Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That's something that's always puzzled me.

The impression I get as a non-American is that the "well-regulated militia" bit is more or less ignored - like you're meant to register with your local militia in order to have a gun, but no-one actually checks up on it?

So why not tighten that up?

Define a well-regulated militia as being one that requires, say, 200 hours of training to join, followed by a further 100 hours a year thereafter. Include annual proficiency testing and mental health assessments. Mandatory RFID tagging of all weapons. Minimum standards for safe gun and ammunition storage, backed up with regular inspections. Insurance for damage or injury to third parties. If you fail any of that, you're turfed out, and not allowed to have a gun.

Really basic minimal steps like those would have a greater impact than any weird chemical weapons drone system, and if you make the militiae themselves pay for it, it would be essentially cost neutral.



It’s because the stupid amendment is ambiguous.

“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.”

Technically, it could be argued that the Militia clause is descriptive of one particular application of guns, not prescriptive of their every Constitutional use. But there has been endless disagreement on this subject.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: