|Thoughts on “AS179: Tommentary . . .”
||[Oct. 12th, 2015|03:08 pm]
Phrembah (a potato-like mystery)
Thank you for acknowledging the existence of the first half of the whole sentence that constitutes the Second Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . . ." Most people on both sides of the gun issue just pretend that that's not even there.
My solution to the "unlimited guns in the hands of random whack-jobs" problem would be to take the first half of the sentence to be as important as the last half (the Framers did) and link gun ownership to a "well REGULATED militia." To join the "militia," though, and thus have the right to keep and bear arms, one would need to undergo training and evaluation very similar to that required to join a police force or the military. Militia training/screening would consist of (but maybe not be limited to):
1) Firearms training with a heavy emphasis on firearms safety.
2) A thorough psychological evaluation and a complete review of one's medical history (including mental illness).
3) A rather extensive background check (criminal record, etc.).
4) Tactical training, often referred to as shoot/don't-shoot scenario training, wherein the trainee is taught how to evaluate a situation for the need and potential effectiveness of deadly force, considering bystander safety and possibly effective alternatives.
5) Range qualification where the trainee must prove a level of proficiency with their weapon and the ability to handle and fire it without endangering themselves or bystanders.
6) Periodic re-qualification (every two years or so, so if you develop severe paranoid delusions or a bad tremor in your shootin' arm, you're not grandfathered in for the rest of your life).
Such a course might be taught evenings and weekends and last several months. When someone passed such a course, they would be qualified to own and carry a particular size and type of weapon. To own a different type of weapon, they would have to train and qualify on that type, like pilots do (someone who can fly a single engine prop plane is not automatically qualified to operate a multi-engine jet).
Those serious about owning guns for hunting or self defense would not be prevented from doing so, but they would have to prove a certain level of maturity and responsibility. I'll bet that such requirements would weed out 99% of those who commit the horrific mass murders we've experienced in the US.
What part of WELL REGULATED don't we understand?