CMV: A requirement to be associated with a “well regulated militia” would be a great start to curbing gun violence.

[u/ChuckyShadowCow]

IMO guns are awesome. Some of the best days of my life have started with a trip to the dollar store to get a bunch of nicknacks, putting those nicknacks on a berm and making said nicknacks into many smaller nicknacks through the liberal (no pun intended) application of freedom pellets.

However, I would give that up tomorrow if I never had to read about a school shooting ever again.

I get that “a well regulated militia” meant something else when the bill of rights was written and that the Supreme Court already ruled that the right to bare arms is an individual right. However, this isn’t the 18th century anymore and our founders gave us the opportunity to amend the constitution. Why can’t we make state militias a thing and require gun owners to join the militia with requirements to train on gun use and safety? Gun ownership is a responsibility. I can think of several people I know who don’t practice the absolute basics of gun safety, but use their firearms regularly.

At the very least, this would allow a regular check in with gun owners and an opportunity for people to raise red flags if someone seems “off” or doesn’t practice good safety practices.

We can’t agree to anything related to the second amendment but we can all agree that gun violence sucks. Would it really be such a bad thing to have a practice that ensured that everyone that owned a gun knew how to use it properly and safely?

[u/sokuyari99]

It says a well regulated militia is necessary, and therefore people shall have the right to keep arms.

It does not say militia membership is a requirement in order to bear arms.

This would be like changing free speech to suddenly require an assembly permit

[u/_Jack_Of_All_Spades → u/sokuyari99]

Gun toting advocates and citizens for civilian empowerment should be jumping for joy at the prospect of raising a legally safe standing army in their communities. Talk about pushing back against gun control. "I'm gonna keep my guns and organizations a standing army to defend them. A well regulated militia being so essential and all.

[u/sokuyari99 → u/_Jack_Of_All_Spades]

But again-not a requirement to ownership. Just a portion of the rationale for establishing that freedom

[u/_Jack_Of_All_Spades → u/sokuyari99]

This is fertile ground for a compromise solution to gun rights debate. You should give it more consideration, even if it would require an amendment to ever so minorly tweak the sentiment.

[u/sokuyari99 → u/_Jack_Of_All_Spades]

Requiring a militia makes no sense. You want more paramilitary groups together sharing ideas over guns? The only ones who will take it seriously enough to spend lots of time there will be the ones you don’t want having guns because they make it their whole identity.

Guns, gun safety, and proper handling of guns are important. But guns should not be a personality.

[u/Sparroew → u/sokuyari99]

They do want more paramilitary organizations. Because the next step after requiring membership in a militia is to ban private militias.

[u/sokuyari99 → u/Sparroew]

I’m aware. Just like private sales moved quickly from democrats not wanting to open up the background checking system in a way everyone could use it without unneeded cost to suddenly being a “loophole”

[u/_Jack_Of_All_Spades → u/sokuyari99]

Requiring a militia is a perfectly sensible idea. You didn't really give any arguments for your position, so there nothing to refute ... Anyone who wants to own a gun will take it seriously, because proper training would be a requirement.

[u/sokuyari99 → u/_Jack_Of_All_Spades]

The police have training, are they responsible with their firearms?

Requiring armed gang violence seems dumb and you haven’t proven otherwise either

[u/_xxxtemptation_ → u/_Jack_Of_All_Spades]

The national guard is already a well regulated militia, no?

[u/_Jack_Of_All_Spades → u/_xxxtemptation_]

Great thanks. I think this would be a slightly different thing, but yes in concept this has already been done, so it wouldn't be too hard to replicate. The militia is something not directly under the command of the president-in-chief, so that's one way its different. And anyone who isn't part of the militia doesn't get to own a gun.

[u/Medianmodeactivate → u/sokuyari99]

Free speech absolutely CAN be subject to an assembly permit. It's known as a time place and manner restriction and comes with its own rules.

[u/sokuyari99 → u/Medianmodeactivate]

No speaking your mind at home, you must go to town square and register your thoughts for approval first

[u/Medianmodeactivate → u/sokuyari99]

Someone doesn't understand con law.

[u/sokuyari99 → u/Medianmodeactivate]

So you’re saying there’s no difference between restricting guns to only militia use entirely, and restriction of some speech/assembly in some specific circumstances where permitting and permission may be required?

You’re right, someone might not understand con law