Solve gun-rights problem

  • Follow Letters

When the Second Amendment was written at our nation’s birth, the American Revolution had just been fought with militias, so the reference to them and their role in the Second Amendment made sense. Now, our only militias, none public, are peopled largely by fringe groups, and our security since the Civil War has been the police and the Department of Defense.


The amendment begins with the words “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ... .” Being well regulated is not at all relevant to those calling themselves militias.

Militias, as so written, have not existed for two centuries. Why, then, fret about militias in detailing the right to bear arms, which has hamstrung efforts to end the horror of mass murders? Why do we think the only way to solve this problem is by the near-impossible path of amending the Constitution?

Why can’t Congress do what is needed by passing a law making it clear that our standing armed forces – including, in particular, its reserves – have in fact replaced the militias? Anyone simply wanting to be directly involved in using military weapons can volunteer by joining the reserves, and transfer all their war-fighting weapons to the reserves.

The law making that clear also could limit possession of firearms in citizen’s hands to those suited just for sportsmanlike hunting and, say, less-than-10-round handguns suited for personal protection.

This would replace the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

I find it appalling that a rational society still debates whether any of its citizens has the right to own weapons such as were used last year in Connecticut and Colorado. They all must be bought up and transferred to the police and the military. The price paid would be well worth it.

The National Rifle Association’s solution is to just keep the wrong people from possessing these war-fighting weapons. That stands zero chance of solving the problem.

Given the ballot, we do not need the bullet. The only step that would work is to end the perceived right for any civilian to own war-fighting weapons.

Comments (59) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
Little Lamb
54299
Points
Little Lamb 04/17/13 - 01:34 pm
3
0
Deadly

Yeah, Angela, it's so much more pleasant to be shot by a gun with a five-shot clip than by a gun with a ten-shot clip.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/17/13 - 01:38 pm
3
1
They are FAR less deadly!
Unpublished

They are FAR less deadly!

Gary Ross
3358
Points
Gary Ross 04/17/13 - 01:49 pm
5
1
I can see

I can see by the vote up or down on the responces that the MAJORITY of Americans are against gun control and support the 2nd ammendment. We are a democratic society, are we not? Obama and Harry Reid's actions are definately UN-American!

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 04/17/13 - 01:55 pm
1
5
Little Lamb and Humble Angela

Are both of you ganging up to see if you can convert me over to a moderate? We can agree on some things can't we? I understand the angle of the tyrannical government ! Why can't we agree that assault weapons and mechine guns for the public has gone too, too far?!!

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/17/13 - 02:03 pm
5
2
Because no one can give me a
Unpublished

Because no one can give me a logical reason why responsible, law abiding citizens should not be allowed to own assault weapons and machine guns. Not to mention, I have yet to see a politician or anti-gun person define what makes a weapon an "assault weapon."

Not ganging up on you....just pointing out facts v/s emotion.

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 04/17/13 - 02:22 pm
2
7
OK, so I finally read The Second Amendment

Having read this, I believe that Obama alone could use his executive power to get what us liberals want !

The amendment DOES say people's rights to keep and bear arms will not be infringed upon. However, before this statement the amendment states "A well regulated militia".

I believe Obama could use executive power to define what a well regulated militia is ! EUREKA !!!!!!

KSL
175740
Points
KSL 04/17/13 - 02:30 pm
4
1
And then we have a dictator,

And then we have a dictator, not a lawfully elected potus.

KSL
175740
Points
KSL 04/17/13 - 02:33 pm
4
1
Should the economy of the US

Should the economy of the US collapse, you may find yourself wishing you had a high capacity weapon to defend you and yours from angry and hungry mobs.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/17/13 - 02:43 pm
4
1
You can define the well
Unpublished

You can define the well regulated militia any way you want but the amendment says the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Is he going to redefine what people are?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (this is REASON for the amendment), the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/17/13 - 02:44 pm
4
1
"I believe Obama could use
Unpublished

"I believe Obama could use executive power to define what a well regulated militia is ! EUREKA !!!!!!"

And you are OK with the POTUS having that kind of power? The power to just nullify your rights with the stroke of his single pen?

Darby
35871
Points
Darby 04/17/13 - 03:10 pm
5
0
"You gave great perspective on

the intent of the Founding Fathers."
.

Somehow I just knew that TruthMatters
would be the first to jump into the fray, demanding an end to the Second Amendment.

What I didn't know was that he/she had such intimate knowledge of the founders' intent, something that scholars have debated for more than two centuries.

As I have stated so often, only to have my "wisdom" fall on deaf liberal ears, the founders provided our ancestors, us and generations to come with the perfect solution. It's called the amendment process.

If you don't like the Second Amendment, amend the Constitution to remove it. It's really easy to do, IF YOU HAVE THE NUMBERS.

If that can't be done due to lack of public support, then you have no choice but to move on to more important things.

You can parse the wording of the Second Amendment until you are blue in the face, but you will NEVER get past the phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

Drives you liberals nuts, doesn't it?? And that really makes my day!!

Darby
35871
Points
Darby 04/17/13 - 03:32 pm
5
0
"However, before this statement the

amendment states "A well regulated militia"."

.
"A well regulated militia" is just a short phrase, meaning nothing by itself. "Shall not be infringed" is in itself, an order to the government to keep "hands off".

If you wish to get into an intellectual debate, you can posit that the "well regulated militia" of 1787 has evolved into the general public which is, in fact, well regulated up the wazzoo with all the government restrictions and limitations placed on gun owners today.

The Second Amendment was placed into the Constitution using provisions of English law in order to facilitate the ability of the people to protect themselves from an oppressive government. (The ability to defend one's self and domicile against modern home invaders and muggers is an unplanned bonus.)

Without the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment included, there would never have been a ratification of the Constitution.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/17/13 - 03:38 pm
2
1
I'm glad you brought up
Unpublished

I'm glad you brought up English law Darby. You can drop this on the libs when they try to "regulate away" your 2nd amendment rights.

"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."

rockymissy1
495
Points
rockymissy1 04/17/13 - 03:59 pm
3
3
I believe it would lower the crime rate....

I think that everyone over the age of 18 should have a gun, carry it, and be able to properly use it. I dont believe the men that held up the Bi-Lo on Peach Orchard rd would have done so if they knew that everyone in that store had a gun. If we all have them then it elimates the fear of them. So someone tries to rob you...well guess what buddy I have a gun too!!

As parents you are responsible for teaching gun safty to your children and make sure that they are unable to get them.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/17/13 - 04:06 pm
3
2
rockymissy, you are probably
Unpublished

rockymissy, you are probably correct...and statistics back you up. For example, the home invasion rate in Kennesaw GA is nearly 0, while it is much higher in neighboring Marietta. The difference?..... Residents of Kennesaw are REQUIRED to own a gun.

burninater
11332
Points
burninater 04/17/13 - 04:13 pm
1
4
LL....do you think t3bledsoe

LL....do you think t3bledsoe would mind being shot with a gun that only holds 5 rounds?
------
Bingo.

It's all the other people in the crowd, or the classroom, or the movie theatre, that are threatened by the larger magazines. In a personal defense scenario, large magazines are redundant.

As you say HA, a five-round magazine is just as lethal.

burninater
11332
Points
burninater 04/17/13 - 04:30 pm
1
3
If we all have them then it

If we all have them then it elimates the fear of them.
--------
Is this the utopia some envision? That society will be safe and secure once everyone has the power to quickly kill any other person at any time?

I would love to know how people go from "Thou shalt not kill" to "Everything would be so much better if we all had an equal capacity to kill immediately."

dichotomy
44213
Points
dichotomy 04/17/13 - 05:12 pm
2
1
"I believe Obama could use

"I believe Obama could use executive power to define what a well regulated militia is ! EUREKA !!!!!!"

And I believe t3bledsoe must be a troll.

At any rate, it DOES NOT SAY that a well regulated militia is must exist, or is a condition to have a weapon....it merely says that if we decided to form a militia we would need to have our own weapons.....therefore, the right to keep a bear arms.....ANY KIND OF ARMS......SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

KSL
175740
Points
KSL 04/17/13 - 05:21 pm
2
2
burn

Having equal capacity does not mean they will kill. It is really the bad guys that should not be allowed to own guns. But there is no way to stop them. Did't we learn from prohibition?

Riverman1
114413
Points
Riverman1 04/17/13 - 05:41 pm
2
0
Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes.

Limit the size of our magazines and... "Don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes."

faithson
6219
Points
faithson 04/17/13 - 05:50 pm
2
3
just heard the vote...

to bad so sad, opportunity for the civil amongst us to address this culture of militarism that has infected the culture. Simple magazine ban and more intense checks on buyers was a simple start. Cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind. thanks to all those who see THIER interests paramount to the interests of the people. 80% wanted SOMETHING and got NOTHING.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/17/13 - 05:53 pm
3
1
"Is this the utopia some
Unpublished

"Is this the utopia some envision? That society will be safe and secure once everyone has the power to quickly kill any other person at any time?"

What is your explaination for the extremely low crime rate in Kennesaw?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/17/13 - 05:55 pm
3
1
"80% wanted SOMETHING and got
Unpublished

"80% wanted SOMETHING and got NOTHING."

Wrong! They got their freedom as stated in the Constitution.

Darby
35871
Points
Darby 04/17/13 - 06:08 pm
3
0
"I would love to know how people...

go from "Thou shalt not kill" to "Everything would be so much better if we all had an equal capacity to kill immediately.""

.
Actually, it never changed at all. Even in biblical times when the Ten Commandments were written, the individual was expected to resist and allowed to use deadly force when confronted with deadly force.

That should help you to understand, if understanding is really what you seek...

BTW - Most religious scholars (probably all) take the meaning of that commandment to mean murder. The ruthless killing of a fellow human without just cause.

Thou shall not kill, taken literally would put the pest control folks completely out of business.

faithson
6219
Points
faithson 04/17/13 - 06:10 pm
2
4
sorry, humble

20 percent, which in the bell shape curve, are on the fringes of any issue, got their way... doesn't say much for democracy, on both sides.

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 04/17/13 - 06:28 pm
1
4
Second ammendment and two very different views

How is it that educated people can read the same; very short; ammendment and have two different views ?! When this ammendment was penned, the guns that were availible were the kind that one had to load with gun powder, musket ball, and flint to set off the gun powder. If the founding fathers could only see what weapons are availible to each person now, I believe they would agree with stricter gun law !

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/17/13 - 06:32 pm
3
1
So if 80% of the people want
Unpublished

So if 80% of the people want to infringe on people's rights, then that makes it ok. Are there any other basic freedoms that you would like voted away?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/17/13 - 06:44 pm
3
1
"When this ammendment was
Unpublished

" When this ammendment (sic) was penned, the guns that were availible (sic) were the kind that one had to load with gun powder, musket ball, and flint to set off the gun powder. If the founding fathers could only see what weapons are availible (sic) to each person now, I believe they would agree with stricter gun law !"

So do you believe that the 1st amendment does not apply to radio, tv, internet, or even the US mail for that matter? None of these things existed when the Constitution was written.

The founding fathers were ok with citizens owning firearms that were identical to the ones carried by the military. Why do you think they would want that restricted now?

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/17/13 - 06:44 pm
3
1
"How is it that educated
Unpublished

"How is it that educated people can read the same; very short; ammendment (sic) and have two different views ?! "

Can you explain how you justify infringements when the amendment clearly says "shall not be infringed?"

Back to Top
loading...
Search Augusta jobs