Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackbird45
I don't believe the problem is the tool itself, but that most people do not take the responsibility for their firearms. If people are not held financially responsible from the minute it leaves the manufactures until the firearm is destroyed, we're going to have a problem with gun death counts in our country. You leave your gun in your car and it is stolen, you should be held responsible for whatever happens. A dealer sells a firearm to a person wearing a tin foil hat and a parachute they will be responsible. A child takes a gun to school the parent will be held responsible.
Firearms should be treated more like cars. First you class different firearms as you do cars, trucks and motorcycles. Second to buy that class of firearm you get a permit train on the type of firearm you want, while that is being done there will be a full background check. Once you pass the test you can buy that type of firearm and ammunition for that firearm anywhere in the country.
People today own firearms they done know how to use and firearms that don't fit the task they were purchased for.
I know a lot of people don't want the government to know what type of firearms they own, but as far as I know there is nothing in the constitution that states the government does not have that right.
|
There is nothing in the Constitution giving the government any Rights. The Rights delineated in the Constitution are marked for the People and then for the States. It gives the government certain powers and that is all.
The issue with comparing guns and cars is that driving is a privilege and owning guns is a Right. I do think it is worth noting that the 2nd Amendment mentions a "well regulated militia". I find most people don't know what that means. By definition a militia is formed from the body of the people. For example, on April 19, 1775 the British Regulars marched on Concord and Lexington for the purpose of seizing arms. They were met by the militia (Minutemen) and so sparked our American Revolution. These men were farmers, bakers, saddle maker, inn keepers, etc. Ordinary citizens, in other words. But remember, "well regulated militia". To be well regulated meant to be properly trained and outfitted. In other words, a man needed his firearm, ammunition, and proper training.
I can accept, from the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, that the people should be trained. How should that work, particularly? I think people should be taught specific safety principles, the operation of the firearm, proper holster draw, marksmanship, etc Given I do this for a living it may seem self serving and I can't help that. I do know that I have had students who gave me 2 hours per month for 7 months in a row, with the caveat that they had to go to the range at least once to practice the new things they learned, and at the end they could competently draw from their holster in under a second, engage the target, and move to another target.
That is 14 hours of training and at that point I've set them up to be respectable at a shooting competition. I'd like to see 8 hours of instruction, divided into 2 hour sessions and spread over a certain amount of time to demonstrate that someone is a safe shooter. Just my opinion.