My thoughts on 2A application, and avoiding shootings.

[mshootnit]

I have been thinking about the shootings and 2A. Which reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't think we have done very well as a nation of living up to the "well regulated militia" part.

There are millions of us with guns, who never assemble or train together, and who admittedly would be a rag tag group if suddenly needed. That is a very far cry from "well regulated militia" and yet we do justify our ownership with the 2nd Amendment (2A).

So I propose purely for your consideration a scenario. Laugh at it, ignore it hate it, whatever. But I put this forward with these goals
1. Uphold 2A, freedom, and Liberty
2. Severely limit the possibility of school shootings.

First would be the establishment of the well regulated militia through federal law. This is different from the National guard. Every male who signs up for the draft is automatically entered into the militia. Anyone who attends initial training, and so wishes will be issued a real M4 rifle with ACOG, seven mags, and a standardized vest with helmet. This must all be kept in the home under lock and key, in an approved safe or gun cabinet, and available for inspection at any time. The issued firearm may only be taken out for maintenance, training, practice, or in the defense of this nation.
If you are NOT a member of the well regulated militia, then the guns available to you for self protection and hunting would NOT include semi autos holding more than 9 total rounds. M1 Garand would be OK. Detachable mags would be limited to 8 rounds to allow the 45 1911.
Of course all revolvers, shotguns, bolt actions would be OK.
Therefore if you are not willing to serve in the militia you don't have a 30rd. AR.

Militia would have to meet once a month, qualify once a year and undergo annual Background and mental health records checks. These records would be put to a card number. Each militia member would check in with their card being scanned. At that point if records come up, the rifle is taken back.

This would prevent this last guy from entering the school with his own AR15, as he would have been either denied entry into the militia, or he would have been expelled, and rifle taken.

Just my thoughts
What say ye.

 

[entropy]

Better yet, automatic conscription like Switzerland and Israel, deactive 'da switch' at ETS, keep rifle at home, (locked) requirement to qualify yearly with said rifle. Only those who have served can vote, ala Starship Troopers. But neither scenario is realistic in the US at present.

 

[Infidel]

"First would be the establishment of the well regulated militia through federal law."

That went off the rails quickly.

 

[mshootnit]

"First would be the establishment of the well regulated militia through federal law."

That went off the rails quickly.

Yes, specifics need to be codified

 

[Hokie_PhD]

Horrible ideas
Having a government official to come into your home any time is against our core principles.
No no no. Who are you to say I can’t have a mag over 10 rounds?

So we eliminate 3 gun, and all othe practical shooting sports. Again I say NO

What about us too old to serve?

Like hell will I give up my 30 round mags.

I’m sorry but this is DUMB
It doesn’t address gun crime, and what about the recent mass murder by knife in China? Ever hear of trucks and planes as weapons? Other things will be used.

Why isn’t anyone talking about the kid in Florida originally wanted to make a bomb?
If he was just a little smarter and determined he could of done a Timothy McVeigh.

So I’ll repeat NO

I have a simple solution
ELIMINTE GUN FREE ZONES
and have national conceal carry
Do away with mag size limits

And ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS.
make sure cops go after repeat offenders

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

It seems a study of state guard militias is in order. Used to, they answered solely to the states. But national guard have been absorbed by the feds and state guard can be controlled by them. Also state guard is no longer armed.

Why would we do the same thing?

 

[Telekinesis]

First would be the establishment of the well regulated militia through federal law. This is different from the National guard. Every male who signs up for the draft is automatically entered into the militia.

Since 1903 every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45 not otherwise in government service is ALREADY legally part of the militia. Technically the "unorganized militia". The national guard is in the "organized militia".

While the idea of a free M4 is nice, what you are proposing is essentially "if you're not willing to register yourself and give up your freedom, you don't get to have your God given rights".

What do you suggest doing about the people who already have ARs but don't want to join the club? Confiscate their weapons using the new militia? That seems like a great idea...

Conscription is one word for forced servitude and labor to the state. Another is slavery.

 

[FROGO207]

Just treat the liberal politicians the way they treat us hard working citizens now.
All we have to do is for all of us that pay for all the stupid stuff in DC to stop working on the same day. The government would shut down in short order with no revenue to speak of. Let the liberal ideologists try to work and pay for all of us that suddenly need to be fed, housed, and healed. The trick would be to get every one on board at the same time. Guess we could all apply for amnesty like the illegals do.

And NO to giving in to one demand of theirs, I repeat NO!

 

[AlexanderA]

The OP's proposal, besides being unworkable, would totally undermine the individual RKBA.

I could go into a long historical and legal discussion, but I'll desist for now.

 

[George P]

Just treat the liberal politicians the way they treat us hard working citizens now

Take away their armed protection, whether private or Secret Service; make them fly coach and go through TSA; make them live in the slums they want to support them...."let them eat cake"

Every male who signs up for the draft is automatically entered into the militia.

What draft?

Start with swift and IMMEDIATE execution of criminals (especially drug dealers) with public means (old town square "hanging trees" anyone?. ) Let the retribution fit the crime; and that means especially all of the powerful gangs in prisons. Maybe a little Saudi-style justice - caught stealing? Off with your hand. Murder? Off with your head. Rape? Off with your other head. Espousing socialistic and treasonous laws? Public disembowelment.......(I can get real creative when it comes to meting out justice to these folks).....

 

[mshootnit]

The OP's proposal, besides being unworkable, would totally undermine the individual RKBA.

I could go into a long historical and legal discussion, but I'll desist for now.

Thank you for your opinion.

 

[mshootnit]

"I’m sorry but this is DUMB"

Sorry you may be, however I think we can offer ideas without derogatory terms.

 

[Danoobie]

Well, we could start with volunteer militia guarding schools.

That, at least lives up to the spirit of the Second Amendment:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state;
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"


It would seem as though we need that militia in the public schools, for security,
right now...

 

[AlexanderA]

Well, we could start with volunteer militia guarding schools.

In the original American scheme of things, the militia was characterized by its universality: every able-bodied male belonged, and was supposed to show up at the periodic musters bringing his personal weapon, ammunition, etc. Therefore, the "militia" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment was synonymous with the "people." (We have the writings of the Founders to support this notion.) Although, in practice, this system rather quickly fell into disuse (being supplanted by the "volunteer militia" which fought the Civil War), the universal militia remained the theoretical basis for a universal RKBA. (See Miller v. U.S., 1939.)

A self-selected "volunteer militia," such as the one you are proposing, lacking universality, does not have 2nd Amendment status, and cannot be used to justify the RKBA. (Never mind that Justice Scalia, in the Heller case, eviscerated the whole idea of a militia in connection with the RKBA -- incorrectly, in my opinion.)

 

[herrwalther]

I served 8 years as a US Army Infantryman. I had specializations in edged weapons, mountain/cold weather warfare, and air assault operations. And my belief is people should own firearms (if they want) for their protection. Whether they are part of an organized "militia" or not.

 

[Navy_Chief]

What your proposal boils down to is effectively banning the private ownership and use of every semi automatic gun in existence. So let me start with not only NO but HELL NO. I already gave 20 years of my life in service to this nation in the military, it sure as hell was not so that I could be stripped of all my semi automatic guns possibly in exchange for a M4 that I can never use, and that I can only have providing I am willing to become part of the militia.

What you are proposing has nothing at all to do with preventing crime, shootings, or any of the other social issues we are facing as a nation. What you are proposing is a sweeping gun ban and associated confiscation of millions of firearms from law abiding citizens. Take your drivel elsewhere.

 

[Steve S.]

“.....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” My perspective is that this piece of the Amendment is worded as the last phrase for a reason, as an absolute. In turn, the use of the word “militia” is stated separately in a separate phrase as is the word “people” - separate declarations for separate and different groups. I am not a lawyer, a scholar nor the smartest guy in the room but I think that I can read. The language as written has always seemed very clear to me. It also seems that this language gets grandly scrutinized by the general populace (lately at least) much more than any other Amendment language -looking for a reason to destroy it - very dangerous and mindless people - a storm is coming.

 

[Kleanbore]

I have been thinking about the shootings and 2A. Which reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't think we have done very well as a nation of living up to the "well regulated militia" part.

It would behoove the OP to carefully read the ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) before trying to apply his or her interpretations to the Constitution and trying to reach his or her own conclusions in a vacuum.

 

[Hasaf]

The idea that everyone who wants to have guns should join some national organization ignores the reality that less than a quarter of the population, within the eligible age group, is even eligible to join. This is frequently due to no fault of their own. In the cases I am personally familiar with, it really is just fate.

As far as the "militia" guarding our schools. That is precisely what many, including myself, call for. Allow the teachers, and administrators, who are otherwise permitted to receive appropriate, and accessible, training and carry firearms if they choose to do so. The model needs to change from Kansas's "districts may allow" to Utah's "districts may not forbid." Utah also has other requirements, such as a requirement that the firearm not be visible on normal teaching activities and the like; but the point remains that, with reasonable care and appropriate licensing, teachers are permitted the choice of not being unarmed targets and the opportunity to actively defend their charges if necessary.

Of course, I realize that most states are even further from the Kansas "district may allow," legislation (as of date, to the best of my knowledge, no district does allow). Some states even make it clear that "No district may allow." There is still a lot of movement to be made.

Do I think every teacher should carry a firearm? No, some are clearly not qualified. However, in conversations, those who are clearly unqualified seem to be quick to self select and choose not to carry a firearm. In no way would I support "district may require." However, that is a long way from "District must not forbid." For those who have made it to this point and are asking, "what does this have to do with the militia?" Those teachers are the militia.

 

[FL-NC]

No thanks. I've already done my time (23 years) in the US mil, where I believe I was trained better than most in the use of dangerous stuff. I have no desire to be responsible for government equipment, be subject to inspections, be required to report for training that would likely be at a less advanced level than where I am now, or anything else. I'll just keep MY stuff and train when and where I want at MY expense.

 

[jamesjames]

I have to opine again that "well-regulated" militia may not mean what you think it means. A 21st century understanding of the word "regulation" is is a set of laws and rules set forth by government to restrict action to within certain prescribed parameters.

Regulation of firearms and militias in the 18th and 19th century may have been more about making sure that they were effective, could muster quickly for defense of the settlement, and could hit what they were aiming at. Regulating a firearm used to refer to adjusting sights, especially fixed sights so that they shot to point of aim.

http://www.tulprpc.org/attachments/File/Colonial_Firearms_regulation.pdf

 

[AlexanderA]

My perspective is that this piece of the Amendment is worded as the last phrase for a reason, as an absolute. In turn, the use of the word “militia” is stated separately in a separate phrase as is the word “people” - separate declarations for separate and different groups.

No. The "militia" and the "people" mentioned in the 2nd Amendment are one and the same. Correctly interpreted, that means that individual citizens have the right to own all the ordinary weapons -- including automatic weapons -- issued to soldiers, giving them parity with the standing army. I believe that Justice Scalia was incorrect in the Heller case, when he treated the militia clause as a nullity. In reality, he removed a big chunk of the gun rights that had been implied in the 1939 Miller case. Being able to keep a handgun in the home for self-protection is really minimal, in the context of the current gun debate.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

First would be the establishment of the well regulated militia through federal law.

Sounds frighteningly like the youth groups organized under Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini.
But it can't happen here, federal government programs never get out of control.

 

[mshootnit]

One can plainly look at the language " Well regulated militia" and see that the reason for the 2A was so that the populace would be armed for the defense of their nation.
So what I am saying is we don't have or implement the "well regulated militia." part as we should. For example I have never received a flyer in the mail telling when and where the "well regulated militia is meeting."

Now instead, we have tied gun ownership to self defense, duck hunting, deer hunting and shooting sports.

I obviously have no problem with the above. The problem though is that we have these school shootings and whether you like it or not the anti gun nation is being galvanized.

So I think we need to look real hard at this "militia" thing, and apply it correctly, to help stop violence, or guess what? We are going to end up with NO weapons.

You lose the women, and youth, the Supreme court goes 5-4 the other way and you are done.

So that is why I say, you want the AR-s and AK's ( like I do) fine, lets have this system, lets train for what the Framers intended, and if you are not willing or appropriate for that then you get the duck hunting and plink around guns.

Also, maybe I do not really believe this, but am trying to get some thought going. You sit in your corner on this one, you might be the last guy on the block with ATF coming someday. These youth are pissed and we better do something or 2A is going to be dead like, segregation, and defense of marriage, right or wrong.

 

[AlexanderA]

The idea that everyone who wants to have guns should join some national organization ignores the reality that less than a quarter of the population, within the eligible age group, is even eligible to join. This is frequently due to no fault of their own. In the cases I am personally familiar with, it really is just fate.

Interesting point. In the 18th century, being "able bodied" meant that you were breathing, and could stand up, load, and fire a musket. In those days, chronic disqualifying diseases and conditions simply killed you. Therefore, I would contend that, today, the "2nd Amendment militia" includes the handicapped -- it certainly goes far beyond those that would qualify for military service under the current medical standards. It's all theoretical anyway. No one is being asked to serve in an actual militia, nor can they voluntarily join, since the 18th-century universal militia no longer exists. The "2nd Amendment militia" is a historical construct that we use to justify the universal RKBA.