Point taken. And I understand I asked for "theoretical" but there is zero effort by anybody, much less Obama, to even strengthen the training requirements there are now. The "training" required for a concealed carry licence is laughable. No "training" is required to own a gun absent the CC licence. In NC, you're supposed to take a safety course before you go out into the woods shooting your fellow hunters or hikers, but if you've had a hunting licence in another state, the requirement is waived. Even if the other state didn't require any training.rstrong wrote:Actually I was specifically referring to Heller:O Really wrote:You had an excellent scenario, Rstrong, except you may have forgotten Heller, that pretty much does away with your argument that "militia" regulated or otherwise, carries much weight.
The rest of my point was that such a reinterpretation is minor compared to the constitutional reinterpretations of the last administration, with one of the big ones upheld by this one.rstrong wrote:The U.S. Supreme Court stated that "the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."
[...]
If they can't limit gun ownership to a "well regulated militia", then they can impose their own definition of "proper discipline and training."
So your theory still remains the best response. BTW, back in the BlueRidge forum, nascar went totally apoplectic when I suggested that I would like to see stronger training requirements for CC's. So the possibility of getting those requirements actually passed - even if theoretically possible, is nil. The former resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, who didn't exist and whose name must not be spoken, had the advantage of a big public sentiment on security following 9/11 and subsequent messes. Totally opposite for sentiment on doing anything gun-related.
, I was here first:
