So while we are at it let ANYONE drive regardless of age, driving record,insurance or not, physical or mental limitations?That's pretty much what a license is... permission from the government to do something. In the past, the government didn't DO the training, but they required it and defined it before they would issue the license.
You're obviously not alone in it, but you're probably in a minority on a gun forum at least as far as the government requiring it. I think almost, if not all of us would agree that training is an important part of ownership. As they said in my cc class years ago, "I'm absolutely in favor of training. Government regulated training, not so much."
Tell me u r kidding!!!If someone is a danger to themselves or others, they shouldn't be allowed to roam free without supervision.
If they can be turned loose on their own in a free society, their right to self-defense should not be infringed.
Criminals don't cut victims any slack because of a handicap. In fact, the handicapped are more likely to become a target/victim.
Again, just my 2¢ ...
OMG!Sorry, i r not...
The issue with this argument is that driving is a privilege and the right to be armed is a God given right. They are not the same argument.
My preference would be that kids take a Civics class in school that covers what our Constitution means to us, where we came from that made those ideals so important to our way of life that they had to be put down on paper. During that class there should be a section dedicated to 2nd Amendment with a minimum of 1 weeks marksmanship with .22s that covers firearm safety, range etiquette, etc. This is not intended to relieve the parents of their duty, but as a measure to take away the fear from kids growing up in a house with no firearms.
My fallback idea to the above considering the inability of most urban area schools to have the staff to student ratio to handle the above safely is that every US child should have a 2 year window after high school where they are a member of their local guard. I think this would serve multiple benefits regardless of the path that each young adult is on. First, it gives some extra time to mature before being thrown into life decisions. I went straight to college after high school and definitely wasnt mature enough to appreciate why I was really there. Nor was I mature enough to pick any focus for the next 4 years that would steer what I would do for a living for the rest of my life. Second, it is arguably the best way to learn how to function as a contributing member of a group for a higher goal than self interest. It also teaches kids how to take criticism to better themselves even if that criticism seems harsh. The most important part I think is that it instills the concept that we all have an obligation to carry the country forward in a productive direction even if our role seems small and insignificant.
As far as the licensing aspect, my class was a complete joke and made me more nervous to be on the range than any other time. I think it being a requirement to pay for anything in order to be able to defend yourself is indirectly restricting the lower income portion of our society (who probably live in areas where the right to self defense is the most important) from being able to exercise that right. What if all firearms training was tax deductible? If I could spend a weekend at Thunder Ranch a few times a year and drop myself down a tax bracket, I would definitely make it a higher priority to get professional training more frequently.
Constitutional carry is always a finicky topic. I can understand where opponents come from regarding the importance of safe handling, marksmanship, etc. if someone is going to carry a loaded firearm in public. The part I don't agree with is that the 2nd Amendment is very clear in stating the government has no right to limit our right to bear arms in any way, shape, or form. This, to me, means that any argument trying to justify the governments place in governing who can and cannot bear arms or what hoops need to be jumped through with money paid to them to be able to do so is unconstitutional. I just don't see any other way to interpret it, and I am ok with that.
So long as we all agree right?
The problem with that, as others have said, is you are now requiring the government give me permission to keep and bear arms. I'm sorry, but your strawman argument that because some people might be irresponsible with their firearm means I need the government's permission doesn't hold up to the constitution, regardless what liberal judges have said. If that argument was valid then you would be ok with every single person having to have an interlock device in EVERY motor vehicle because some might drive while intoxicated. You would be ok with having the government give you a license to eat at restaurants because some people might eat poorly and become overweight. You are saying that based on other's decisions and actions that I have to have more restrictions. That is completely opposite on what our country was founded on.
Every country in the world that has lost their right to own firearms has started with this logic. Even here in the states that is true. And now we have Massachusetts that is trying to ban ALL semi-auto's, pistols, rifles, and shotguns. Not just a mag restriction, an out-right ban. As they say, the road to hell is paved in good intentions, and trust me, these firearm laws are not good intentions. You are either for freedom, in all its scary glory, or you are for serfdom. Its that simple, and yes that absolute. If you are so scared that people will buy firearms with no clue on how to handle them, then advocate for mandatory firearm safety classes in grade school. That would save a lot more lives then any law.
To some e tent owning a firearm IS a privilege also. No x cons, no illegal immigrants, no foreigners on a green card, no foreign govt official
The fact that non-violent offenders can petition to have this right restore doesn't sit well with me either. Also, if that is the argument you want to pitch, then we definitely need to have a certification process before people are allowed to vote. Voting has potentially negative impacts on WAY more people than the hypothetical situation of constitutional carry backfiring. Also, statistically speaking, there is not a single instance where constitutional carry brought about more deaths due to mishandling or negligent discharge by someone constitutionally carrying a firearm without a license. The numbers do not support the concerns.
Everyone else in your list is not a U.S. citizen and is not covered by the constitution.
The most concerning aspect of these arguments is that people are so eager to restrict rights rather than add programs to provide training to avoid the things they are concerned with. It has a huge HOA type feel to me where one person thinks they are somehow more knowledgeable, responsible, morally sound, etc. and thus should have decision making power over other people.
I get it, true liberty is scary because we have to give up some control over others. It introduces more unknowns, what ifs, potential hypothetical scenarios, whatever. In my mind that is what freedom looks like and the responsibility transitions to the individual to navigate accordingly.
Similar threads
