montana Wrote:I'll agree that you can continue to hold that view, even though you're wrong.stanc Wrote:We will agree to disagree on this one.montana Wrote:I have no problem with training and background checks, since this would fall under well regulated, "being trained and competent with firearms" as required by the 2ndA.No, it would not. The "well regulated" part of the 2A applies to state militias, not to the general public.
The 2A clearly says, "A well regulated Militia," not "A well regulated People."
montana Wrote:I know the supreme court stated, "the militia has nothing to do with gun rights" but I believe this is false.The 2A has everything to do with the militia. The 2A was meant to assure that the white males who were called to militia duty would be able to buy the weapons they were required by law to provide.
But, those members of the general population who were not members of a State militia, were not required to be "trained and competent with firearms." And that is the major flaw in your reasoning.
montana Wrote:Requiring basic instruction and a back ground check is favourable to red flag laws " elimination of due process" or gun bans. If we are actually serious about lessening the tragedies of mass shootings and still be able to keep our 2ndA rights, we need a better way to convince the fence sitters that measures are in place to prevent the wrong people from acquiring guns.Imposing more infringements on the RKBA is not a way to prevent more infringements on the RKBA.