dogshawred
New member
I am getting into this thread a little late and I am sorry if this has been covered as I have not read all the posts yet.I respect your opinion, but I can't agree. To me training and testing is just a way of ensuring the "militia is well regulated," not an infringement. An infringement would be if the government absolutely prevents something even with reasonable regulations. The 2008 and 2010 Supreme Court decisions on the Second Amendment agree that is the correct interpretation. The founding fathers assumed, rightly, that people then knew how and when to use firearms. These days it's obviously not the case. I'm all for gun rights, including concealed carry, but I don't want untrained, untested people doing it, any more than I want them driving cars, flying airplanes or performing brain surgery. The military and law enforcement demands training for carrying firearms and for good reason. Civilians should be subject to the same.
~
When you state; " To me training and testing is just a way of ensuring the "militia is well regulated" not an infringement. " I don't think that would put the right people in charge of regulating the militia. It is the citizens who are the militia not the government, federal, state or otherwise. It is the responsibility of the people to regain control of the government if it over steps it's responsibility and infringes on the rights of the citizens. That is what the founding father's intent was for our own protection.