangerous. Because they aren't up to speed on firearm safety or how the firearm functions.

    Mandatory is where things become complicated. Mandated by whom? I don't think the state has the moral right to make a person pay for training.

    You used police having to train, see I did read your post in its entirety, and qualify annually as part of your argument. But the police aren't being forced to cough up hundreds of dollars to get qualified. The state is paying for that.

    Either have the state pay for citizen qualifications or eliminate mandatory qualification for citizens or have firearm instructors donate their time. To make the world a safer place.
     

    EL1227

    R.I.P.
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 14, 2010
    20,274
    'Comma' placement defines 2A

    now comes the topic of disapproval from many, mandatory training for gun ownership. before we go down that road, consider the words in the second amendment, "...a well regulated militia..." what does that mean? Word Origin and History for regulate Expand v. early 15c., "adjust by rule, control," from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare "to control by rule, direct," from Latin regula "rule" (see regular ). Meaning "to govern by restriction" is from 1620s. Related: Regulated ; regulating.

    Take a breath as you complete the sentence. There are multiple historic versions of 2A. This image, from the Library of Congress ONLY shows the ratified version with one comma.
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    The little red comma caused the Supreme Court to strike down D.C.'s ban on handguns, the country's strictest gun control law to date. But Penn and Teller provide a more entertaining definition.



    That dead horse has been beaten so many times, even the libs have stopped using it. :deadhorse:
    So, don't conflate 'militia' with a requirement to get training before you can own a firearm. That said, training is a good thng and I would encourage everyone who ever considers owning a firearm to get some. However ... if your life is in constant danger, having a firearm as a means of self-defense without training is better than having none at all.
     
    Last edited:

    DutchV

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 8, 2012
    4,704
    Okay, you're a big believer in mandatory firearms training, and you've got a few horror stories about untrained people with guns. Great. I understand your point. I've heard some other folks' stories, and yes, I tend to believe them. Hang around enough gun people and you'll hear it all.

    But you come off as, shall we say, "less than sincere" when we realize that you profit from providing that very same training. This is a bit of a recurring topic for you, too, as I recall. Has business been slow?

    My vote is "no" to mandatory training. Gun ownership is a right, like free speech, not a privilege, such as driving. If a person wants to own a gun, it's on them to learn how to do it responsibly. Whether that's formal or informal is up to them. Agreeing to any sort of "mandatory training" is giving away my rights. Your proposal smacks of elitism, and sounds very much like a typical MD nanny state maneuver to further restrain my rights and enjoyment of my hobby.

    No thanks.
     

    woodstock

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jun 28, 2009
    4,172
    Okay, you're a big believer in mandatory firearms training, and you've got a few horror stories about untrained people with guns. Great. I understand your point. I've heard some other folks' stories, and yes, I tend to believe them. Hang around enough gun people and you'll hear it all.

    But you come off as, shall we say, "less than sincere" when we realize that you profit from providing that very same training. This is a bit of a recurring topic for you, too, as I recall. Has business been slow?

    My vote is "no" to mandatory training. Gun ownership is a right, like free speech, not a privilege, such as driving. If a person wants to own a gun, it's on them to learn how to do it responsibly. Whether that's formal or informal is up to them. Agreeing to any sort of "mandatory training" is giving away my rights. Your proposal smacks of elitism, and sounds very much like a typical MD nanny state maneuver to further restrain my rights and enjoyment of my hobby.

    No thanks.

    so you are okay with this? "This was a two-day course (Sat. & Sun.). On Saturday, the place was very busy. There was a wait for people to shoot. A couple of schmucks, sitting in the waiting area chairs, had their ARs out and one repeatedly swept the elevator area (the only way to go upstairs to the classroom). " just asking.
     

    doggyjacket

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 3, 2016
    1,532
    MoCo
    You are wrong on many counts and one doesn't need to go much farther than your understanding of the 1st Amendment to explain. I think you need a refresher, so I will post it here for you:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    The 1st Amendment does not guarantee free speech. That is a pretty common but understandable misconception. It protects your speech from GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE, but even that has its limits. Hence, why private corporations and parties can and often do regulate and suppress employee's speech and why such agreements can be upheld by that Courts. Or to use the classic example, it's why you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

    So no, there is no "training" or "education" requirement for exercising your 1st Amendment rights. If someone was born in a foreign country, came to the U.S., never spoke a word of English, but they wanted to protest in front of a government building in a peaceful manner, then they would be protected from laws preventing their protest. In fact, to suggest that there is (or should be) some required government standard before being able to exercise your 1st Amendment rights is basically saying that the government should or does interfere before you are allowed to enjoy the freedoms in the 1st Amendment. And that's antithetical to the 1st Amendment in exactly the same way as any training requirement would be to the 2nd. They would just be too easy to abuse. It's basically the HQL system already in place here in MD.
     

    woodstock

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jun 28, 2009
    4,172
    You are wrong on many counts and one doesn't need to go much farther than your understanding of the 1st Amendment to explain. I think you need a refresher, so I will post it here for you:



    The 1st Amendment does not guarantee free speech. That is a pretty common but understandable misconception. It protects your speech from GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE, but even that has its limits. Hence, why private corporations and parties can and often do regulate and suppress employee's speech and why such agreements can be upheld by that Courts. Or to use the classic example, it's why you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

    So no, there is no "training" or "education" requirement for exercising your 1st Amendment rights. If someone was born in a foreign country, came to the U.S., never spoke a word of English, but they wanted to protest in front of a government building in a peaceful manner, then they would be protected from laws preventing their protest. In fact, to suggest that there is (or should be) some required government standard before being able to exercise your 1st Amendment rights is basically saying that the government should or does interfere before you are allowed to enjoy the freedoms in the 1st Amendment. And that's antithetical to the 1st Amendment in exactly the same way as any training requirement would be to the 2nd. They would just be too easy to abuse. It's basically the HQL system already in place here in MD.

    :deal: how did you learn to write your response?
     

    Doctor_M

    Certified Mad Scientist
    MDS Supporter
    You are wrong on many counts and one doesn't need to go much farther than your understanding of the 1st Amendment to explain. I think you need a refresher, so I will post it here for you:



    The 1st Amendment does not guarantee free speech. That is a pretty common but understandable misconception. It protects your speech from GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE, but even that has its limits. Hence, why private corporations and parties can and often do regulate and suppress employee's speech and why such agreements can be upheld by that Courts. Or to use the classic example, it's why you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

    So no, there is no "training" or "education" requirement for exercising your 1st Amendment rights. If someone was born in a foreign country, came to the U.S., never spoke a word of English, but they wanted to protest in front of a government building in a peaceful manner, then they would be protected from laws preventing their protest. In fact, to suggest that there is (or should be) some required government standard before being able to exercise your 1st Amendment rights is basically saying that the government should or does interfere before you are allowed to enjoy the freedoms in the 1st Amendment. And that's antithetical to the 1st Amendment in exactly the same way as any training requirement would be to the 2nd. They would just be too easy to abuse. It's basically the HQL system already in place here in MD.

    Well said.... I put a statement on the back of my HQL: "Submitted under protest. A right cannot be licensed." Every FFL who has gotten my HQL has agreed with that sentiment.
     

    doggyjacket

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 3, 2016
    1,532
    MoCo
    so you are okay with this? "This was a two-day course (Sat. & Sun.). On Saturday, the place was very busy. There was a wait for people to shoot. A couple of schmucks, sitting in the waiting area chairs, had their ARs out and one repeatedly swept the elevator area (the only way to go upstairs to the classroom). " just asking.

    Yes.
    1. It's the price of freedom, as the saying goes.
    2. Free Market should and does resolve these problems. I went to MSAR once and never returned because I didn't feel safe given how I saw the range and floor were being operated.
    3. In the event of injury or death, the civil justice system has a place if injury was caused by a negligent third party or in other circumstances, people assume the risk of the use of the tool. Should we require mandatory training for anyone that buys a chainsaw because sometimes people are hurt by accident or stupidity?
     

    clandestine

    AR-15 Savant
    Oct 13, 2008
    37,031
    Elkton, MD
    Perhaps the M.G.A. can pass a Law that mandates Firearm Instructors have a letter from a M.D. that certify the "Firearm Instructors" are "not insane". You know, so we can ensure they don't spread any insanity.



    I would fall on a sword before I went full fruitcake enough to think that my instruction was required to own or use an AR15.

    I would happily never teach again if it meant every free man and woman owned an AR15.
     

    DC-W

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    25,290
    ️‍
    We now have 12 states where no training is required for concealed carry and that number is only increasing. press1280 posted about at least 2 more states looking to go that way this year and this doesn’t count all the states where permitless open carry is already a thing.

    Training is always encouraged; learning is fantastic and it behooves anyone and everyone to stay on top of things. Personally, i try to learn something new everyday and I encourage others to do the same. It’s healthy. It feels good. Volunteering and electing time for this stuff is simply great.

    However, you won’t see me telling folks in those states that they’re too unlearned and untrained for their own good or that they don’t deserve to be able to protect themselves in public because they haven’t passed an IDPA qualifier or some other test. This is the price of freedom we pay. We cannot control what people ultimately do. Rather, we set positive examples and incentivize continued learning.

    We’re in a state where many of us just listened to testimony from people who want and work to deny others the right to protect themselves — and we have 16 hours of required training before even applying for a permit that most are unlikely to get! Our current requirements in MD are onerous even without “good and substantial” and here they are doing what they can to disarm others. It’s truly awful.

    I applaud the good charity that instructors like yourself have given and hope I’m able to do the same as I go along in this. Giving back is also fantastic, feels good, and is healthy. It’s truly a wonderful thing.

    We’re going to have to agree to disagree on some of this stuff.

    All the best!
     

    Woody

    Active Member
    Oct 27, 2017
    107
    Emotive stories used to make a point always concern me...

    A big no to mandatory training. A big yes to training.

    Police have vastly different responsibilities and parameters under which they may reasonably expect to find themselves needing to engage a complicated set of circumstances. Most of us non military non LE types are just trying to get ourselves and our loved ones home alive each day.

    If I end up in a situation where I'm running around shooting like I'm in an IDPA match, it probably means I've lost my mind... I leave that stuff to those trained for it.







    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
     

    DutchV

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 8, 2012
    4,704
    Next you'll be telling us it's for our own good, and it might save just one innocent child. (Sniff !).
     

    woodstock

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jun 28, 2009
    4,172
    so here we come to the STATE MANDATED HQL. i am opposed to it. as a former executive member of MSI, i stood shoulder to shoulder with our warriors on the front lines and made testimony to the state legislature regarding the issue back in 2013. from instructing experience, my attitude and professional options have changed.
     

    ToolAA

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 17, 2016
    10,500
    God's Country
    Hollywood does a fantastic job of training all would be gun owners and criminals for that matter too.

    But on a more serious note. The debate on mandatory training is nothing new. Obviously “proper professional training” could reduce accidents and actually make gun owners more effective at defending themselves. Police training and armed forces training are generally effective. There is no logical argument there.

    The problem is that a mandatory training requirement as a policy would be quite ineffective in practice. I went to the HQL class and it’s a total joke. I don’t see how the 4hrs of instruction and live firing one round from a .22 target pistol is effective at making anyone safer.

    So, Where would you set the training bar? You have some crap training that exists to make non-gun owners “feel” safer thinking gun owners had to be “trained”, or do you require many hours of RSO style training or weeks of LEO or Military style training designed to actually train the skills required to operate a firearm both safely and effectively.

    You simply cannot set it at any workable level to be effective and available to all.

    Maybe firearms training should be free to all high school students. I might support that.
     

    alucard0822

    For great Justice
    Oct 29, 2007
    17,643
    PA
    In about 1/2 of all states, you can purchase and carry without a training requirement. Thing is, there isn't much correlation between accidental shootings per capita compare to states that requires training. There is a correlation with crime rates, where states that require training and more restrictive ownership and permit processes tend to have higher crime rates. While pretty much everyone agrees that training is a good idea, it's a huge jump to believe it should be a mandatory requirement to exercise a constitutional right. There is a reason most gun folk would avoid a person or business promoting that belief, it's nanny state BS, usually spewed by the idiots we are up against when defending our rights. There aren't many positions a man can take as lonely, damaging and despicable as a gun culture insider that promotes a classic pillar of gun control.
     

    rob-cubed

    In need of moderation
    Sep 24, 2009
    5,387
    Holding the line in Baltimore
    I'm not 100% sure what you are advocating for after reading the first post, and the most recent.

    Wouldn't it be great if every gun owner was RESPONSIBLE and WELL TRAINED? Sure. Should we advocate for mandatory training to own a gun? Hell no.

    Westboro Baptist Church is protected by 1A, and they are quite literate. I may secretly wish they all die of AIDs--but 1A protects their opinions, even if I disagree with them.

    I am against any limitations to a right. The more "reasonably" we erode them, the less free we are. That's why there are laws against shooting people you simply disagree with, but fewer laws around the right to own. The actions of a few should not restrict the rights of the many.

    Training of people who police the streets with the arms they carry is different. That's on the job training. They are expected to meet a certain level of scrutiny to point guns on behalf of the powers that be at other citizens.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,943
    Messages
    7,259,756
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom