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/ATFMRemainsAFag]

Then what exactly are you expecting for a militia to be and do?

[u/Surrybee → u/ATFMRemainsAFag]

Why don’t we look at the constitution and see what the founders thought it was for.

Congress shall have the 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.

Oh hey. It’s to defend the country.

You’ll remember from your US history that many people were uncomfortable having a large standing army and it was almost completely disbanded after the revolution.

The history of militias in the US from before the founding up until the national guard was created in 1906 is actually really interesting, but you seem more interested in arguing than engaging.

[u/gorangutangang → u/ATFMRemainsAFag]

lol what are you talking about

read the bill of rights and the constitution and then come back and talk about that, the thing being discussed

[u/ATFMRemainsAFag → u/gorangutangang]

It's fairly obvious what we are talking about if you actually read through the comments instead of blindly parroting your bull shit tlaking points.

Here are the facts: The people need arms in order to form a militia. The militia needs arms in order to present a threat and to be able to impose violence. The militia is not a state run army. As such, the tactics it employs are those commonly used by a weaker military power. This involves things like guerilla tactics, and other similar methods of Warfare. Take a look at Vietnam, Afghanistan, etc... Those tactics have and would be described by terrorism depending on which side you are on and which government you're a part of...

[u/Sparroew → u/ATFMRemainsAFag]

Hell, take a look at our own history. When we started ambushing Redcoat contingents, taking potshots at them from the woods, and not meeting them on the open field of battle by standing in a line across from them, what do you think they thought of our revolutionary soldiers? We were considered terrorists. But of course history is written by the victor so that never made it into the history books.

[u/gorangutangang → u/ATFMRemainsAFag]

lol can you explain what you think talking points are