wheelgunguy
Member
I personally am against mandated training for a few reasons.
When it comes to exercising a Constitutional right I find having to ask permission from the state appalling. When you look at the events (namely the American Revolution) that led to the formation of this country and what it took to get there. I don't know how anyone could argue that the public being armed didn't play a huge role in the wining of the war. Imagine if they weren't. To think our fore fathers didn't want the threat of another revolution to influence the actions of our future government is not paying attention to history. Think about that any time you consider government approval needed for anything to do with firearms. I believe our fore fathers would be equally appalled with many of the licensing requirements we see today. Does anyone actually believe the Bill of Rights would have been ratified if there was a provision calling for the citizens to pass a mandated class and get government permission to carry a firearm? I think this speaks volumes to what was their original intent.
Here is another reason I disagree. While in theory the mandated class would make it safer for the public at large (I am not so sure it does. More on that in a minute). This by itself is not enough in and of it's self to mandate it. It would be safer for the public if we had no speed limits above 50mph, disallowed swimming pools, etc. I think you get my point. These are just a couple of many thousands of things that would make us safer and we don't do them. So calling for mandated classes that there has been no evidence that I have seen that makes us safer, makes absolutely no sense to me. It is not always the government's role to make us as safe as possible anyway. That would call for totalitarianism and liberty matters.
Here's one last thing to consider. When the state issues a license for anything that requires training. It implies a level of competency, not perfection but competency. If it didn't then there would be no need for the training. I fear there are a larger number than anyone wants to admit that has their CC permit and because of it feel their competency level is much higher than it truly is. This does not add to the safety of the public.
If the government wants to get involved with making the public safer as far as firearms go. I think a tax credit for training paid to the instructor directly would do a whole lot more than the mandated classes and licenses. It also wouldn't disenfranchise some of the people who need protection the most. I would talk about how to pay for it but that would require political talk. So I'll just say we could find a way if we really want the government this involved in this Constitutional right.
When it comes to exercising a Constitutional right I find having to ask permission from the state appalling. When you look at the events (namely the American Revolution) that led to the formation of this country and what it took to get there. I don't know how anyone could argue that the public being armed didn't play a huge role in the wining of the war. Imagine if they weren't. To think our fore fathers didn't want the threat of another revolution to influence the actions of our future government is not paying attention to history. Think about that any time you consider government approval needed for anything to do with firearms. I believe our fore fathers would be equally appalled with many of the licensing requirements we see today. Does anyone actually believe the Bill of Rights would have been ratified if there was a provision calling for the citizens to pass a mandated class and get government permission to carry a firearm? I think this speaks volumes to what was their original intent.
Here is another reason I disagree. While in theory the mandated class would make it safer for the public at large (I am not so sure it does. More on that in a minute). This by itself is not enough in and of it's self to mandate it. It would be safer for the public if we had no speed limits above 50mph, disallowed swimming pools, etc. I think you get my point. These are just a couple of many thousands of things that would make us safer and we don't do them. So calling for mandated classes that there has been no evidence that I have seen that makes us safer, makes absolutely no sense to me. It is not always the government's role to make us as safe as possible anyway. That would call for totalitarianism and liberty matters.
Here's one last thing to consider. When the state issues a license for anything that requires training. It implies a level of competency, not perfection but competency. If it didn't then there would be no need for the training. I fear there are a larger number than anyone wants to admit that has their CC permit and because of it feel their competency level is much higher than it truly is. This does not add to the safety of the public.
If the government wants to get involved with making the public safer as far as firearms go. I think a tax credit for training paid to the instructor directly would do a whole lot more than the mandated classes and licenses. It also wouldn't disenfranchise some of the people who need protection the most. I would talk about how to pay for it but that would require political talk. So I'll just say we could find a way if we really want the government this involved in this Constitutional right.
