General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsStates just need to stop behaving outside the constitution
Right wingers LOVE LOVE LOVE their constitution, so why not just make any state that has ANY registered guns, actually FORM those militias.
The militias (well-regulated of course) will then be in charge of keeping track of (and be responsible financially for) the activities of guns in that state.
Each state could "franchise" the well-regulated part of the measure to localities who would then be in charge of setting up facilities where those guns would be put to use for the REGULAR/SCHEDULED meetings and training sessions.
And as part of the well-regulated militias, those members (gun-owners) would also be required to make themselves available in case of any emergency, just as the National Guard does as well..
The militias (since they are so skilled with weapons) would also be first in line if extra soldiers are needed.
Automatic weapons belonging to other-than law enforcement or active military should be assigned to the member's closest drill-facility, so it would be safe and secure, but still readily available for practice.
That would also be lifting a burden from those beleaguered gun owners since their guns would be safe and secure and unavailable for nefarious purposes.
They might even offer their guns to be "rented" to fun-seekers/would-be militia joiners as long as they use them at the regulated militia shooting range facilities.
By having these guns secured, it would also draw a very bold line between legal and illegal. Any gun seen or discovered OUTSIDE the regulated militia facility would be subject to confiscation.
It's time the states-righters stepped up and started paying attention to one of their dearest amendments...and time to start honoring the full extent of the amendment..
You know that's what the founding fathers would have wanted.
malaise
(268,715 posts)and make them pay literally and figuratively. Obey or get out.
cali
(114,904 posts)the SCOTUS?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)overturning to do..or Constitutional amending..
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)No.