I wrote earlier about the need to repeal the Second Amendment. Obviously, this will never happen. Common sense isn't and, as I've pointed out repeatedly, people are stupid.
So, let's examine the Second Amendment and see if we can accomplish the same goals (reducing the number of firearms-related deaths in the United States) but still pass constitutional muster.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There are two parts to this: the justification and the prohibition. The justification says we need a well regulated militia. The prohibition is not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. But as I've argued, without the former, you really can't justify the latter. We have no well regulated militia based on the right to keep and bear arms. We only have the right without justification.
Previously, I pointed out that this means the Second Amendment is obsolete (it is) and utterly unnecessary (also true) based on its justification. But in light of human stupidity, another justification for dealing with the propensity of people to use their lawfully acquired weapons to wreck havoc on their family, friends, neighbors, co-workers and loved ones, it behooves us to come up with a justification to "regulate" arms in such a way that the Second Amendment actually fulfills its purpose., and still fulfills the need to stop the slaughter.
Right now, a major threat to the security of the United States is the fact that any idiot can go out and buy or own a gun - and most do, resulting in 30,000 American deaths per year. That's a major threat to the security of the United States. The first part of the Second Amendment clearly says this is why we need well regulated militias.
So the big things here are fulfilling the mandate of the Second Amendment without necessarily regulating who can own a gun.
As I mentioned before, the Second Amendment arose due to a lack of funding in the nascent United States Government to support a standing army capable of defending itself. Obviously, we've come a long way from that point and militias aren't strictly necessary to defend the United States. However, although they aren't necessary, they are mandated by the Second Amendment.
After all, it clearly says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a Free State.
And our militias aren't exactly well regulated nor do any of them have anything to do with the U.S. government. We have a National Guard (the modern equivalent of the Militia), but at the same time, they don't need the RIGHT to keep and bear arms outside of their duties as National Guardsmen. They have the obligation to do so while on duty as directed by their commanding officers.
So, it comes down to cases of actually adhering to the reason we have the Second Amendment: Maintaining well regulated militias. The implication is that these militias will be armed by the personal arms of its members.
The biggest problem with gun ownership is idiocy and a lack of training and responsibility.
So let's bring back militias.
Simply put, militias were required to drill and train to defend the country. It was expected of every man (women weren't given the vote till the 1920's, after all) to fulfill their obligation by being responsible, training and being disciplined by the training in their local militia. Obviously, we don't need a bunch of "citizen soldiers" acting as local militias, but according to the Second Amendment, it CAN be made compulsory for all gun owners to drill and train become well regulated.
After all, that well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a Free State, according to the Second Amendment.
But given the more modern context, these "militias" aren't really needed for defending the United States (as they once were). However, they ARE necessary to the security of our country, since ignorant, stupid, untrained, mentally unbalanced and utterly unfit people are allowed to go out and buy guns with no obligation to fulfilling the reason for the Second Amendment. There is no constitutional barrier to creating and enforcing a requirement to fulfill the first part of the Second Amendment: To create well regulated militias.
This doesn't mean arming "citizen soldiers". It means teaching these idiots how to properly use their guns - and repeating this training based on proficiency and elapsed time. One must train more than once in order to maintain and prove proficiency in the proper care and feeding of a firearm. It also makes it compulsory if you own a firearm.
Your right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But if you own one, you will be REQUIRED to attend monthly sessions in training, use, practice, etc. You won't lose your gun if you don't. You'll simply go to jail, become a felon and by long established law, you can't own a gun if you are a felon.
Problem solved. Constitutionality is maintained and gun owners either stay good militia members, give up their guns or go to jail and lose the right to own or carry them forever.
Personally, I like this option the most.
