,
12 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
My latest for @CNNOpinion? A Swift and constitutional approach to gun reform: I make the modest proposal that gun purchasers should be simultaneously required to enlist in the “well-regulated militia” of our Armed Forces Reserves
1. Why do you say the framers intended the militia to not be the “government’s army”? The 2nd refers only to “security of a free state”
2. If Reserves are too Federal, National Guard would be fine
3. Waive age limits. If you can use a gun you can serve
2. If Reserves are too Federal, National Guard would be fine
3. Waive age limits. If you can use a gun you can serve
I’m assuming you can read, because you can tweet. My proposal offers non-combatant positions for those physically unable to fight, as in Singapore and other countries with compulsory service. I believe in full equality for the disabled.
My proposal offers desk and non-combatant roles for the physically ineligible.
But hey, maybe “any Joe Blow” shouldn’t own a personal firearm?
But hey, maybe “any Joe Blow” shouldn’t own a personal firearm?
Our military should welcome the service of 85-year-old paraplegics. There are many ways those with disabilities can help protect us—as analysts, comms specialists and more. And if we’re ever invaded, 85-year-old paraplegics may be our last line of defense
If most gun owners are focused on preparedness and service for our nation, why would they not want to join the reserves and serve directly? Our military would welcome the service of armed patriots like yourself.
1. It addresses access to weapons by ensuring any owners of guns are registered and are checked monthly/annually for fitness
2. Service is still entirely voluntary under this proposal. If one doesn’t want to serve, perhaps one shouldn’t own a firearm?
2. Service is still entirely voluntary under this proposal. If one doesn’t want to serve, perhaps one shouldn’t own a firearm?
Thanks for your thoughts! What do you think about Switzerland and Israel, where gun ownership is literally directly associated with military service?
People have brought up Heller—a 5-4 partisan decision that ignores the well-regulated militia context of the 2nd. First, Heller can be overturned by future Courts. Second, Heller affirms Miller, which limits firearms to weapons “in common use at the time.”
Even under Heller, the Miller decision could be used to define “commonly used” firearms in virtually any way, making the MILITIA Act apply to owners of any nonsporting guns—or at the very least, owners of combat weapons like AR-15s.
I’d be cool with that.
I’d be cool with that.
1. They already have easy access to these guns
2. “Combat skills” are a reasonable exchange for registration, background checks and mental health monitoring
3. Does no one read Jonathan Swift in schools anymore
2. “Combat skills” are a reasonable exchange for registration, background checks and mental health monitoring
3. Does no one read Jonathan Swift in schools anymore
Actually, there are both colloquial and legal definitions of militia and my proposal is well within the context of either.
(For those afraid of excess central power, I already said state National Guard units could substitute for the Reserves.)
(For those afraid of excess central power, I already said state National Guard units could substitute for the Reserves.)
