The gun debate: Think militia, as in training

The gun debate: Think militia, as in training | ajc.com

(H/T Conservative Scalawag)

Those well-intentioned folks who would restrict access to firearms (eg: "Gun Grabbers") have a quiver full of arrows which they can use to propose "Sensible Gun-Control Laws".

One of the "sensible" requirements which they propose is "training".

Lord knows I'm in favor of training. I spend a lot of time on shooting ranges, and I see people who aren't trained and who have no clue what to do when they have a gun in their hand. Scares the pee-wadding out of me. The first thing I want to do is to walk over to them and make gentle suggestions about what they should do that is right ... not what they do that is wrong. They usually get the idea within the first five minutes, and 'new shooters' are typically eager to learn the nuances of safe gun-handling.

This isn't what the Gun Grabbers have in mind.

Instead, they want to legislate a minimal 30+ hours of formal education, and to certify every gun owner as being 'safe' to shoot. At least, that's what they say.

The truth of the matter is, they aren't so much interested in safe gun-handling as they are in registering the folks who own guns, so they know whose door to knock on when it comes time to take those guns away from them.

What? You say I'm paranoid?

Just because I'm paranoid, that doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

Look at the history of Lundgen and SKS "Assault Rifles" in California.

If we ever doubted that "Registration" equals "confiscation", this defines the process. (A man who was moving to California from out-of-state asked if his SKS was legal. The California Attorney General affirmed that it was legal, requiring only registration of the rifle. Two years later, California changed its laws and the man, because his his firearm was 'registered', was legally required to turn in his SKS without compensation.)


Let's look at the opinion of Mr. Richard Oppelt's opinion, as stated in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

"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." —- full text of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The judiciary has interpreted the Second Amendment to exclude the first part of this foundation of our constitutional set of rights. We have permitted our government to abandon the commitment to a well-regulated militia. Perhaps a solution to the senseless shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois is to reinvigorate the commitment to a well-regulated militia by mandating training as a requirement for gun ownership.

The author has "permitted" nothing in regard to the Second Amendment of the Constitution. In stating the 'exclusion' of the first phrase of the 2nd amendment, he has defined the amendment as being an individual right, disregarding the militia content.

What is left of that amendment neither states nor implies "training" as a precursor to the right to Keep and Bear Arms; yet he proposes it as a requirement, which is nowhere in the Constitution. Everything in this first phase of his quote is automatically rendered void.

The problem is not guns per se. It is when those guns are in the hands of people who should not have them. A requirement that gun owners undergo mandatory training would provide an opportunity to assess the fitness of a gun owner to have the weapon. Those people on medication for mental illness could be restricted until they have recovered.

It's true; "the problem is not guns per se. It is when these guns are in the hands of people who should not have them."

The problem is defined; but the author makes no attempt to pragmatically define those "... who should not have them." Nor does he offer a reasonable definition of that group of people. Reading his statement, the presumption is that the problem is with gun-owners who are not trained. That's a fallacious statement. "Gun Violence" has nothing to do with training, but it has everything to do with malicious intent. Legal firearms owners, and those who adhere to local (county?) requirements necessary to acquire a Concealed Handgun License are definitively not criminally inclined. They may not be trained in the safe gun-handling practices needed to demonstrate the ability to safely use a handgun, but this is not a source of public peril.

Mandatory training would not take the guns from criminals, but would better assure a well-regulated militia to guard the populace from criminal elements. Perhaps over time it would reduce the availability of weapons to criminals, as the waiting period on buying a gun would be replaced by training that the applicant would have to complete before receiving the weapon. This would facilitate the background checks necessary to authorize the gun buyer to be included as part of the militia.

No. No, and No.

The entire thrust of the original article is obviously to present impediments to those law-abiding citizens who would be willing to present evidence of their responsibility of firearms ownership. The author admits that his proposed steps " ... would not take the guns from criminals ..." and if he were sincere about making a 'safer world' for us all, this would be his priority. Instead of presenting a scheme which would restrict firearms access to criminals, he presents a scheme which would restrict access to firearms for law-abiding citizens.

Different levels of training would be required depending on the weapon. Huntsmen with long guns might only be required to attend a periodic refresher course timed with the various hunting seasons. The training for guns in urban areas would be different. People having guns to defend their home would be trained for that use, including the safe storage of weapons. They would also be taught to use the weapon effectively. Lastly, members of the militia carrying weapons in public urban areas would obtain the highest level of training. They would be trained in not only the handling of the weapon but also conflict resolution.

Again, no. He proposes 'levels' of training, which have nothing to do with reducing crime; he only proposes burdensome, expensive and difficult state-regulated training courses which would often duplicate current training (eg: "Hunter Safety") without the benefit to honest citizens.

Providing mandatory training would be a new service industry, funded partially by fees paid by owners and partially by our taxes. Commercial interests could prosper. Conscientious people should embrace training and engaging with other people having similar interests in responsible gun ownership.

Oh, swell! Not only has he suggested encumbering our system of allowing honest citizens to use the firearms they already own, but he has established a system which imposes new taxes, fees and other expenses for the "privilege" of exercising our rights under the Second Amendment. Apparently, there is nothing under the Constitution which is available without fees. (Consider a "Fee to attend church" or a "Fee to write a letter to the Editor of your local newspaper." This guy is a total dweeb!

With the right of gun ownership comes the responsibility of being part of the militia. However, legislatures cannot take action in this direction until such time as the judiciary puts the pieces of the Second Amendment back together and validates the requirement for a well-regulated militia for modern times.

No, No, No, No!

The 2nd Amendment does not establish a RESPONSIBILITY to be a member of the Militia, it establishes a RIGHT to be a member. Also, and more important, it establishes a right to personally possess the basic tool of a Militia: a firearm.

If you never understood the Second Amendment, read this article. And everything this guy says ... assume that he has turned it around entirely back-assward.

That's the closest to 'reason' you will ever get, if you are willing to waste your time reading this opinion.