Why did I not have to take a training course?

[Pistology]

....After all, the citizens are supposed to be trained (original meaning of "regulated" in the 2A) so they can come together and form an ersatz militia in time of need. Tactical training would be even better.

But mandatory? No. Even little frail old granny has a right to defend herself. Just ask her.

Because 2A doesn't just guarantee a well-regulated militia by definition but guarantees natural gun rights to all citizens.

....I am against any effort or movement that seeks to restrict the 2A.

I have owned and shot guns my entire life. My first required gun training came from my father. My first formal gun safety training was required in school in the state of Texas. The list goes on for many years and is long and still continues today, some required but most of it voluntary. Simply put...I strongly believe in all levels of training for gun safety and use.

So the question is should it be required? To answer that lets first go back to the Constitution. Remember the clause "well-regulated"? The founders weren't talking about government regulations. They meant that we should be well-trained. They understood the importance to develop the skill to use a gun in order to defend liberty.

No, I do not think that firearms training should be legislated or regulated. But I do think that if we are going to stand behind the 2A that protects our right to bear arms, then we are mentally and morally bound to respect the wisdom of our founders. As a responsible gun owner we should seek out training so that we become familiar and skilled with our guns.

Glhadiator gets it.

Did you miss the "well-regulated militia" part of 2A? It didn't mean there were a lot of regulations, but that the militia (That's you and me) be well trained. So maybe the government should be providing training to everyone to fulfill 2A.

Maybe. But it doesn't change the fact that 2A guarantees natural gun rights to all citizens.

Can you show me where the 2A says anything about providing instruction and training of and with a firearm. I see where it says for a well regulated militia you are to be allowed to keep and bear firearms but not where training is mentioned that I can see.

The way I see it you are allowed to keep and bear so "YOU" can train and practice and know all you need to be the well regulated militia if and when it is needed. You are to train and be ready at the moment notice you are needed for the militia, not standing there wanting someone else to do all the preparing for you.

If so, even the founding generation, by 1812, knew the reality of relying on remote citizenry for national defense.
2A is about citizens' rights - not government's defense.

Word definition drift. "Regulated" used to mean "smoothly functioning", and, along with other common attitudes of that era, meant men should get out and practice and train.

You have to keep in mind the definitions of words as they were used back then, or the historical references don't sound like anything.

Please see, below.

....I do agree though that "well regulated" in the meaning it was written indicates that we the people should be trained and efficient. That does not mean however, that the government can or should regulate this training. I would have no problem with them endorsing, supporting, encouraging or even subsidizing training. But mandating and controlling is not covered under the 2A.

I agree.

Madison, author of the BOR, commands the language and uses the term, "regulate", in every sense of the word in use at the time:
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc., 2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc., 3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation, and 4) To put in good order.
But let's be clear, nowhere does 2A imply that government is to stand between citizens and their right to keep and bear arms.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[ccw9mm]

I think that you are a training : Anyone with less training than I doesn't even deserve to defend himself. It's interesting.

I'm betting QK was being facetious.

[Happypuppy]

Because 2A doesn't just guarantee a well-regulated militia by definition but guarantees natural gun rights to all citizens.



Glhadiator gets it.



Maybe. But it doesn't change the fact that 2A guarantees natural gun rights to all citizens.



If so, even the founding generation, by 1812, knew the reality of relying on remote citizenry for national defense.
2A is about citizens' rights - not government's defense.



Please see, below.



I agree.

Madison, author of the BOR, commands the language and uses the term, "regulate", in every sense of the word in use at the time:
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc., 2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc., 3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation, and 4) To put in good order.
But let's be clear, nowhere does 2A imply that government is to stand between citizens and their right to keep and bear arms.

I disagree . The Heller decision explains including the word regulate

"The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."

"The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms."

Training of any sort is excluded and never an intention








Sent via Messenger Pigeon

[Ksgunner]

Met a guy in the local pawn shop, gun store the other day. He has had his ccl for about 3 years. He was trading one gun for another. This guy was hardly aware of what end of the pistol the bullet came out of. I suppose it was ok because he said he didn't carry much anyway.
Just gave me a queasy feeling knowing this guy was out there and untrained.

[Bill MO]

Word definition drift. "Regulated" used to mean "smoothly functioning", and, along with other common attitudes of that era, meant men should get out and practice and train.

You have to keep in mind the definitions of words as they were used back then, or the historical references don't sound like anything.

My question was not what the word "Regulated" meant but where did it say that the Government is to provide it? From the other post.

So maybe the government should be providing traiing to everyone to fulfill 2A.

Some things are better if you do them yourself. Trouble today is everyone wants the Government to do it. I say keep the Government out of any and all you can. They are in to much of MY life without giving them more.

[SFCDan]

This is probably our biggest obstacle to national Concealed Carry reciprocation. State "A" requires training but does not want untrained persons from State "B" carrying when visiting . Also, the process to be approved would have to be more consistant and uniform.

I agree with the requirement for firearms safety course unless an applicant can show they have demonstrated ability by showig a record of LEO service (retired), military service or completing a firearms qualification course. If the National Reciprocity Law was passed it would be great for all to have these options. I was at my gun range last weekend and their policy is to let anyone who is over 21 and has a drivers license rent a gun and shoot on their range. While I was firing with my wife a loaded gun came bouncing toward me as the person renting it had no idea what they were doing. There was not even a club range officer around to stem in. Outside of a club anyone obtaining firearms with no idea how to handle them is dangerous to all in my opinion. Not preventing rights, just making sure all are safe. Similar to a drivers licence being a typical standard to get and it is good in all states.

[Bill MO]

I agree with the requirement for firearms safety course unless an applicant can show they have demonstrated ability by showig a record of LEO service (retired), military service or completing a firearms qualification course. If the National Reciprocity Law was passed it would be great for all to have these options. I was at my gun range last weekend and their policy is to let anyone who is over 21 and has a drivers license rent a gun and shoot on their range. While I was firing with my wife a loaded gun came bouncing toward me as the person renting it had no idea what they were doing. There was not even a club range officer around to stem in. Outside of a club anyone obtaining firearms with no idea how to handle them is dangerous to all in my opinion. Not preventing rights, just making sure all are safe. Similar to a drivers licence being a typical standard to get and it is good in all states.

So once again we have those who want and see the Government as the answer to the problem. What ever happened to personal responsibility, if you screw up you suffer the effect and the effect needs to more than a slap on the wrist for most things. Even the death pentality should stare you in the face and it should be carried out faster than it is now. Come on most on death row die of old age before the sentence is carried out.

We have all become or are becoming big wusses wanting someone to do for us rather than do it ourseleves. Time we all grow a pair and stand on our own two feet.

OK off my rant, but somethings just P*** me off. And Government being the answer to everthing is one.

[suntzu]

I agree with the requirement for firearms safety course unless an applicant can show they have demonstrated ability by showig a record of LEO service (retired), military service or completing a firearms qualification course. If the National Reciprocity Law was passed it would be great for all to have these options. I was at my gun range last weekend and their policy is to let anyone who is over 21 and has a drivers license rent a gun and shoot on their range. While I was firing with my wife a loaded gun came bouncing toward me as the person renting it had no idea what they were doing. There was not even a club range officer around to stem in. Outside of a club anyone obtaining firearms with no idea how to handle them is dangerous to all in my opinion. Not preventing rights, just making sure all are safe. Similar to a drivers licence being a typical standard to get and it is good in all states.

How does someone who has served in the military for 4 years, only shot a M4 or M16 maybe 5 time for some MOS's, make them any more suitable to carry a handgun in public than someone who just has plain common sense and has been around firearms for awhile?

Got news for you, military service does not necessarily equal firearms proficiency in hand guns. Nor does it make anyone in the military better than the average Joe in how they will react appropriately to stressful situation where they have to make the proper decisions on target identification and appropriate use and level of force.

In fact, in this forum over the last year there are many cases of guys blowing off their heads or theri buddies heads by accident who were military or former military. Many have been combat arms and one was a SeAL. Look at all the threads here where we can nnot agree whether a LEO used appropriate force.

So, I do not see how military service or being a LEO has any relevance to whether they should be exempt from a firearms course.

I think everyone should be trained...but not a governemnt requirement. My satisfaction of ones training will be much higher than others and may be lower than others.

As far as your range experience...how do you know the backgrounds of the folks you deemed not trained enough to use a firearm. How do you not know if some are ex military? You are making a big assumption. Also, you said were talking about rentals. Many folks rent guns to decide which they will buy. You do not need a CCP to go to a range. Therefore how will mandatory training ease your discomfort at the range? It will not. Totally different subject unless you are advocating mandatory training to go to a range.

BTW: I have seen the same or more amount of safety violations at a range with a RSO as I have at rural county ranges with noo RSO. In fact, I feel safer at the latter.

[Ksgunner]

I would think a military vet with a couple of years in combat would know weapons and weapon safety pretty good..or how about the military weapons instructor ya think they might know a thing or two about weapon safety...or shooting at bad guys...

[suntzu]

I would think a military vet with a couple of years in combat would know weapons and weapon safety pretty good..or how about the military weapons instructor ya think they might know a thing or two about weapon safety...or shooting at bad guys...

Anecdotal. You are now adding more qualifiers. I was addressing a blanket statement that said folks in the military or with prior military should not have to under go training.

Of course some folks are more trained than others. So what now, you have to provide a DD 214 so someon can review what you actually did in the military?

And shooting at BG's in combat and having less worry about collateral damage and target selection is a whole lot different than a civilian active shooter scenario.

[bootslxa]

When I say "training course' obviously I do not know what that entails since I didn't have to take one. I suppose some sort of competancy exam as BadHabit stated would be more along the lines of what I'm talking about. Something to prove to someone that you're less likely to accidentally kill yourself and me. I take back what I said about thinking it needed to be required. I forgot I typed that and shocked myself when I read it. I don't pretend to know anything about politics or what sort of social stipulations need to be in place. I'm just here to learn.

[Rotorblade]

When I lived in Utah the state was concerned about firearm storage in people's homes. Instead of creating a new law they offered a nice tax write off if you purchased a safe. Perhaps the permit to carry can be had at a reduced rate if somebody provides proof of training.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

[phreddy]

I didn't have to take a training course to get my license.

Becaase you don't live in a nanny state like SC.

[Phillep Harding]

I would think a military vet with a couple of years in combat would know weapons and weapon safety pretty good..or how about the military weapons instructor ya think they might know a thing or two about weapon safety...or shooting at bad guys...

Maybeso, but the modern military is about 95% non-combat personell.

I'm Nam era, and held a firearm in boot camp, at boot range, and qualifying on board ship w an M-16 and 45. That's it.

[tet4]

gunfacts.info

Read this document entirely and you'll realize just how insane our current guns laws are. And you'll realize that mandated government training really does nothing, oh, and maybe a little faith in your fellow law abiding responsible neighbors may be restored. :)