[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

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.

Saying "they should be trained" is suggestive, not regulatory. Saying "they MUST be trained" is regulatory.

LEGAL ownership of firearms needs to come with a REQUIREMENT that the owner has training, and a license indicating that she has successfully passed that training, which comes with a background check, and is now qualified and authorized to possess that firearm.