Swinglowandslow
Well-known member
Bear arms for the purpose of partaking in a well regulated Militia.
How the current situation can be justified against that intent stretches credibility so far that credibility is broke. That is where many little changes introduced and allowed over many years have an eventual cumulative effect way beyond the original intention. But with 350m weapons in public possession things are way past logical debate over the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment.
Correct... used as an excuse far too long.
There's a lot of Hoo-Har about the Second amendment being a stumbling block to any sort of change.
A quick, off -the-top-my-head suggestion
It could be decided ,complying with the second amendment, to have a State administered, controlled and regulated, body of citizens- call them what you will;
Militia, territorial units, State Guard, to be called upon by the State ( "State" meaning as in Arizona, or California etc) if such a State felt itself to be threatened etc.
Members recruited into its ranks would be vetted and trained etc.
Other citizens of the State would not be considered to be able to hold firearms on the basis of exercising their rights under the second amendment.
There would be National / State laws ( on the principle of the Firearms Act in this Country-UK) governing who and how firearms could be possessed and used by such citizens.
Perhaps reasonable men on each side of the Question in the USA could get around a table and start talking with something such as above as a starting point.
Sure as hell, there needs to be change of some sort.