Cemeterystoneman

Yes, if it was provided for free and integrated in the school curriculum.

A number of schools offer it but it certainly inst a requirement and never having taken it shouldnt be a disqualifying means to owning a firearm... Civics isnt required to vote. Offering Firearms Education and Safety in school has potential to make both sides happy and could make a meaningful impact (but I doubt it would be supported by both sides)

Absolutely, you too. Im always willing to have a conversation, feel free to respond later as well

I disagree. Are you going to be advocating for civics education as a requirement to vote? Any other Rights that you want to add a qualifier for before they can be exercised?

Police are civilians, they are not a protected class of people.

How would you manifest this training requirement and what would it entail? By Providing it for free in schools? Or requiring it to be purchased and paid for as a defacto tax on a Right? One time training or something that’s reoccurring with repeated cost? How much training is enough and of what kind/substance?

(I am more than willing to discuss this further but from your site and other responses I don’t believe you have an actual plan that can even be outlined, any questions feel free to ask)

Because it’s never that simple, many states have implemented purposeful vagueness in their laws to restrict gun rights as much as possible.

We can use New Jersey as an example. There are no additional fees levied on purchasing a firearm in NJ. Yet if you wish to purchase a firearm you need to prepare, in some cases, to spend hundreds of dollars in permitting, identification card and finger printing fees. These disproportionately disparage minorities and PoC from being able to own firearms, these additional restrictions provide no further safety (the background check is the same one you receive in any other state but in NJ you get the privilege to pay for that same background check, 3 times if purchasing a pistol)

If the gun safety is being provided for free by the state, then there may be an argument that it isn’t a restriction. But requiring people to pay for a right amounts to a tax that is unconstitutional on a right.

Edit, submitted too soon

I disagree. And here’s why, we can get into a debate on what ‘shall not be infringed’ means but it’s irrelevant to this conversation because OP does not outline their points, it’s contradictory to say you’re protecting the second amendment (how? No details there) while saying you’ll be requiring

Gun Safety Education

Require Gun Certification

What does this mean, how and what will this entail? There is no substance in these points, there’s no further information other than OP saying 2A will be protected while simultaneously saying she will introduce additional and vague restrictions for 2A

She doesn’t need to be on the side of the NRA but don’t say one thing then immediately contradict yourself in the same talking points

Seems that way, I copied and pasted directly from her site, it doesn’t seem to make sense the way it’s spelled out there with no further info on the “education” or “certification” what does that entail? Money you’ll have to pay to own a gun proving your “educated”? What is a gun certification? A Registration? A tax?

No explanation. Same with most of what’s listed on the site