That is not a problem at all. If one hasn't been needed, it's no problem.. Just like no one built an ark to house all the species of animals in case of flood lately ... no reason to. No problem.The problem is, most state governors (with the exception of Alaska and select units in other states, such as Texas) haven't called up the Unorganized Militia for combat training to make them "well-regulated" in 109 years.
My response : "shall not be infringed"For gun control advocates, this ensures that every person who is able to legally purchase, possess, and carry a modern battlefield weapon has been psychologically cleared (If you underwent marriage counseling/depressed over a divorce years ago ... ... forget passing ...)
Also, possession and carrying of battlefield/rare/exotic weapons by a non military, law enforcement, and/or state militia members should result in SEVERE, FEDERAL criminal penalties,
So, much like Mexico ... Only the elite select ones with the Government approval for weapons would be allowed
Grrr there goes part of the Renaissance Festival Costume
Once you graduate from this training (what if you don't pass? Some states make it too tough to pass ...) provided for by the state, you are issued a State Militia ID card, much like the Military ID card in my wallet right now. After the passage of this act, the point-of-purchase requirement, rather than a background check, and regardless of the location of the transaction (i.e. gun store, gun show, Wal Mart, or Uncle Ned's kitchen table) will be the presentation of a valid Militia ID, Military ID or law enforcement credentials from the firearms purchaser.
Wait ... Uncle Ned will turn in records on me buying a gun from him.... we don't need to turn that info in to government registration database record-keepers now ... What if Uncle Ned dies and leaves it to me ... do we turn in a copy of the will to the Gun registration database Dept? ... This bit won't get passed into legislation
My response : "It Limits" sort of conflicts with "shall not be infringed" sooo What's the cost to taxpayers in Court cost going to be on this contradiction?Furthermore, it limits...
Requalification as a state militiaman should take place at least twice a year,
87 year old Great-Grandpa will run right down twice a year for re-qualification after getting someone to watch the farm a while so he can re-qualify and get government approval to own a gun
positive that this Act gives the pro-gun crowd is taxpayer-funded combat training,
Great-granpa needs that for when wild boar or rabid skunk fight back over a sheep ... and surely everyone will want to pay for his training with their tax money
that's all the response needed imho
AGAINFor advocates of the Second Amendment, this act allows nationwide public carriage of ALL battlefield-appropriate arms (machine guns, etc.) for militiamen
So, much like Mexico ... Only the elite select ones with the "Militiaman Government approval" for weapons would be allowed ... kinda sounds like infringement for the unapproved class of persons but allows army/FBI/National Guard/Coast Guard/government approved Militiamen/CIA/ to carry what they want where they want, but not the average citizen of this country a/k/a "The People"
Again, the 2A is about protection of individuals FROM a militia, so this is really an anti 2A proposal to the extent that it makes certain people government approved militiamen and grants them the right to exercise the right we all have, and denies the right to exercise the right to those not government approved to BE a militia.
WHAT ABOUT Some have no desire to belong to a militia (for whatever reason, RELIGION- conscientious objectors and the like or just not wanting more "leaders" however "unorganized" or "disorganized" the militia to which he/she "belonged" might be) are these forced to be "in the militia" in order to exercise the right they already have which no government gave them?
And ... WHAT ABOUT perhaps they are too old or feeble or physically disabled ... are these denied the ability to "be in the militia" in order to exercise the right they already have which no government gave them?
I see an Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit here against the Militia who denies entry to the elderly feeble ones who don't "qualify" twice a year.
I am pro-2A, we already have the militia of a standing army as a necessary evil and I'm against forming more militias which are not necessary .. because I am pro-2A.
The only thing I see the proposed additional some are govt approved/ordained while others are rejected exclusive militia membership club doing is adding MORE restrictions/infringements upon the right the 2A was written to protect.... because it is supposed to protect individuals from the militia/government.
Yet it accepts some and rejects others ability to exercise the right to protect themselves from the government and the government-authorized militia decides who can protect themselves from Itself ... or not.
This is more oppressive than something like suing city hall under Tort Claims Act where you essentially must get permission from the city to sue the city ... (oversimplification for dramatic effect)
Mr. Government, will you approve me and gimme a militia membership card to get a weapon to protect myself from the government (you)?
=================================================================================================
The problem is:
People forget that they have a right of self protection; no government gave them that right.
Some governments recognize the above right, as we did, and others pass laws restricting it, as we have let "them" do.that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these ...
More laws won't fix it.
We have the right, we need to remind Government that we do, why we do, where it came from, and repeal laws which restricted it.
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Like I said; I'm glad you ostensibly wrote about the 2A, but your proposition wouldn't pass on either side the Anti-nor the Pro-2A people would go for it; antis wouldn't let militia people carry anti-tank weapons in the movies; Pro-2A wouldn't stand for even more limitations/infringements than we are already forced to accept.... I can't see the legislation passing to create such additional militias which you stated initially that we do not need (evidenced by the fact that ...but also that both sides could agree on.
So, legislators on BOTH SIDES of the Aisle will say ...most state governors (with the exception of Alaska and select units in other states, such as Texas) haven't called up the Unorganized Militia for combat training to make them "well-regulated" in 109 years.
Why build an ark we don't need and force taxpayers to pay for it in added training recordkeeping and associated costs?
Realistically, both sides will find reasons they won't like it.
That's why I say it won't happen.
) that just wants to tweak it a bit, take a little of this and a little of that, and make everyone happy. Nothing personnel, but you will never make everyone happy, and once you start the tweaking, you will never stop. We have Supreme Court Justices today that want to go back and revise the entire bill for a better fit into our new modern society. Give them an inch, and you better stand back.
