From the first Fact:Gallstones wrote:Somewhat left of my POV, but the author makes some valid points.
Both Sides are Wrong in the Gun Debate ~Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry 06.16.14
Five Facts at the link.The situation is vastly more complex than partisans claim.
In the wake of several fatal shootings that have once again unnerved Americans, partisans on both sides are trotting out the same tired narratives. Liberals declare that if only we regulated and banned guns like Europe does, there wouldn't be any more gun violence. Conservatives insist that the solution to gun violence is more guns, and just more guns.
Both of these narratives fail to take into account inconvenient facts, and in the end, both sides are wrong. Here are five critical facts that greatly inconvenience the simple narratives they are peddling.
This is both true and untrue.In other words, the situation envisioned by the Second Amendment is, contra the liberals, one where most everyone owns guns. But, contra the conservatives, the founders envisioned a society where gun ownership is connected to certain service obligations. Imagine a situation more like Switzerland — the other rich country with widespread private gun ownership but where, because everyone is required to undergo regular training and secure their weapons and so on, gun violence is very low.
The Founders envisioned a society where gun ownership by the populace is essential to the security of a free state because it permits Congress to raise armies as needed from the "unorganized militia" comprised of all able-bodied males between 18 and 45 who are both armed and competent in the use of those arms. However, as the Supreme Court said in Heller et. seq. the right to keep and bear arms is not conditioned upon service or even membership in the Militia. The Founders recognized that arms are as important to the individual for individual security as they are to the nation for national security.
However, he makes a very valid point that one of the powers that Congress absolutely has is the power to compel every citizen to be educated and trained in marksmanship and gun safety. This power derives from Congress' power to raise armies which necessarily requires (or is at least enhanced) by having not only an armed citizenry, but a trained (well regulated) citizenry, which minimizes the costs and time involved in training soldiers in the event of invasion or insurrection, thus enhancing Congress' ability to quickly and effectively raise armies. There is deep historical precedent for exercising this authority extended back before the United States even existed, as evidenced by the Ordinances of the Jamestown colony (and others) that required all male adults to have a musket, powder, shot and other essential supplies like food and a blanket on hand at all times, and they were required to bring them to church on Sunday for militia inspection and drill after church.
With this in mind, I advocate that Congress exercise this power to require mandatory firearms training in all public schools, beginning in the first grade with simple safety training and proceeding through advanced marksmanship training as the child matures, culminating in the government issuing one military battle rifle (M-4 or equivalent) and one military handgun (9mm or .45) and a basic load of government-issued ammunition to each graduating high school senior, which they are required to keep and bear, and maintain and train with regularly, from high school graduation until they reach age 45, at which time, barring a criminal record, a grateful nation grants them full private ownership of those arms in compensation for their service in the Unorganized Militia.
This of course would not preclude any adult from owning as many OTHER firearms as they wish, or from carrying them in public.
This would indeed grant the serious benefits of universal gun safety and marksmanship education, which is the MOST effective way to reduce gun accidents, as well as suppressing crime through the ubiquitous carrying of arms in public by all law-abiding citizens.