The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Second Amendment => Topic started by: edpc on August 07, 2019, 10:46:59 pm
-
(CNN) — The modest proposal I'm going to make here may come off as absurd.
[snip]
That's why I want to share a solution that should resolve the logjam blocking sensible reform of gun ownership in this country — one that by all rights should get overwhelming support among American patriots of both parties. I call it the "Military Induction for Licensing, Instruction and Training In Arms" Act — the MILITIA Act for short.
[snip]
The proposal is simple: Anyone purchasing a gun should be required to enlist for military reserve service, spanning the entire period of their gun ownership.
Under this proposal, being granted a handgun license would simultaneously and automatically register you to serve as a reservist in the Armed Forces branch of your choice — it's that simple. And it should be that simple ... because it's what the framers intended.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/08/07/opinions/second-amendment-solution-to-gun-violence-yang/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F%3Fadsqa%3Dappname%253Dsqa%26cid%3Dsamsung-quick-access (https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/08/07/opinions/second-amendment-solution-to-gun-violence-yang/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F%3Fadsqa%3Dappname%253Dsqa%26cid%3Dsamsung-quick-access)
-
I think he's correct - it sounds absurd.
-
Work with local sheriffs to form local militias.
-
Work with local sheriffs to form local militias.
Makes more sense to me, but being in the militia (army) wasn't a requirement for the people having arms, having a standing army was a reason for the people to have them.
From Federalist 46:
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
-
Makes more sense to me, but being in the militia (army) wasn't a requirement for the people having arms, having a standing army was a reason for the people to have them.
From Federalist 46:
Oh, I understand that. Given the situation we find ourselves in, it would eliminate that particular argument: "it's only applies to being in a militia".
-
Mark me down for mandatory national service.
-
Makes more sense to me, but being in the militia (army) wasn't a requirement for the people having arms, having a standing army was a reason for the people to have them.
From Federalist 46:
Yep, during the Founding Era the term “militia†referred to the citizenry generally, or at least to all able-bodied men between certain ages. This CNN article is just an attempt to limit guns to citizens which in it's day owning a gun was a given for putting food on the table and didn't require a bunch of red tape, in fact none was required.
-
(CNN) — The modest proposal I'm going to make here may come off as absurd.
[snip]
That's why I want to share a solution that should resolve the logjam blocking sensible reform of gun ownership in this country — one that by all rights should get overwhelming support among American patriots of both parties. I call it the "Military Induction for Licensing, Instruction and Training In Arms" Act — the MILITIA Act for short.
[snip]
The proposal is simple: Anyone purchasing a gun should be required to enlist for military reserve service, spanning the entire period of their gun ownership.
Under this proposal, being granted a handgun license would simultaneously and automatically register you to serve as a reservist in the Armed Forces branch of your choice — it's that simple. And it should be that simple ... because it's what the framers intended.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/08/07/opinions/second-amendment-solution-to-gun-violence-yang/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F%3Fadsqa%3Dappname%253Dsqa%26cid%3Dsamsung-quick-access (https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/08/07/opinions/second-amendment-solution-to-gun-violence-yang/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F%3Fadsqa%3Dappname%253Dsqa%26cid%3Dsamsung-quick-access)
Well, I'm not entirely sure that's what the founders intended.
I do wonder, though, would they be more appalled at "a handgun license", or "being granted"?
-
Well, I'm not entirely sure that's what the founders intended.
I do wonder, though, would they be more appalled at "a handgun license", or "being granted"?
We're already a degree of separation from the seminal argument when we debate about being licensed to exercise a fundamental Civil Right.
-
We're already a degree of separation from the seminal argument when we debate about being licensed to exercise a fundamental Civil Right.
Would be better in my mind to have gun safety/hunter safety/survival training as a series of junior and high school classes - Like it used to be.
I am not against a 'license' that proves a level of expertise... What for, I don't know... :shrug:
-
Would be better in my mind to have gun safety/hunter safety/survival training as a series of junior and high school classes - Like it used to be.
I am not against a 'license' that proves a level of expertise... What for, I don't know... :shrug:
Have firearms safety and standard and advanced first aid and CPR, along with driver's education, to round out the year. Teach kids things that can save their (or someone else's) lives.
-
Have firearms safety and standard and advanced first aid and CPR, along with driver's education, to round out the year. Teach kids things that can save their (or someone else's) lives.
That's right.