
The Second Amendment solution to gun violence - LinuxBender
https://lite.cnn.io/en/article/h_dc68cbc361f1ff8e9ddc92010ec99cf9
======
waffle_ss
The 2A, like all rights in the Bill of Rights, is an individual right and not
contingent on people forming a collective group to be realized. Pining for the
2A to be contingent on militia service is a common wish for gun control
advocates but was simply not the intent of the founders (corroborated by many
supporting documents of the period, and solidified in the _Heller_ SCOTUS
decision).

Therefore the foundation of this article is both moot and asinine.

~~~
viburnum
This is wrong. Also, the constitution says whatever the majority of the court
says it does.

~~~
flyingfences
Do you care to explain _how_ "this is wrong", especially in light of the well-
researched and authoritative reasoning in the _Heller_ decision?

------
credit_guy
> 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

Allow me to point to a simple loophole that would probably be discovered and
exploited in 24 hours after the law were passed. The Armed Forces currently
consist in 5 branches, but starting next year a new branch, the US Space
Force, may be established [1]. Then millions of gun owners would register with
this branch as reservists, and the inconvenience for them would be minimal to
nil.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Force)

------
stuntkite
But what if I want to own a gun and I am not interested in killing people? Why
do I have to sign up for murdering people in other countries just to geek out
on engineering and target shooting? Maybe he should modify this dumb idea to
make it so only the people who want to murder have to go play army. Put a “is
this gun for human killing?” on the order form. If checked yes you have to
Army.

~~~
DLA
So the US Military is just a bunch of murders? You should not throw around the
word “dumb” (which this CNN clown and his proposal are!) when you make a
completely insane and very disrespectful statement like this. It’s because of
the US Military and the freedoms protected by same that you can say whatever
dumb things you wish.

~~~
stuntkite
I've thought about whether I should respond to this or not. I think we got
some wires crossed. This is a hot button issue and I don't want to kick off a
flame war.

I was being glib, but I was not calling the US military a bunch of murderers.
I was pointing out that it is extremely problematic to force military
conscription to get permission to own a gun because gun ownership does not
mean a person wants to or is capable to go to war and is willing or capable to
take a life in a combat situation. Hell, some people that might want/need a
gun may not even be fit for service. Like my grandmother living on her farm
alone before she passed.

What I was calling dumb was the proposal that OP posted. I feel like maybe you
got the opposite read of my intention because of the flip nature of my post
and I think it's a good idea to clarify. Many apologies.

I support and respect military service people for being willing to take risks
and sacrifice in ways I could not, but I do not think that should be mixed
into being a qualifier for ownership of a firearm.

------
didgeoridoo
I’m one of the freaks who believes that the 2nd Amendment exists in part to
allow the citizenry to defend ourselves from federal tyranny.

However.

I’ve recently been wondering how we might maintain this bulwark while
eliminating individual firearm possession, except in extraordinary and limited
cases.

I wonder if incorporating the 2nd at the _municipal_ level rather than at the
individual level might be the answer.

Individuals could “own” guns, but would be required to store them at their
local police station, and could check them out on a time-limited basis for
recreational purposes, or for self-defense against a specified threat (using a
similar process as getting a restraining order). Periodic psych evaluations
would also be required to maintain check-out privileges.

And, if the federal government goes berserk, there still exists a massive
arsenal outside of their immediate control. Even 5-10% of municipalities
refusing to go along with federal orders would be enough to sustain an armed
resistance that would make Afghanistan look like a tea party.

~~~
dsaavy
Seems like consolidated stockpiles of weapons would make for easy targets of
destruction if there was to be a type of civil conflict. Plus if there is a
civil conflict, guerrilla warfare is a huge strategic capability for the side
that doesn’t have all of the money and technology to utilize. Having to go
check out guns at a local municipality not only puts that strategy at risk
during the checkout period, but I would imagine surveillance technology would
then quickly identify “dissidents” and allow the federal government to target
those dissidents quickly and easily.

~~~
didgeoridoo
Think of it more as an emergency extralegal escape hatch. Once we hit the
point of civil conflict, I’d imagine that many firearms in anti-government
municipalities would “go missing” and end up distributed back to resistance
fighters off the record.

------
integrii
This is one of the dumbest things I've read in awhile, even for CNN.

The second wasn't too form a militia FOR the government, it was too form a
militia AGAINST the government in case it became tyrannical.

Now, maybe you can figure out why efforts to remove firearms by the government
are a non-starter for most people. This separates us from China and others who
would remove our essential rights and liberties.

~~~
integrii
i can't edit my comment but my phone apparently competes to to too.

------
ng12
I think that's a very questionable interpretation of the word militia. By
definition a militia is separate from a country's military.

~~~
dragonwriter
> By definition a militia is separate from a country's military.

No, it's not, a militia is a way of providing a military. (The second
amendment is grounded in the idea, alluded to but not explicitly stated in its
preamble, that it is essential to freedom for a militia mobilized at need to
be _the exclusive way_ for providing a military, including armed domestic
security services, beyond a minimal peacetime cadre for training and
continuity; it isn't to guarantee freedom by providing a competing armed force
to professional ones but instead by preventing the government from adopting
professional forces in the first place. It, to be sure, has failed entirely in
that goal.)

~~~
ng12
I don't buy it. The Continental Army and regional militias existed
independently, both predate the Bill of Rights. It's debatable by the
dictionary definition of the word, but definitely wrong in the context of the
US Constitution.

~~~
WorldMaker
The Continental Army was (mostly) formed under a "Cincinnatus agreement" that
they would return swords to plowshares after the Revolutionary War. At least
_some_ of the founding fathers (and it is said even George Washington) were
under the assumption that the country would not have a Standing/Permanent
Army. There certainly were founding fathers that hoped the Second Amendment to
be an attempt to prevent anything larger than regional/state militias from
forming outside of defensive emergencies as similar "Cincinattus style"
formations of farmers expecting to return home to farming once the war is
over. America even named an entire (semi-)major city Cincinnati to try not to
forget that war shouldn't be an industry, and warriors should stand down in
times of peace. It's strange how remote an ideal that seems today in modern
America.

------
madengr
The second amendment was a compromise to allow a federal, standing army.
Requiring enlistment in such is absurd, and goes against the reason it was
written.

~~~
FrozenTuna
This is what I took away too. Its just so against the "spirit" of why the 2a
was put in. Assuming every history teacher I've ever had wasn't lying to me.
If that's the case, I've got bigger issues to deal with lol.

