There is literally no required training for the average Joe, to necessitate the carrying of a deadly weapon, which makes little to no sense to me, when you need training to pass a drivers test, which is as dangerous as a gun if you come right down to it.
So what message are we sending when anyone who has no criminal record, and is a citizen, can get a gun with no training, doesn't that send the false message that no training is necessary to operate a weapon, and anyone can do it? I am in no way stating that no training is needed, just the opposite, but our current system doesn't address this at all. Then they wonder what happened when an incident goes haywire and people get killed because they just didn't know the basics, like when does the gun come out?
just hesitation or acting too fast can get you sent away for the rest of your life and just talking about it is a lot different than actually having something happen and getting shot because you didn't respond properly.
Other than it being our right under the Constitution, should there be some sort of proper training or periodic testing, to make sure that people are still in control of their faculty's?
I am a believer in retesting drivers at 70 or 75 years old instead of seeing them plow into convenience stores with their Cadillac's, "like in Florida", on a daily basis. I recently saw a man tie himself up trying to get his little dog into his Caddy, and "wet himself" before getting help and achieving his goal of starting the car. Soon after that his keys were taken away by his kids, but he easily could have killed several people and not even realized it.
What if he also had a weapon?
OK, this topic has been covered many other times.
Keeping and bearing arms is a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE, and that right is further expressed as something that "shall not be infringed".
The purpose for this is not something related to hunting, sporting, or recreational activities, it's related to protection of oneself not only from individual attack, but from tyrannical governments. The GOVERNMENT has no right to tell it's citizens they cannot keep and bear arms because keeping and bearing arms is part of the citizen's ability to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.
Yes, training is important. It would be stupid to say otherwise. However, for the government to REQUIRE any specific amount of training in order to exercise something that is an uninfringable RIGHT can't be done without INFRINGEMENT. Any time you place conditions on this, it become less a right and more a privilege.
Being able to drive isn't a "right". It's a "privilege". Bad example to use in conjunction with discussing the RKBA.
As for training...ALL firearms require some amount of training to operate, whether self taught or taught by others. This was true in the earliest days of musket rifles/pistols and is true today. The more one trained, the better one becomes with the firearm.
But let's face it...we're not talking rocket science here.
Neither are we talking about everybody being some kind of Agent Zero with firearms.
As for the scenario of Grandpa who has lost his mind to the effects of age...there's nothing wrong with family and friends taking appropriate actions to remove firearms from Grandpa's ready possession. They ain't the government. Nor is it wrong for a government agency to do so under
due process based on the
specifics of Grandpa's condition/situation. But the government can't make a general law infringing on EVERYBODY'S RKBA by imposing a general restrictions, like requiring ALL Grandpa's to PROVE they're of sound mind and body.