Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I think the USA has quite a lot of gun control but it seems to be badly organised and badly coordinated.

You just described most federal efforts.

Why isn't safety training compulsory, for instance? Because if mandated at the Federal level it would be condemned as a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Safety training done by who? The NRA is pretty much the only game in town in that department, and while the projectile vomiting and mass, lemming-like suicides that followed an effort to shunt federal money to the NRA would be awesome to see, I don't think it's something that would happen.

If you want local law enforcement to run mandatory safety training, well...I think mass suicide sounds like the option that would actually wind up with fewer fatalities.

Why isn't there a properly organised register of guns?

Because many people believe a gun registry would lead to gun confiscations. And thanks to California's "I don't like this person so I'm going to get the government to take their guns away" law that just went into effect, those people don't even have to wear tinfoil hats anymore.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Man, that was easier than I thought it would be. Now could you address the strawman of deaths by first amendment?

Would you address the topic of this thread, namely the Executive Orders announced yesterday? We have had several Moderator warnings to keep the thread on topic, as well as appeals from the community, and it would be nice if we could not get this thread locked.

Thank you.

Apologies, I thought by the President saying this in the outline of the Executive Order, we would be allowed to discuss gun safety and how to make the US and citizens safer.

"Because we all must do our part to keep our communities safe, the Administration is also calling on States and local governments to do all they can to keep guns out of the wrong hands and reduce gun violence. It is also calling on private-sector leaders to follow the lead of other businesses that have taken voluntary steps to make it harder for dangerous individuals to get their hands on a gun. In the coming weeks, the Administration will engage with manufacturers, retailers, and other private-sector leaders to explore what more they can do. "

I believe serial numbers, registries, and classes fall under "do our part to keep our communities safe" given they are ways of keeping our communities safe.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

So wait, your argument is that accidental drowning is comparable to somebody intentionally using a firearm to harm themselves or another person? You are really reaching here for an argument here. I mean, 3,391 and 32,383 are drastically different numbers. One could argue that because accidental drownings are so much lower, they may need far less regulation or oversight than death by firearms.

No, that is not my argument. Safety training won't prevent any intentional use of a gun to injure or kill another. It may prevent some accidental injuries and deaths. So it seems you are the one reaching for an argument.

Fantastic! I am happy you realized that Gun Training will help prevent accidental injuries and death. I assume by your remark here that you are for decreasing accidental injuries and deaths by promoting gun training!

Man, that was easier than I thought it would be. Now could you address the strawman of deaths by first amendment?

Not a strawman. The feds have no authority to force mandatory training as a requirement for a citizen to exercise any of the rights in the bill of rights.

And as for the training, look at the numbers. Forcing mandatory safety training is just a fething waste. It does not solve the issue we are being told is The Issue; gun violence. It MAY prevent some of an already minuscule number of accidental deaths and injuries. If you want to maximize benefit to cost ratio, have mandatory training on child proofing homes and pools, more kids are killed and injured due to lack of that than are by accidents involving firearms.

I'd agree that mandating firearm safety courses or similar as a prerequisite to firearm ownership is pretty clearly unconstitutional in the US.

 AndrewC wrote:
I'm curious about this, not from a perspective as to what he's doing, but as to the various reactions of the posters here.

Are you objecting to this proposal because;

a. He's bypassing congress
b. He's trying to impose additional regulations on Gun Ownership
c. The proposal actually does nothing because the laws already exist but they're not enforced
d. You think the next step is to ban guns completely
e. NIMBYism

Cheers

Andrew

YES.

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

So wait, your argument is that accidental drowning is comparable to somebody intentionally using a firearm to harm themselves or another person? You are really reaching here for an argument here. I mean, 3,391 and 32,383 are drastically different numbers. One could argue that because accidental drownings are so much lower, they may need far less regulation or oversight than death by firearms.

No, that is not my argument. Safety training won't prevent any intentional use of a gun to injure or kill another. It may prevent some accidental injuries and deaths. So it seems you are the one reaching for an argument.

Fantastic! I am happy you realized that Gun Training will help prevent accidental injuries and death. I assume by your remark here that you are for decreasing accidental injuries and deaths by promoting gun training!

Man, that was easier than I thought it would be. Now could you address the strawman of deaths by first amendment?

Not a strawman. The feds have no authority to force mandatory training as a requirement for a citizen to exercise any of the rights in the bill of rights.

And as for the training, look at the numbers. Forcing mandatory safety training is just a fething waste. It does not solve the issue we are being told is The Issue; gun violence. It MAY prevent some of an already minuscule number of accidental deaths and injuries. If you want to maximize benefit to cost ratio, have mandatory training on child proofing homes and pools, more kids are killed and injured due to lack of that than are by accidents involving firearms.

How is it not a straw man exactly? You are throwing up an argument about something that is not even remotely the same as another thing in order to downplay the thing you are in favor of. Free Speech does not kill people, but guns do. So how are they similar in any way?

Show me the numbers. How is it a waste? Saving lives is a waste? Teaching people how to do something so they do not have accidents is a waste?

Also, new parents should have training on child proofing homes as well as other things. Most new parents are morons who have no clue what they are doing and a lot of them will tell you that. But that does not mean we do not need mandatory training on gun safety in any way.

 Ouze wrote:
I'd agree that mandating firearm safety courses or similar as a prerequisite to firearm ownership is pretty clearly unconstitutional in the US.

Okay, how is it unconstitutional? They are not saying you cannot own a gun in any ways, they just want you to take a gun safety course first. You can own all the guns your heart desires, but you have to take this class first. Make it free(like it was for me) and let them take it as many times as they want if they fail it. You are not keeping them from owning a gun in any way.

It is exactly the same. Mandatory training required to exercise a constitutionally protected right is mandatory training required to exercise a constitutional right. The rights are similar in that they are constitutionally protected.

If you refuse to grasp that, there is nothing I can do about it. It should be clear to every kid who made it through high school.

 CptJake wrote:
It is exactly the same. Mandatory training required to exercise a constitutionally protected right is mandatory training required to exercise a constitutional right. The rights are similar in that they are constitutionally protected.

If you refuse to grasp that, there is nothing I can do about it. It should be clear to every kid who made it through high school.

Hello, kid who made it through High School here. How am I not able to exercise my constitutional right by having to take a gun safety course? I mean, I can still own a gun. Nobody is saying I cannot do it. They just want me to be safe about it.

Nobody here is saying you cannot own a gun. You are the one refusing to grasp the concept here. You can still own a gun if you are required to take a gun safety course. The only way you are not is if you say "no, I don't want to be safe"

Now, if they came out and said "You have to take a gun safety course and if you fail it you lose your second amendment rights" then you would be absolutely correct. But nobody has said that. Not once.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I think you guys are long overdue some form of gun control. Kudos to Obama for at least trying.

Also I think this piece from the Daily Show kinda hits the nail on the head...

When one gets their information from the Daily Show, one is truly educated on the subject.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
It is exactly the same. Mandatory training required to exercise a constitutionally protected right is mandatory training required to exercise a constitutional right. The rights are similar in that they are constitutionally protected.

If you refuse to grasp that, there is nothing I can do about it. It should be clear to every kid who made it through high school.

Hello, kid who made it through High School here. How am I not able to exercise my constitutional right by having to take a gun safety course? I mean, I can still own a gun. Nobody is saying I cannot do it. They just want me to be safe about it.

Nobody here is saying you cannot own a gun. You are the one refusing to grasp the concept here. You can still own a gun if you are required to take a gun safety course. The only way you are not is if you say "no, I don't want to be safe"

Now, if they came out and said "You have to take a gun safety course and if you fail it you lose your second amendment rights" then you would be absolutely correct. But nobody has said that. Not once.

If you attach federally mandated training as a requirement to exercising ANY constitutionally protected right, you are infringing on that right. This really should not be hard to grasp.

 CptJake wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
It is exactly the same. Mandatory training required to exercise a constitutionally protected right is mandatory training required to exercise a constitutional right. The rights are similar in that they are constitutionally protected.

If you refuse to grasp that, there is nothing I can do about it. It should be clear to every kid who made it through high school.

Hello, kid who made it through High School here. How am I not able to exercise my constitutional right by having to take a gun safety course? I mean, I can still own a gun. Nobody is saying I cannot do it. They just want me to be safe about it.

Nobody here is saying you cannot own a gun. You are the one refusing to grasp the concept here. You can still own a gun if you are required to take a gun safety course. The only way you are not is if you say "no, I don't want to be safe"

Now, if they came out and said "You have to take a gun safety course and if you fail it you lose your second amendment rights" then you would be absolutely correct. But nobody has said that. Not once.

If you attach federally mandated training as a requirement to exercising ANY constitutionally protected right, you are infringing on that right. This really should not be hard to grasp.

Not it is not. In no way is it infringing on my right to own a firearm because I am still able to own a firearm by completing the course. At no point has my right been taken away.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
At no point has my right been taken away.

What about the point in time prior to completing the course?

Wait
So if you don't complete the Safety Course you can't own the weapon and the seller is liable...
Wait....

 CptJake wrote:

If you attach federally mandated training as a requirement to exercising ANY constitutionally protected right, you are infringing on that right. This really should not be hard to grasp.

The US Federal Government abridges the freedom of speech by way of the fighting words doctrine, so it seems a bit odd that it cannot also infringe upon the right to bear arms.

 Alex C wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
At no point has my right been taken away.

What about the point in time prior to completing the course?

Congratulations! You now own a gun. You are now required to take a gun safety course, if you do not comply within x number of days, you could be subject to fines.

Nobody is going to swoop in and arrest you, nobody has said that at all. Nobody is showing up to take your guns. However, you could have to pay more for them for not complying with the law. In no way does this infringe upon the right to own a gun and it promotes safety.

 Alex C wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
At no point has my right been taken away.

What about the point in time prior to completing the course?

And what about when the available courses are filled? Or there are none available in your area? Or you can't afford the course? Or you fail?

No way in hell this or ANY mandatory training required to exercise a constitutionally protected right passes a SCOTUS look.

And again, the numbers of accidental deaths are minuscule. There is not even anything close to a 'need' for mandatory training other than as a way to infringe on the right. It is an expensive solution that does not solve the stated problem of gun violence.

An unconstitutional requirement that fails to address the issue, I honestly cannot see how anyone would argue it is a good thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

If you attach federally mandated training as a requirement to exercising ANY constitutionally protected right, you are infringing on that right. This really should not be hard to grasp.

The US Federal Government abridges the freedom of speech by way of the fighting words doctrine, so it seems a bit odd that it cannot also infringe upon the right to bear arms.

Don't be an ass, as you well know they already have infringed on the right, multiple times. Many of us want to prevent further infringement.

You were proposing that in order to own a firearm, you had to complete this fictional course first, not that you would simply be fined and allowed to keep the gun anyway.

Dreadwinter wrote:They are not saying you cannot own a gun in any ways, they just want you to take a gun safety course first. You can own all the guns your heart desires, but you have to take this class first.

Dreadwinter wrote:You can still own a gun if you are required to take a gun safety course.

Dreadwinter wrote:I am still able to own a firearm by completing the course.

 Alex C wrote:
You were proposing that in order to own a firearm, you had to complete this fictional course first, not that you would simply be fined and allowed to keep the gun anyway.

Dreadwinter wrote:They are not saying you cannot own a gun in any ways, they just want you to take a gun safety course first. You can own all the guns your heart desires, but you have to take this class first.

Dreadwinter wrote:You can still own a gun if you are required to take a gun safety course.

Dreadwinter wrote:I am still able to own a firearm by completing the course.

Right, I shouldn't have put the last bit in there. Because it directly contradicts what I said "They are not saying you cannot own a gun in any ways" here. The point is, you can own a gun. Nobody has stopped you from owning a gun.

I can get behind the mandatory training. As long as its free.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I'd agree that mandating firearm safety courses or similar as a prerequisite to firearm ownership is pretty clearly unconstitutional in the US.

Okay, how is it unconstitutional? They are not saying you cannot own a gun in any ways, they just want you to take a gun safety course first. You can own all the guns your heart desires, but you have to take this class first. Make it free(like it was for me) and let them take it as many times as they want if they fail it. You are not keeping them from owning a gun in any way.

I can't imagine the SCOTUS not seeing such a requirement as being against the literal text of the second amendment. While no right is totally unrestricted, what you're proposing would be akin to being forced to pass a civics test before being able to vote, and there is a clear foundation for that being unconstitutional.

The analogy you seem to be going for is driving, since a vehicle can be dangerous if you're untrained, but there is no inherent right to drive a car in the Constitution.

The requirement to take a safety course for a hunting permit is again not a protected right, such as the self-defense interpretation as of recent.

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I'd agree that mandating firearm safety courses or similar as a prerequisite to firearm ownership is pretty clearly unconstitutional in the US.

Okay, how is it unconstitutional? They are not saying you cannot own a gun in any ways, they just want you to take a gun safety course first. You can own all the guns your heart desires, but you have to take this class first. Make it free(like it was for me) and let them take it as many times as they want if they fail it. You are not keeping them from owning a gun in any way.

I can't imagine the SCOTUS not seeing such a requirement as being against the literal text of the second amendment. While no right is totally unrestricted, what you're proposing would be akin to being forced to pass a civics test before being able to vote, and there is a clear foundation for that being unconstitutional.

The analogy you seem to be going for is driving, since a vehicle can be dangerous if you're untrained, but there is no inherent right to drive a car in the Constitution.

Good money say they find something in the Constitution that covers that.

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I'd agree that mandating firearm safety courses or similar as a prerequisite to firearm ownership is pretty clearly unconstitutional in the US.

Okay, how is it unconstitutional? They are not saying you cannot own a gun in any ways, they just want you to take a gun safety course first. You can own all the guns your heart desires, but you have to take this class first. Make it free(like it was for me) and let them take it as many times as they want if they fail it. You are not keeping them from owning a gun in any way.

I can't imagine the SCOTUS not seeing such a requirement as being against the literal text of the second amendment. While no right is totally unrestricted, what you're proposing would be akin to being forced to pass a civics test before being able to vote, and there is a clear foundation for that being unconstitutional.

The analogy you seem to be going for is driving, since a vehicle can be dangerous if you're untrained, but there is no inherent right to drive a car in the Constitution.

The requirement to take a safety course for a hunting permit is again not a protected right, such as the self-defense interpretation as of recent.

Actually, none of that is correct in regards to my argument. My argument is you can absolutely still own a gun. However without taking the class you could be subject to fines.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I'd agree that mandating firearm safety courses or similar as a prerequisite to firearm ownership is pretty clearly unconstitutional in the US.

Okay, how is it unconstitutional? They are not saying you cannot own a gun in any ways, they just want you to take a gun safety course first. You can own all the guns your heart desires, but you have to take this class first. Make it free(like it was for me) and let them take it as many times as they want if they fail it. You are not keeping them from owning a gun in any way.

I can't imagine the SCOTUS not seeing such a requirement as being against the literal text of the second amendment. While no right is totally unrestricted, what you're proposing would be akin to being forced to pass a civics test before being able to vote, and there is a clear foundation for that being unconstitutional.

The analogy you seem to be going for is driving, since a vehicle can be dangerous if you're untrained, but there is no inherent right to drive a car in the Constitution.

The requirement to take a safety course for a hunting permit is again not a protected right, such as the self-defense interpretation as of recent.

Actually, none of that is correct in regards to my argument. My argument is you can absolutely still own a gun. However without taking the class you could be subject to fines.

If I've gotten it right then, the right to bear arms would not be affected at all, so anyone who didn't want to take the course could simply not take it, but that'd mean fines?

You are correct.

 Jihadin wrote:
I can get behind the mandatory training. As long as its free.

socialist !



If we can lose all the hilarious cracks about people's intelligence/being psycho/etc etc and so on.

Thank you.

 CptJake wrote:
It is exactly the same. Mandatory training required to exercise a constitutionally protected right is mandatory training required to exercise a constitutional right. The rights are similar in that they are constitutionally protected.

If you refuse to grasp that, there is nothing I can do about it. It should be clear to every kid who made it through high school.

Let's suppose for the sake of a little thought experiment that mandatory safety training for gun use was not prohibited by the Constitution. Would you still hold that safety training was a bad thing?

Mandatory training wouldn't be unconstitutional. See, there's this little phrase in the 2nd Amendment...'Well Regulated'. Seems mandatory training would fall under that.

When I got my conceal carry permit, all that was required was to watch a video and then take a test; all online. The video was 45 minutes and the test was 10 question of which you had to answer 6 correctly; nearly all of which were "where can't you carry a gun". I was truly surprised how lax it was.

I would definitely support nonmandatory safety classes much in the same way I would support a pool safety awareness campaign.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:
Mandatory training wouldn't be unconstitutional. See, there's this little phrase in the 2nd Amendment...'Well Regulated'. Seems mandatory training would fall under that.

Yeah, that's tied to the idea that you're in a militia. The supreme court recently ruled the second amendment doesn't require militia membership to exercise. You can't just pick words out of the clause and strip them of context - it's a declaratory sentence.

I don't know that I agree with that interpretation, but it is what it is.

I personally think the second amendment is horribly outdated; a relic of the times when the government was not expected to have a standing army. I'm not averse to the idea that people are free to own firearms for self defense but as it's currently implemented, I'm not a huge fan.

 skyth wrote:
Mandatory training wouldn't be unconstitutional. See, there's this little phrase in the 2nd Amendment...'Well Regulated'. Seems mandatory training would fall under that.

Maybe there's something in that, but the amendment has been interpreted to mean you don't need to be in a militia, so maybe not.

However my point is for people to identify whether they think safety training in the operation of guns is in principle a good thing or a bad thing (or pointless.)

 Ouze wrote:
When I got my conceal carry permit, all that was required was to watch a video and then take a test; all online. The video was 45 minutes and the test was 10 question of which you had to answer 6 correctly; nearly all of which were "where can't you carry a gun". I was truly surprised how lax it was.

On the other hand, mine was 2 days at 8 hours per day. One day was classroom going over safety and legal stuff, the other was on the range doing practical exercises. It was extremely thorough and taught by an ex-Detroit LEO and a lawyer.