This is my opinion only:
Training is fine, if you ask me. Of course, the state should pay for the training. It is a Constitutional right and shouldn't have an economic barrier to exercising the right (except for buying the actual gun and ammo, which was traditionally the citizen's responsibility).
I think you should be required to prove that you know how to safely handle a handgun and know the laws before a CCW license. Licensees should be required to pass a written and practical test, with objective standards (ie can draw a gun from the holster without pulling the trigger, demonstrates ability to control muzzle, etc). Maybe home defense can require a safety class as well.
With the prohibitions to CCW and home ownership gone, more people will take classes, which bodes well for the firearm industry. I think all gun ranges and shops will have more business, which means that more people will work in the business. More people will invest in infrastructure like shooting ranges.
Most importantly, when you have more people working in the sector, you will have more votes the right way.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Great points. I am amazed at the number of folks with zero proficiency but also blame NY’s restrictive environment which makes it not easy for folks to train. I agree with you that the more educated and proficient gun owners the easier it will be to support the 2A efforts.
I believe that both of you are missing the point. If a Constitutionally-protected right can require that you take a course of study or pass a test, of any sort, to determine that you are "qualified" to exercise it, then it is not a Constitutionally-protected right but a privilege, which the licensing official can regulate, in any way which person or organization sees fit.
Think about this alternative: You may not choose a religion or choose to change or abandon it, unless and until you can prove proficiency, in that religion, via classroom work and a written test. You may not speak or present a written opinion, about anything, unless and until you have taken the prescribed classes, then passed a written exam, proving your "proficiency" in that subject. You may not vote, unless and until you have taken the required classes, in Civics, politics, Sociology and Legislative Procedure, then passed the appropriate exam(s), in each of those subjects.
Constitutionally-protected rights are not subject to licensing. Too many of us have been indoctrinated, to the contrary.
Wowser:I guess I am on the fringe on this, but I think that you should be required to pass a civics test in order to be allowed to vote. If you cannot pass a simple test, describing the basics of our democracy, then I'm not sure you ought to have voice in representative government. It is too easy for liars and cheats to manipulate the uninformed...just look at the politicians on both sides of the aisle. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "a well informed electorate is a pre-requisite to democracy."
I think that the right to vote is of equal importance to the right to bear arms. I think that the schools should teach simple facts in civics and the Constitution. Students must pass this test in order to vote. For those who immigrate and those citizens who could not pass while in high school, then they too must pass this test (perhaps after school tutorials?). Otherwise, we lose the common bond of democracy. Just my fringe 2 cents...
I definitely agree that a Constitutional Republic is far better than the rule of the majority. Look at the parliamentary forms of government. They are ever more restrictive and their citizens lose rights each passing year. Eventually, they become trapped by their government controlled laws and traditions. When they bottle it up for too long, bam, another world war.We are fortunate that we do not live in a true democracy. In a true democracy, the majority rules and the rules can change, anytime the majority says they should, forward and backward. We live in a Constitutional Republic, where majority rule is overruled and restricted, by the content of the Constitution.