lazyengineer Wrote:I very much am in favor of "reasonable" legislation that regulations access to leathality amplification systems.

montana Wrote:I am also in favour of mandatory training for firearm ownership, which probably goes against many people's belief on this forum.

grayfox Wrote:I am in the same camp, it looks like, as LzE, in that I see a realistic limit to what "arms" a militia-level citizen should be expected to show up with, which is the essence of the 2A as I read it.

keystone183 Wrote:You guys really don't understand the words 'shall not be infringed', huh?

grayfox Wrote:Stan I think that ground has been covered several times. We will have to agree to disagree.

grayfox Wrote:I'm sticking with Trump.

grayfox Wrote:He's the best there is right now for 2A and far better than many from the past, along with Reagan.

stanc Wrote:I cannot imagine why you would disagree. What I said is verifiable fact, covered by Federal law.


No one has said you shouldn't.


Sadly, that isn't much of a recommendation. Even Clinton and Obama were better for the 2A than Reagan.

stanc Wrote:I cannot imagine why you would disagree. What I said is verifiable fact, covered by Federal law.

LR1955 Wrote:Stan: OK -- what Democrat Presidential candidate is more pro 2A and pro gun owner than Trump?

LR1955 Wrote:No one here cares about the politics of twenty or thirty years ago. We do care about the 25 meter target right in front of us.

grayfox Wrote:As I said above, we will have to disagree. Federal law cannot invalidate a constitutional amendment's language.

grayfox Wrote:The people still have the right, regardless of what an individual state may have, or what federal law may say about National guard...

grayfox Wrote:I have expressed my vote for Trump but you have not expressed any alternative name. No names. No candidate.
What is your alternative named person or candidate? That is, I believe, the stated rules for this thread.

stanc Wrote:LOL. The 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1986 machine gun ban, and other Federal laws have made "shall not be infringed" not worth the parchment it was written on.

stanc Wrote:I don't know if any of them are.


Yes. I only made the comment about Reagan because grayfox compared Trump to Reagan, and I was responding to statements in grayfox's post.

-------------------------------------------------------


LOL. The 1934 National Firearms Act, the 1986 machine gun ban, and other Federal laws have made "shall not be infringed" not worth the parchment it was written on.


Sure, according to the 2A, the people still have a (considerably infringed) right to keep and bear arms, but that is a different subject.

The issue I addressed is your statement that you see "a realistic limit to what arms a militia-level citizen should be expected to show up with."

Members of the militia are defined by Federal law, not the 2A. Since they are expected to show up with no weapons, your "realistic limit" would be set at ZERO. No weapons of any kind.


The "mandate" is: If you criticize Trump for something he said about the 2A, you will name one or more of the Democratic candidates who you think are stronger supporters of the 2A.

I have not criticized Trump in this thread, therefore I am not required to name any Democrat who is more pro-2A than Trump.

montana Wrote:...I am also in favour of mandatory training for firearm ownership, which probably goes against many people's belief on this forum. This could be misused like any well intention law but it has worked with hunter safety.
I believe any person, "who is trained and has proven to be a responsible citizen" should be able to own any firearm made.

JASmith Wrote:Cherry-Picking from montana?

I would extend this to the requirement that every US citizen be required to go through firearms handling and marksmanship training during their senior year in high school.

It would be nice if all would participate so having a high school diploma would be all that is needed to show competency. I concede, however, that not everyone will agree to be forced to go through this training so a forearms training card/certificate will be needed.

The rationale for universal training, beyond the obvious national defense implications, is that no one can be singled out for discrimination based on having gone through the training.

JASmith Wrote:Cherry-Picking from montana?

I would extend this to the requirement that every US citizen be required to go through firearms handling and marksmanship training during their senior year in high school.

It would be nice if all would participate so having a high school diploma would be all that is needed to show competency. I concede, however, that not everyone will agree to be forced to go through this training so a forearms training card/certificate will be needed.

The rationale for universal training, beyond the obvious national defense implications, is that no one can be singled out for discrimination based on having gone through the training.

JASmith Wrote:Cherry-Picking from montana?

I would extend this to the requirement that every US citizen be required to go through firearms handling and marksmanship training during their senior year in high school.

It would be nice if all would participate so having a high school diploma would be all that is needed to show competency. I concede, however, that not everyone will agree to be forced to go through this training so a forearms training card/certificate will be needed.

The rationale for universal training, beyond the obvious national defense implications, is that no one can be singled out for discrimination based on having gone through the training.

grayfox Wrote:Not a bad idea.

PNWTargets Wrote:Rights are trying to be restricted every day. No need to encourage it. How many people here think paying for a tax stamp for suppressors or ?SBR? is legit? I do not.

JASmith Wrote:Thanks montana, I indeed did not think of the connection between understanding firearms training and how folks might vote and govern as I typed.