The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, unrelated to militia service – meaning such a prerequisite to possessing a firearm would be un-Constitutional.
It currently would be unconstitutional because it says "the people" when talking about allowing the militia to keep arms. This is because we've drifted away from the original intended meaning both socially and judicially. What I'm proposing is an amendment to make it constitutional. This is the totally constitutionally valid way of changing the document.
Private citizens are perfectly capable of exercising their Second Amendment right absent some sort of formal 'training,' and that can be applied to carrying a concealed firearm as well.
Currently they are, yes. This is not okay. To understand why, imagine that you're walking down the street when a guy pulls out a gun and starts firing indiscriminately. Another guy, thinking he's a super badass ultrahero, pulls out his gun, aims at the killer, and accidentally hits multiple bystanders before being shot in the face by his target. This has happened before. It would be less likely to happen if he actually had any idea what the fuck he was doing. A good way to ensure that would be to give him standardized, high quality training for the scenarios he wants to be prepared to resolve. The issue isn't concealed carry. It's keeping concealed carrying people from posing more of a danger to you and me than to violent criminals.
When government seeks to place restrictions or limitations on a Constitutional right, such measures must be rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end.
Firearm regulatory policy that meets the above requirements will likely pass Constitutional muster – those that don't, won't.
What documented evidence do you need? I would like this to pursue a proper legislative end of passing an amendment rewriting the Second Amendment for clarification in a way that keeps both sides happy. Conservatives can keep their guns. Liberals have less reason to fear armed psychopaths every time they go outside.
For example, to require a firearm owner to receive 'training' as a condition to exercising his Second Amendment right is in no way rational, that absent 'training' a gun owner 'might' have an 'accident' is not consistent with fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence – that a citizen 'might' abuse his rights is not justification to manifest an undue burden to him exercising that right; there is no evidence that 'training' will have the desired effect of preventing 'accidents,' and consequently such a measure pursues no proper legislative end, rendering it un-Constitutional.
You don't think there's evidence that military training makes people more proficient marksmen?
You miss the point - no weapon - and just about anything can be a weapon - at any distance just jumps up and acts of its own volition. Somebody has to be wielding the weapon. A pissed off housewife could throw a damned frying pan from 20 feet and kill somebody if the thing hit just right.
This is very true. There both the gun trained on innocent people and the gun trained on the former are being wielded by people. If we're going to kill the first person - which is not what I would prefer but what conservatives and the gun lobby seem to want - then at least make sure the first shot by megahero hits him and not a random kid twenty feet to the left.
The problem is you get your world view from cartoons and comedy shows.
What the fuck? Who said anything about cartoons?
First, the basis of your argument is wrong. The second also says 'the right of the people'. How that gets constantly filtered from the reptilian leftist brain is an amazing thing.
I'm reading the full text and accepting that it means what it says it means. I quoted it in the OP if you ever wonder what it actually says.
Plus, it is no longer a right if we need state permission and a certificate. It would then be like driving, a privilege if you do xyz.
You would need to enlist into your state's militia, swear to defend your state in the case of foreign invasion, and learn when and how to shoot. That's about it. I can understand if you're afraid to be pressed into service against foreign and domestic enemies should the need arise. I'm sure many others are not.
Additionally, use of a militia by the state can be a bad thing if the state should happen to want to bring its own citizens under control. Read a few history books.
Okay. So let's say Wisconsin decides to declare martial law and use its SDF to crack down on its people. Do you really think the federal government is just going to sit back and allow a governor to declare himself an independent dictator?
