Quote:
Originally Posted by El Blanco
Preech, it doesn't say "the right of the militia", or "the right of organized military units". It says "the right of the people". Also, it doesn't say much about "well regulated". What does it mean? Does it end with just the chain of command? Is there training? Communication with other militias?
I'm in favor of someregulation for matters of public safety, but the Second Ammendment doesn't imply regulation of firearms anywhere.
|
Ok, but who are "the people" then? Were they including crazy people? Convicts in prison? Don't we regularly infringe upon the rights of some of the broader subset of people as a matter of course? It doesn't have to "say much," as it is very clear already... to me at least.
A "well regulated militia" is made up of regular citizens trained in and trusted with the use of guns, not morons that happen to have access to a Glock. Licensing subject to competence and trustworthiness is clearly implied. I am in no way advocating Gun Control here, don't get me wrong. If a citizen, however, wishes to carry a gun around yet refuses to prove his competence or intentions, then I see no problem with denying him the right to do so.
That being said, I'll freely admit this is a slippery slope, and that something that ain't broke don't need fixin. I'm simply speaking in ideal terms, not realistic ones. In the real world, I support the NRA's hard stance against any new regulation, as such regulation is generally aimed toward eventually trashing the 2nd altogether.
I wouldn't mind, though, living in an America where more people were able to provide their own self-defense, and I see rigorous testing and training as the path to that place. As always, the root of all my ideologies is education. Reality in the USA, however, will likely never get to where I'd like to see it.
Threaded Mode
