Gungnir
Member
There is no need the 2A is clear, very clear. Heller confirmed "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" as the primary directive.If we had a new re-written amendment
How more clear does this need to be? The "confusion" is when the Brady's of the world start discussing what "arms" means, and what "infringe" means. Changing the syntax is not going to stop them, they'll just select new ambiguities in the wording.
Couldn't it make sense to also require firearm registration
Firearm registration, why? Who gains from this, what is its purpose?
We can throw statistics at the problem and prove that the vast majority of criminals do not get firearms through approved channels, thus gaining no REAL benefit from registration. Since only the law abiding would register. There is also a great and historically justifiable fear that registration would lead towards confiscation down the line.
some amount of accredited training in safeties name?
Accredited training, who decides what is accredited, and who can perform this?
This is like censorship, who decides? When does it become a political pawn? When does it get restricted? You can use this requirement as a gate to prevent people being able to own firearms. No training, no gun, suppose it's decided that there is one training center per state, who now can legally own firearms? What about one in the US, who can now legally own firearms. Then of course who regulates these, and what is the actual training received.
I admit that on the surface it looks logical, however it also removes an element of responsibility, responsible gun owners have taken probably more training in safety, and firearm instruction than would be needed for the term accredited. This may not be "traditional" training, but from friends, neighbors, family members, as well as specific training courses run by the NRA or their local range. Ultimately regardless of training, if you screw up with a gun and shoot either yourself or someone else, it's your responsibility.