4 ms·

We cling to the "right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" portion of the 2nd amendment, but forget the preceding piece of the same amen

We cling to the "right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" portion of the 2nd amendment, but forget the preceding piece of the same amendment "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State". What we have now is the absence of domestic security and no evidence of a well regulated militia. We kowtow to the ever expanding security theater encompassing the small activities in our lives, and our day to day freedom decreases with each pat down and purse search. The people at this show were screened, patted down, searched and then fenced in. They were the proverbial fish in a barrel and they were being shot at. Where is the well-ordered militia that has lists of citizens who have arms stock piles like Paddock? When are citizens with militia level armaments trained in an ordered and effective fashion so that we may call upon them in times of crisis? When are arms-bearing citizens evaluated for their mental stability to ensure they exercise their rights in a fashion that promotes the security of a free state? We do none of these things because we are a failing state. By failing state, I specifically mean that we are failing to fully implement laws and regulations that enact the full meaning and intent of the 2nd amendment.

blaike 9y ago
I'd like to see your 'militia' handle a rain of bullets from above you fucking mall ninja.
reitanqild 9y ago
As someone who defends the right to own guns this still resonates with me. Somewhere in between "doing nothing" and trying to "ban all guns" there is a good solution waiting to be found. Meanwhile the discussion seems deadlocked and I guess many of us can understand both sides.
- notacoward 9y ago
  > the discussion seems deadlocked It doesn't help when people who have explicitly called for an in-between solution get called "gungrabbers". I also support the right to bear arms - some arms, some places, perhaps subject to some conditions or requirements. But because I don't toe the NRA line, I get called names. Maybe part of the solution would be people matching their rhetoric to their intentions, instead of saying one thing and doing another.
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    If you refer to me then let me point out I am fairly certain I didn't call you a gungrabber only said others would do. Sorry if I came across that way.
- cwkoss 9y ago
  Unconventional gun law idea: To get a license to own a gun, you need to take a marksmanship test. You get 36 shots, and have to fire at a 12" circular target 25' away. Your personal maximum magazine size is the number of shots that hit the target minus 24 (36-24= max 12). If you have less than 66% accuracy (<24 hits), no license. If you only hit 25, your max size is 1. Must have gun license on you any time you're in possession of a gun outside your house (for verification of magazine limit). Shooting ranges can let you rent a gun for practice without a license, but must stay on premises. If you're going to own a gun for the purposes of protection, you should be able to fire it accurately, or you are a danger to yourself and others. Driving a car requires proof of competence, don't see any reason why guns shouldn't be the same: especially if its an objective test. Would be relatively politically defensible, because opposition would have to argue that people who cannot fire accurately should still be able to own higher-capacity magazines, which is pretty hard position to argue. The biggest counterpoint I can think of is that it might make it harder for victims of domestic violence to obtain weapons to protect themselves, but I think most of those situations are close enough range that there are other non lethal alternatives (taser, mace) that could be safer/more effective for someone without shooting experience.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > If you're going to own a gun for the purposes of protection, you should be able to fire it accurately, or you are a danger to yourself and others. But, conversely, the number of bullets you need for protection in any specific situation goes down with accuracy, so inaccurate shooters legitimately need more bullets.
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      For themselves, yes. But bystanders need the inaccurate shooters to have fewer bullets.
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    Around here it is simpler: You have too show up and be considered active to get permits for certain classes of guns (including handguns). This is a win-win: if you don’t show up on maintenance days you risk losing your license. Same goes if you don’t practice.

blaike 9y ago

I'd like to see your 'militia' handle a rain of bullets from above you fucking mall ninja.

reitanqild 9y ago

As someone who defends the right to own guns this still resonates with me. Somewhere in between "doing nothing" and trying to "ban all guns" there is a good solution waiting to be found. Meanwhile the discussion seems deadlocked and I guess many of us can understand both sides.

notacoward 9y ago
> the discussion seems deadlocked It doesn't help when people who have explicitly called for an in-between solution get called "gungrabbers". I also support the right to bear arms - some arms, some places, perhaps subject to some conditions or requirements. But because I don't toe the NRA line, I get called names. Maybe part of the solution would be people matching their rhetoric to their intentions, instead of saying one thing and doing another.
- reitanqild 9y ago
  If you refer to me then let me point out I am fairly certain I didn't call you a gungrabber only said others would do. Sorry if I came across that way.
cwkoss 9y ago
Unconventional gun law idea: To get a license to own a gun, you need to take a marksmanship test. You get 36 shots, and have to fire at a 12" circular target 25' away. Your personal maximum magazine size is the number of shots that hit the target minus 24 (36-24= max 12). If you have less than 66% accuracy (<24 hits), no license. If you only hit 25, your max size is 1. Must have gun license on you any time you're in possession of a gun outside your house (for verification of magazine limit). Shooting ranges can let you rent a gun for practice without a license, but must stay on premises. If you're going to own a gun for the purposes of protection, you should be able to fire it accurately, or you are a danger to yourself and others. Driving a car requires proof of competence, don't see any reason why guns shouldn't be the same: especially if its an objective test. Would be relatively politically defensible, because opposition would have to argue that people who cannot fire accurately should still be able to own higher-capacity magazines, which is pretty hard position to argue. The biggest counterpoint I can think of is that it might make it harder for victims of domestic violence to obtain weapons to protect themselves, but I think most of those situations are close enough range that there are other non lethal alternatives (taser, mace) that could be safer/more effective for someone without shooting experience.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > If you're going to own a gun for the purposes of protection, you should be able to fire it accurately, or you are a danger to yourself and others. But, conversely, the number of bullets you need for protection in any specific situation goes down with accuracy, so inaccurate shooters legitimately need more bullets.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    For themselves, yes. But bystanders need the inaccurate shooters to have fewer bullets.
- reitanqild 9y ago
  Around here it is simpler: You have too show up and be considered active to get permits for certain classes of guns (including handguns). This is a win-win: if you don’t show up on maintenance days you risk losing your license. Same goes if you don’t practice.