Well Regulated Militia - Defined (death, politicians, goverment, elect)

[JimRom]

Originally Posted by irishcopper

Require background checks for all gun purchases: Yes

Require a waiting period before a person may receive a gun after making a purchase: No

Require safe storage of firearms: Who defines what safe is?

Require reporting for lost and stolen guns within 72 hours: Yes, why wouldn't you?

Close gun show loopholes: Yes, I wouldn't sell a firearm to a stranger without them completing a ATF Form 4473 and doing a transfer through a FFL

Create red flag laws to protect those who may be a danger to themselves or others: No

Ban sales of high-capacity ammunition magazines: No, no, no!

Ban sales of semi-automatic firearms: No, no, no!

Require a license: No

Require liability insurance: No

Require training: I have mixed feelings about this. I qualified and trained on military and law enforcement firing ranges for 42 years. Now that I'm retired I have to use public ranges. I see a lot of unsafe practices at these ranges which make me very uneasy.

Requiring a background check for every transfer of a firearm would require a registry of all firearms owned by American citizens. There is no other way to enforce it. How are you against licensing but in favor of a registry?

[Nov3]

All 20,
Might also consider
An IQ test
A letter from your grandma
And a dexterity test
( All in jest though : )

[Ex New Yorker]

Originally Posted by warhorse78

The only ones who are against it are your elite overlords who want to create a One World Order, and the USA's gun rights is their biggest hurdle. And of course their minions who they brainwashed.

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by irishcopper

Require background checks for all gun purchases: Yes

Require a waiting period before a person may receive a gun after making a purchase: No

Require safe storage of firearms: Who defines what safe is?

Require reporting for lost and stolen guns within 72 hours: Yes, why wouldn't you?

Close gun show loopholes: Yes, I wouldn't sell a firearm to a stranger without them completing a ATF Form 4473 and doing a transfer through a FFL

Create red flag laws to protect those who may be a danger to themselves or others: No

Ban sales of high-capacity ammunition magazines: No, no, no!

Ban sales of semi-automatic firearms: No, no, no!

Require a license: No

Require liability insurance: No

Require training: I have mixed feelings about this. I qualified and trained on military and law enforcement firing ranges for 42 years. Now that I'm retired I have to use public ranges. I see a lot of unsafe practices at these ranges which make me very uneasy.

Why against a waiting period? I think that this alone could save many lives.

[lifeexplorer]

Originally Posted by arr430

To me, a well-regulated militia has, at a minimum:
1. A chain of command
2. A roster of troops
3. Internal training and discipline
4. An inventory of armory
5. Logistic support.

I was never an A-student in ROTC, but I think this pretty close to the minimum for anyone with military pretensions.

To you? Sure. That’s your definition. You are not an A student in history or laws.

The real definition of a well regulated militia was defined in 1776. It meant well equipped.

[Volobjectitarian]

Originally Posted by AguaDulce

1. Require background checks for all gun purchases
   
2. Require a waiting period before a person may receive a gun after making a purchase
3. Require safe storage of firearms
4. Require reporting for lost and stolen guns within 72 hours
5. Close gun show loopholes
6. Create red flag laws to protect those who may be a danger to themselves or others
7. Ban sales of high-capacity ammunition magazines
8. Ban sales of semi-automatic firearms
9. Require a license
10. Require liability insurance
11. Require training

Questions:

- Which of these potential regulations do you support?
Which ones are absolutely unacceptable?

Per the ones I highlighted:

• We already have background checks on all gun sales that happen outside a private individual transaction, so whatever. Not sure how you enforce doing a background check if a brother trades a gun to his sister, or Grandma gives her Glock to her grandaughter who just got an apartment in an "up and coming" neighborhood, etc. It seems so totally unenforceable given the size of the US, the number of currently owned firearms and the simple mathematical reality of number of government eyes watching versus number of people that need to be watched. But sure, say all weapon transfers need a background check. Does that mean all citizens get access to the NICS for their state and for federal?

• I will accept a license and training requirement for my explicitly protected, individual natural right to keep and bear arms whenever that same requirement is placed on speech, press, religion and most importantly -VOTING. If we are going to start requiring training and licensing in order for people to retain their rights, then apply it to ALL rights. Have the one sweeping amendment that gives the government the power to regulate all natural rights of the People with licensure and training requirements, and while I'll still be pissed off about tyranny, I'll at least respect the consistency.

[Roboteer]

Originally Posted by irishcopper

Require training: I have mixed feelings about this. I qualified and trained on military and law enforcement firing ranges for 42 years. Now that I'm retired I have to use public ranges. I see a lot of unsafe practices at these ranges which make me very uneasy.

It's a VERY good idea to get training on safe gun handling, techniques etc.

But the problem here is in your word "require".

Who's doing the requiring? Government, I assume?

If govt is requiring something, that means that if you don't do what it's requiring, govt can punish you, or forbid you to own or carry a gun, or etc.

And bingo - you just gave govt the power to decide who can own and carry a gun, and who can't.

A flat violation of the 2nd amendment.

And the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd, had very good reasons for denying the govt ANY power to make such decisions.

[Roboteer]

Originally Posted by ansible90

The last part of that Madison quote was interesting: unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals

What that says to me is the state/country does have a right to restrict gun ownership from certain persons who present a danger.

Yup, it says that to me, too.

Which is why that language was carefully KEPT OUT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

[trobesmom]

Originally Posted by AguaDulce

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:

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.



What did our forefathers mean by well regulated militia?



The United States Constitution:

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15-16 (The Militia Clauses)

The Congress shall have Power

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; and

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.



Possible regulations being considered:

1. Require background checks for all gun purchases
2. Require a waiting period before a person may receive a gun after making a purchase
3. Require safe storage of firearms
4. Require reporting for lost and stolen guns within 72 hours
5. Close gun show loopholes
6. Create red flag laws to protect those who may be a danger to themselves or others
7. Ban sales of high-capacity ammunition magazines
8. Ban sales of semi-automatic firearms
9. Require a license
10. Require liability insurance
11. Require training

Questions:

- Which of these potential regulations do you support?
Which ones are absolutely unacceptable?

I would require all of the above. Why not?

[AguaDulce]

In DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, the question of exactly how much and what kind of regulation might be an impermissible “infringement” was not addressed and seems to have been left to a case by case determination, at least for the present.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf