Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[danielpalos]

Natural rights are secured in State Constitutions; which includes the right to acquire and possess private property in the class called Arms.

 

[Ringel05]

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

Wonder how I missed this one. During the colonial and post revolution eras militias were not "organized" in the sense you're trying to portray. Every male between the ages of 16 and 65 (barring clergy and magistrates) were considered a part of their local militia, some drilled, some did not. All were required to purchase a suitable long arm and accouterments, weapons stored in the very few armories that existed (mainly in larger more wealthy towns) were there for those who could not afford to purchase firearms, as storage for canon, shot and powder to be issued though in most cases each individual was also responsible for owning specific amounts of shot and powder to be kept in their homes. People were expected how to use a firearm and most did know as they were used fairly extensively primarily for hunting even by some in the larger cities and towns who would hunt outside of town for personal and commercial consumption.
In some locals the firearms in the armories were kept to be sold on a payment plan to those who could not afford one on their own and pay outright, once sold it did not remain in the armory.

 

[danielpalos]

dear gun lovers,

not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated even as Individuals.

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.

 

[danielpalos]

Thus, Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

dear gun lovers,

not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated even as Individuals.

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.

not All of the Militia of the United States is well regulated even as Individuals.

The level of regulation doesn't impact the right to bear arms.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thus, Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

Which Persons of the People, should there be Any need to quibble?

Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which Persons of the People, should there be Any need to quibble?

Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

All the persons. Even non-militia persons.

 

[danielpalos]

Which Persons of the People, should there be Any need to quibble?

Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

All the persons. Even non-militia persons.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which Persons of the People, should there be Any need to quibble?

Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

All the persons. Even non-militia persons.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Yes, the whole people have the right.

 

[BlackSand]

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

What exactly would you be willing to compromise in return for any of this bullshit?

.

 

[westwall]

The current text: "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."

The right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

Not just no, but HELL no.

 

[danielpalos]

Which Persons of the People, should there be Any need to quibble?

Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

All the persons. Even non-militia persons.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Yes, the whole people have the right.

dear; here is the relevant string of words regarding who has that right, should there be Any need to quibble in public venues: Only well regulated militias of the People

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Which Persons of the People, should there be Any need to quibble?

Only well regulated militias of the People may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

All the persons. Even non-militia persons.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Yes, the whole people have the right.

dear; here is the relevant string of words regarding who has that right, should there be Any need to quibble in public venues: Only well regulated militias of the People

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yup, all the people.

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militias of the People. should there be Any need to quibble in legal venues: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only well regulated militias of the People. should there be Any need to quibble in legal venues: 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.

Yup, all the people.

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militias of the People. should there be Any need to quibble in legal venues: 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.

Yup, all the people.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, as a privilege and immunity in our fine Republic.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Only well regulated militias of the People. should there be Any need to quibble in legal venues: 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.
Yup, all the people.

You do know that she chooses to be wrong...?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only well regulated militias of the People. should there be Any need to quibble in legal venues: 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.

Yup, all the people.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law, as a privilege and immunity in our fine Republic.

I agree, I can't appeal to your ignorance.