2nd Amendment misunderstood - ireport from CNN

[FreakWentFlyer]

Looking for some thoughts and insight concerning this article.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-819622

 

[fleaman64]

Looking for some thoughts and insight concerning this article.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-819622

Seems accurate. What did you think?

 

[kohburn]

every militia person in the state has to requal twice a year?

thats a defactor gun ban because its logisticly impossible and overly burdensome to both the people and the state

 

[kohburn]

it starts off good then falls apart into "scary assault weapon high capacity magazine" drivel

 

[Fox123]

The scale and scope of what is suggested is simply not practical.

 

[FreakWentFlyer]

I have to run out the door, but I'll jump in a little since I started the thread. The idea of mandatory training and certification bothers me and the fact that it will mean another tax is going to bother even more people. Also...what is the scope of the training? It seems that from a financial standpoint, the training would have to be very basic, yet once completed the trainee will be able to buy whatever arms they desire regardless of the complexity of their use.

I don't like the idea of tying federal funding to hoops that states must jump through. Yes, it's commonplace, but no matter how well intended these measures are, they often seem to sour quickly.

Having said this, I think I agree with the basic principal of this article and I'm enjoying the perspective from which this article has forced me to view the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Al's Snackbar]

Nice idea, but it ain't gonna work.

For starters most libs can't take any "training" whatsoever, and then there are some of us ex-mil who are not going to tolerate any "training", anymore. Been there, done that, not doing it again.

With that, the Gunny's idea is DOA.

 

[Mooseman]

The training twice a year seems overly burdensome.

 

[gamer_jim]

I need to do a lot more reading on this but part of the "security of a free State" is individual right to protect themselves from being robbed or otherwise attacked. If people couldn't defend themselves then our economy suffers due to crime and higher cost doing business. No, I'm not saying it's only for this reason but I think the founders had that in mind as one of the reasons for it. Also, the founding fathers wanted us to have our own right to do this, not have someone do it for us. So the argument that a bigger civilian police force doesn't change the need for the 2nd amendment because it's still my right to protect myself to live in peace.

 

[G O B]

It is factually inaccurate - 109 years since a Governor called up the unorganized militia? The Governor of Maryland called up the civilian 'militia' in WWII.

 

[BUFF7MM]

there are some of us ex-mil who are not going to tolerate any "training", anymore. Been there, done that, not doing it again.

 

[Fox123]

Plus mental evaluations twice a year for every male in America?

Where are you going to find enough qualified doctors? How are you going to pay them?

How about we just say that free men have the right to purchase own and bear arms. (and leave it at that)

 

[boricuamaximus]

Plus mental evaluations twice a year for every male in America?

Where are you going to find enough qualified doctors? How are you going to pay them?

How about we just say that free men have the right to purchase own and bear arms. (and leave it at that)

Hey new guy. No common sense is allowed 'round these here parts!

 

[Zombie_013]

I thought contemporary federal govt considered organized militias domestic terrorists?

 

[Zombie_013]

Hey new guy. No common sense is allowed 'round these here parts!

you ain't kiddin'

 

[Speaker2Wolves]

speaker2wolves

From a constitutional perspective, giving each Governor their own personal national guard, no strike that, their own personal guard, might not be in keeping with the intent of the founding fathers.

You have to understand, state militias at one time were the ONLY armed forces. The colonies couldn't afford to pay and house a standing army. Historically, contemporary states or princes would hire mercenary forces rather carry the burden of a peacetime army, but this was largely unsatisfactory for a number of reasons, which led to the idea of citizen "militias." These were seen as an an extension of the ideal promulgated by the English Whig or Classical Republicans parties who viewed citizen militias as having originated in the classic Greek city state and therefore "necessary to a free State."

However, the argument for citizen militias in today's world is much weaker, given that we have the National Guard and that most battles today are decided more by who has air dominance and less by how many riflemen you can field. Training citizens every six months to be riflemen won't change the outcome of a war fought on American soil, and just might encourage a nut job Governor into thinking he can step on Federal prerogatives. (Vis-a-Vis calling them up to bar blacks from being admitted to public schools, for instance.)

 

[hvymax]

every militia person in the state has to requal twice a year?

thats a defactor gun ban because its logisticly impossible and overly burdensome to both the people and the state

If you are not trained and qualified then how could you be considered a part of anything.

 

[MJD438]

If you are not trained and qualified then how could you be considered a part of anything.

Those of us between the ages of 18 & 45 with swinging appendages between our legs are already considered part of something under law per the Militia Act...

 

[Maestro Pistolero]

I suspect this is step one of a straw-man argument. There are just enough good ideas in there to hold a modicum of credibility.

And then it goes a bit over the edge. For example:

"Repeal all federal gun control laws". Really? Repeal bans on felons, mentally ill, and drug addicts? Transporting weapons across state lines for the purpose of committing violent crime? No simple check of a person's criminal record before approving a gun purchase?

 

[LCPIWB]

"We decide who is worthy to have a 'battlefield' weapon."
mmmm, no thank you. We know where "We know what a battlefield weapon is when we see it." will get us.
Although it seems to be a pro-2A article, it is really a thinly-valed "We are you overlords, and you really have no rights from God. You do what we say, and how we say it."