"Lazarus Long"
...
Along with the rights of gun ownership came a RESPONSIBILITY to the state for participation in the militia and a well regulated one at that. The Swiss actually do operate in principle more true to this ideal than we do.
Now this matter will require a considerable amount of discussion but a right to ownership is not carte blanche either and regulation may also be a part of such ownership.
...
I am unconvinced that guns belong in the cities and I am unconvinced that the right to own is without an obligation of service to the state accompanying it..
You want guns?
Then realize it comes with the well regulated disciplined use part.
I might almost agree, but I emphatically back off from the idea that the 2nd is to be at all interpreted as a "collective" right, or one to be exercised if only in service to the state (even in a neighborhood watch "militia" scale).
The Swiss and Israeli models aren't the same. Everyone serves in uniformed military service, and the weapons they take home (for-real full-auto "assault rifles") are government property, to be taken out only on government orders. I do note that practically any citizen can buy just about whatever they want and own it with basically no government watch: squad serviced, anti-vehicle, whatever a "collector" might want to afford.
The Swiss also have it encoded in their laws that initiating a war is illegal. While doing your mandatory military term, you will not be sent overseas to serve as a cheap mercenary for political graft and short-term profits for the companies paying some congress-critter's campaign funds.
Defense of the state can sometimes start and end with self defense: a case last October of a rape victim defending herself against a return visit from her rapist. She dialed 911, but he came in before they did, so she met him point-blank with a shotgun.
She was in no way part of any collective or militia. Nothing at all "well regulated" about this incident, except maybe her nerves at the moment. Yet she did most definitely meet the needs of the community and contribute to a safer society...
If only for personal defense, and to specifically not in any way to lessen the ability of any person to defend themselves if they need to, individual-rights needs to be very clearly written into laws. "To provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty" and all that.
No place for handguns in a city? They're the best most portable and affordable defensive arm many people can afford and bother to carry around. We see what little good effect we get from gun bans and "reasonable restrictions for safety" in cities.
I'd like to see an experiment: instead of hiring police and installing post-crime investigation cameras throughout a city, lets take 1 in 100 people who could pass a concealed carry permit interview, and subsidize them to take training and to carry. Give them (not an issue of government property) a small cheap low/medium capacity/power pistol for carry, and then let it be known that we've done this for a few people in each crime ridden inner city district. They are not paid or empowered, or protected like police by "the thin blue line" of silence and safety from excessive force. No "well regulated" about it, except that we pick people we trust, from among the populace, and have put them through good training.
(training such as) I'm unconvinced that just about any amount of "reasonable regulation" is either necessary or a good thing. Laws requiring safety, legal, and tactical training before you carry on the streets? I'm almost convinced that public and media and peer pressure could take care of ensuring that people who own or carry get that on their own. Maybe a bit of familiarization in schools? the don't even do much drivers' ed these days.
Licensing and registration? Until I see facts that prove that they prevent lawlessness (by getting criminals to obey the law, perhaps?) I honestly don't see the point. Figures don't show any benefit from such schemes, over places where guns are just a thing, just another part of life. Law-abiding citizens with unregulated arms are not a driver of crime, and preventing the law-abiding from doing what they want in no way impedes the criminals from getting whatever they want and doing whatever they want with it.
Can anyone show an example from history -anywhere- that prohibition of a thing actually succeeds in stopping that thing from existing? All outlawing a thing that is seen as having value does, is empower the black market.
