Having re-read the amendment, i do think it is vague in today's language. One would need a lot of background in early American inflection to see whether people and militia are different, or whether militia means something fairly regulated composing of people, people not officially part of what...the army?
Trying to apply this to today, it seems reasonable to distribute guns to a known group of people and have them wear uniforms designating that they are carrying. Uh, their called "the police"!
But alas, the police cannot protect people, under today's threats. So it's reasonable to have, in any sizable group/gathering of people, other people who are designated carriers. The term for this is "concealed carry", and it requires a licence of sorts.
You will always need people that are trusted, as much as the police, to conceal carry where groups of x size gather. Groups should not be gathering without these fast response carriers anymore than any city should be gathering without police, or any group of cities gathering without a militia and/or army.
It's like the law that has you rent x number of port-a-potties wherever people meet where there are no official toilets...or having to have a bathroom wherever food is served.
Needs to be a law, wherever people gather, needs to be a sign overhead stating how many concealed carry people are on the premises. People who do not want to be where anyone is carrying can choose not to show up. While they stay away, another kind of people will be there just because there are others who are carrying.
I don't think i would go to a club with a few exits with 350 people, none of whom are carrying, except for a lone bouncer of sorts.
To make the system work, you'd have to have the carriers also carry a transponder that can be pinged by the overhead sign system.
Until such a system rolls out, people will have to rely on other conceal carry, or carry themselves.
It's about vetting who carries, just as police are vetted. This is the direction Trump is moving.
Trying to apply this to today, it seems reasonable to distribute guns to a known group of people and have them wear uniforms designating that they are carrying. Uh, their called "the police"!
But alas, the police cannot protect people, under today's threats. So it's reasonable to have, in any sizable group/gathering of people, other people who are designated carriers. The term for this is "concealed carry", and it requires a licence of sorts.
You will always need people that are trusted, as much as the police, to conceal carry where groups of x size gather. Groups should not be gathering without these fast response carriers anymore than any city should be gathering without police, or any group of cities gathering without a militia and/or army.
It's like the law that has you rent x number of port-a-potties wherever people meet where there are no official toilets...or having to have a bathroom wherever food is served.
Needs to be a law, wherever people gather, needs to be a sign overhead stating how many concealed carry people are on the premises. People who do not want to be where anyone is carrying can choose not to show up. While they stay away, another kind of people will be there just because there are others who are carrying.
I don't think i would go to a club with a few exits with 350 people, none of whom are carrying, except for a lone bouncer of sorts.
To make the system work, you'd have to have the carriers also carry a transponder that can be pinged by the overhead sign system.
Until such a system rolls out, people will have to rely on other conceal carry, or carry themselves.
It's about vetting who carries, just as police are vetted. This is the direction Trump is moving.