If guns were regulated like cars, there would be no background check to buy a gun. A felony would not disqualify you from gun ownership. Schools would teach marksmanship starting at age 15, and you could get a license to carry at sixteen, recognized by all states. Suppressors wouldn't just be legal, they'd be mandatory. No one would try to sue Smith and Wesson for shooting sprees, just like nobody tried to sue Ford for the Waekusha ramming attack. Etc, etc, etc.
But as to what the first response said, ultimately then, gun ownership would be a privilege, not a right. You don't license rights.
The right, as written, includes the phrase "A well regulated Militia". This is the only right that includes the word "regulated". Personally, I would be in favor of a highly distributed form of regulation, similar to the "jury of your peers" system: to own a gun, you must join a militia, and it's up to that militia to determine if you're the type of person to randomly murder children or not. (This is similar to the idea I proposed after 9/11 that passengers be required to socially mingle with each other, and then (privately) share concerns with the airline or TSA. That is, the people with the most to lose are the best defense against these kinds of threats).
> ... the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms...
Clearly, this is a right that belongs to the people, regardless of militia membership. Please read DC v Heller.
Even grammatically, "well regulated" refers to function, not rules. A mechanical watch that keeps time is "well regulated".
Please understand that these points are extremely well settled, and that bringing them up is like bringing up "violent video games".
You mean like Roe v Wade and Casey? I don't buy this argument.
>Clearly, this is a right that belongs to the people, regardless of militia membership.
That's not clear to me. Not at all. Why mention militias at all? What is a poorly regulated militia?
>Please read DC v Heller.
Okay.
>Under United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, the Second Amendment's declaration and guarantee that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" relates to the Militia of the States only.
Also of interest are the amicus briefs. At the time Texas Attorney General but now Governor Greg Abbott, submitted a brief authored by Abbott's solicitor general, Ted Cruz, advising that the case be affirmed. I wonder if they have any second thoughts now, and if they did, if they would admit it?
You mean "having no legal restrictions whatsoever on private property"?
> requiring training and a license
Most states do require this on public property, same as a car.
What the GP meant, clearly, was "what if gun users were regulated like car users", e.g. requiring training and a license. IMHO this fits the "part of a well-regulated militia" clause that people always ignore. If I had to guess, this clause was there specifically to prevent unstable people from getting firearms, since your fellow militia members are probably not going to want you if you seem unstable. Social proof is not a bad heuristic, even if it does have obvious failure modes.