And who gets to decide who is "adequately" trained and who isn't? Who gets to determine what the "reasonable" fee for such training is? Who gets to decide who is "elite" enough to be able to defend themselves with a gun and who isn't? Of course you can point to the blood running in the streets in states like ID, WY, MT, NV, AZ, NM, WA, SD, KY, VA, NC, CO and VT (and I missed a couple) where no training is required to carry a gun in public, right? Oh, wait...you can't. Because not requiring training in those states has not made anyone at any more danger than in states such as NY, MA, IL, CA, TX, or OK... hmmmm. Seems like this whole "you must be required to be trained to carry a gun" is just another academic and political feel good measure that has no measureable benefit to it.
Originally Posted by vanphillips
Yes, training is beneficial. Yes people should be able to get training - voluntarily. But to limit their ability to defend themselves based upon a government instituted standard of proficiency is simply not included in the 2nd Amendment that I read and believe in.
Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.