Since the 2nd Amendment is in our Constitution we need to normalize Gun Safety in our schools and schools need to not only offer the course but it should be a mandatory course. Accidental deaths are far more statistically higher from the misuse of a firearm. If Gun Safety and the proper use of a firearm is offered we could see a decrease in accidents and increase of proper use of a firearm.
Just seeing a gun is scary to people. If people knew how to respect a firearm and knew the proper use of a firearm we could see a big difference. Education should include the build of the firearm, the engineering of a firearm, how to load and unload a firearm, how to properly hold and aim a firearm, shoot the firearm and store the firearm.
I understand the sentiment but could never support this policy.
The United States of America exists as articulated in the US Constitution, which was ratified by We the People and contains a short list of enumerated powers that we agreed to give to the federal government. Article 1 Section 8 gives the very short list of enumerated powers. Everything else is consigned to the States and the people under the 10th Amendment.
Mandatory gun safety training does not legitimately fall under any enumerated power. Which means you’d have to amend the Constitution to do it. Alternatively, you could just do what the leftists have done over the last 150 years and ram this down our throats, Constitution be damned. But then we’d no longer be the United States of America. I’m 100% opposed to that sort of tyranny, even if it’s with the best of intentions.
This is clearly a matter for the States, not the federal government, under our current Constitution.
There was a time when gun safety and marksmanship classes were more common in schools, especially in the mid-20th century. Programs like the NRA’s Junior Marksmanship Program were widely taught, and many high schools even had rifle teams that competed. It wasn’t unusual to see gun ranges in school basements or for students to bring rifles for extracurricular activities.
In the past, firearms were seen more as tools, and there was a stronger cultural emphasis on responsible ownership and usage.
The idea that someone could purchase a rifle through a mail-order catalog without significant restrictions is true, as this was common before the Gun Control Act of 1968. Back then, societal attitudes were different, and firearms were part of everyday life for many families, often linked to hunting, sport shooting, and self-reliance.
The shift in attitudes today involves a more complex societal relationship with guns, crime, and public safety, which makes introducing firearms training in schools a more controversial topic. But it does show that the Constitution didn’t necessarily need to be changed to allow such programs before, and gun education has a historical precedent in American schools!
Correct. The states have always had the power to provide firearm education or not. My only point is that 10A makes it a matter for the states or the people.
I also think that firearm education, like any academic pursuit, works on some people but not on others. It’s worth noting that the vast majority of homicides in America are happening in demographics least amenable to classroom instruction.
The response about the Tenth Amendment and the effectiveness of firearm education overlooks the broader benefits of such programs. While it’s true that education may not reach everyone, that applies to any subject taught in schools. The goal should be to provide preventive education that fosters a culture of safety and responsibility. Dismissing the potential impact based on demographics sidesteps the urgent need for gun safety conversations and the opportunity to engage communities in meaningful ways. Instead of focusing on limitations, we should explore innovative strategies to make gun safety education relevant and effective for all students.
I recognize your form of argument. Democrats used it to nationalize medical care and force people to buy insurance for the greater good (i.e. “broader benefits.”)
Rep. Chris Cox (R) used the same argument when he sponsored Sec. 230, the law that prohibits online platforms from being sued. His explicit intent was to stop pornography because he thought the platforms would censor it, even though the courts have ruled that porn is speech and protected by 1A. But 'for the greater good," he partnered with the eternally evil Sen. Ron Wyden (D) and made it law. Now there’s more porn online than there ever was before.
Seeking “innovative strategies” to circumvent the Constitution is evil, in my view, and it ALWAYS leads to profoundly undesirable consequences. But you seem set in your beliefs, so I wish you well even while hoping your proposal never sees the light of day.
Your response seems to misinterpret the intent behind advocating for firearm education. Unlike nationalized healthcare or Section 230, which involve complex legal implications, promoting gun safety education in schools is about enhancing awareness and responsibility regarding firearms. The aim isn’t to circumvent the Constitution but to empower students with knowledge to reduce risks associated with gun ownership. While it’s important to be cautious about legislation, comparing this issue to unrelated topics undermines the importance of teaching gun safety as a practical measure to prevent accidents.
I genuinely understand your concerns about protecting constitutional rights, and I assure you that the focus here is solely on education, not to challenge or bypass the Constitution or circumventing any laws. Teaching gun safety in schools like before* can be a proactive step toward creating a culture of responsibility. I appreciate your perspective, and I hope we can work together to enhance safety in our communities.
I would like to propose that we join this topic and mine which you can find here…
I have a section about education as well and I agree that it is a fundamental element to the success of arms ownership programs.
I agree that education programs are not specified in the constitution, but are any education programs specified in the constitution? I haven’t read it that thoroughly. But I do know the federal and State both promote education programs of different types so it is entirely possible for the Federal govt to fund marksmanship and safety training programs.
I would love to hear your input and your thoughts on joining out platforms together.
