No. The Bill of Rights--including the 2nd Amendment--is there for a reason. A free society is always going to have some individuals in it who abuse that freedom. That is just the price we pay to live in it. But decent, law abiding, responsible, and sane people are still the majority in this country. Placing restrictions on their liberties will do absolutely zero to deter the criminal element.
Three words: "well-regulated militia." It's not a blanket right.
Shooter licenses would be a reasonable implementation of that.
So would mandatory training in firearm use, with testing (heck, I'd welcome the lessons).
I'm all for training and proficiency, but there are several problems with that. What standards do you adopt, and, more importantly, who decides? I can see it quickly becoming a vehicle for some bureaucrat to enforce their own agenda. One other profound flaw is that just because a person can sit there and punch holes in paper doesn't mean they will be worth a crap when TSHTF. Similarly, I can see an 80 year old Korean war veteran trying to qualify with his shaking hands and failing, and yet when the chips are down that same man may be cool as a cucumber. But he has been denied a weapon because he couldn't pass the test.
I have yet to see proponents for mandatory training, testing, and licensing point to any problems in Vermont or Alaska, which require none. There are no bloodbaths occuring there that would lead me to think that such requirements are necessary.
Now voluntary training and testing is another matter. As others have suggested, I think it would be an excellent idea to offer voluntary firearms training in schools. Up until at least the 60's such training was common. Another idea: offer government-sponsored training to all willing adults through the DCM. We have the resources. What we lack is the political will.
Previous Topic
Index
