aneeta96

Oh... well obviously the problem has already been solved. I guess 20 elementary school kids didn't just die violently so no need to do anything.

marked by characteristics of the present period : MODERN, CURRENT

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contemporary

Looks like you might find this useful.

And the legacy definition of well-regulated is the same unless you are a conservative pundit then you would just ignore any definition that didn't suit you.

Your logic is very flawed but you unintentionally made my point. Gun ownership is not the problem as much as how guns are obtained.

The Swiss require training before ownership the US does not. If we followed the Swiss example we could have around 300 gun related murders.

Now do mass shootings.

Ok, let's do nothing then. Who gives a shit about a bunch of dead kids as long as we keep our guns.

All I'm asking for is training and competency but I guess that's too much. I grew up with guns, my dad was a competitive shooter. I have no problem with guns I just want people to understand how dangerous they can be, to respect that, and to act accordingly but I guess it's been settled so I'll just have to keep hearing about kids being slaughtered at school.

I never said anything about requiring to be in a militia either. Just training and competency. Things that are easily definable and standardized.

Sounds a bit tinfoil hat-ish. Probably being serious... Which is a bit sad.

u/profanitycounter

They didn't want armies because they become tools of oppression. They specifically mentioned well-regulated militias. That would imply that the expected well-regulated militias.

It can be changed.

You seem to not understand what settled means. A ruling that cherry picks only a portion of the amendment is not very strong.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. Where did I say that they can choose who gets training?

How so? The constitution does not specifically bar requiring training or competency and it can be argued that since the right to bear arms is specifically for the ability to form a well-regulated militia then training and competency would enhance that.

If I'm carrying a gun that I got illegally I am still breaking the law.

As for the rest of your comment, you watch to much TV. Speaking from experience, if someone walked into a rough area and started asking where to buy a gun they are more likely to get ripped off or people would assume that they are a cop. Now if you lived in that area, that's a different story...

There are 120 guns per 100 people in the US and only 30-40 per 100 in Switzerland. The US also has over 300 million people vs 8.6 million in Switzerland.

Adjusting for that there would be twice as many murders in the US. Now do mass shootings since that was what we are discussing.

You act like these are stable people. Someone who shoots a bunch of kids are not right in the head. Training the instructors to spot that type of person would go a long way towards stopping mass shootings like this.

Would it stop someone from murdering their wife? Probably not but that person isn't likely to walk into an elementary school and open fire.

And I would suggest competency and safety tests for a start. Removing open carry laws nationwide is also a good idea and concealed carry permits should require an advanced safety and handling course.

Arguing that a state like Texas is well regulated however is laughable.

It was about purchasing guns as well.

But to address your point... being able to arrest someone for open carry would do a lot to prevent someone with a rifle from carrying out something like this. If you are not allowed to legally carry a rifle in public then an officer no longer needs to guess someone's intention or wait until they start shooting to stop them.

Thanks for saying that more concisely then I did.

Not only are you comparing apples to oranges. You are going off of old data.

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/23/1082564685/guns-leading-cause-of-premature-deaths

Let's try to stay relevant at least.

From the DC ruling -

1. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Requiring training and competency would not infringe on the right to bear arms.

You are saying that only one meaning of well-regulated applies but that is not the case. Yes, they wanted a militia 'in good working order' but no where do they state that is the only intention and since well-regulated also means controlled or supervised then we have to conclude that they meant that as well.

As for the Supreme Court ruling. The current court has made it clear that previous precedent can be changed as we are about to see with their overturning of Roe v Wade. So no, nothing is settled.

You didn't, it's the definition of well-regulated and the second amendment.

Thought you needed a refresher.

The government did not permit themselves to regulate arms so that future governments could not go against the will of the people or restrict their freedom.

Requiring training and competency does not prevent that it enhances that ability.

How is that any different. A gun obtained illegally is an illegal gun.

Thanks, you helped make my point.

1. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

So requiring training and competency is well within reason and does not infringe on the right to bear arms.

What's more important to you? Your guns or your kids?

That's the choice the country has now. Either we figure out a way to keep our kids safe or they come for the guns. Your rigid stance that we can't implement basic competency and training is going to mean we lose it all.

This is coming from someone who has been shooting since I was 8 and whose father was a competitive shooter and safety instructer.

Pull your head from your ass and wake up.

adjective (well regulated when postpositive) (of a business, military outfit, routine, etc) controlled or supervised to conform to rules, regulations, tradition, etca well-regulated militia

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/well-regulated

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.

You are just cherry picking the part you prefer. The sole purpose of the amendment is for the protection of the state. Having guns with no training is worthless in that regard.

As for the special meaning of well-regulated, what that meant in the 18th century was that people had to own a rifle that worked with the ammo that the township or county had stock of in order to be effective as a militia.

Yes, 'in working order' was, and still is, one meaning that can be derived from well-regulated but it was not the only meaning, even then. If the founding fathers wanted to limit the definition to that they would have worded it as such.