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.
Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/17/13 - 06:56 pm
2
1
So, faithson....if the
Unpublished

So, faithson....if the majority of people want these gun restrictions that violate freedom, then it should be law, but when a majority of people vote to make same sex marriage illegal, then that law should be struck down?

t3bledsoe
14291
Points
t3bledsoe 04/17/13 - 07:21 pm
2
2
OK. One more time and then I am out-a-here.

The only way to clear this arguement up is absolutely impossible ! We would have to hear it from the founding fathers themselves ! Humble Angela states that us liberals would have to change the diffenitions of "people and infringed" and go so far as to change this amendment with the ratification process of the states. I know that you conservatives say "people kill people; not guns". Even if liberals say "guns kill people" both sides of the political parties are correct. I heard someone say that the gun magazines that were used at the school in Connecticut could hold 32 bullets. This person said that if these magazines were much smaller, then the killer would have had to take more time to re-load. MORE TIME, again, MORE TIME for people to run away or perhaps even to subdue him. It makes me wonder why any law abiding citizen would want the public to be able to get these large magazines or assault rifles.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/17/13 - 07:28 pm
2
1
More time? A whole extra 1.5
Unpublished

More time? A whole extra 1.5 seconds.

Why would any law abiding citizen want a car that can drive over the speed limit?

Please tell us what an "assault rifle" is.

And one more thing....never have see a 32 round magazine.

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/17/13 - 07:29 pm
3
1
" I know that you
Unpublished

" I know that you conservatives say "people kill people; not guns". Even if liberals say "guns kill people" both sides of the political parties are correct. "

A gun has never killed anyone in the history of mankind, so NO...both sides are NOT correct.

KSL
134138
Points
KSL 04/17/13 - 08:06 pm
2
1
Humble Angela

You have been in fine form today. I always enjoy your comments.

KSL
134138
Points
KSL 04/17/13 - 08:21 pm
2
1
Humble Angela

Sent you a message.

Truth Matters
7139
Points
Truth Matters 04/17/13 - 08:36 pm
2
1
@ymnbde..12:03

Thank you for once and for all removing all suspicions regarding who and what you are about.

You have a good life! Here and beyond....

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/17/13 - 08:42 pm
3
1
KSL....what kind of troll
Unpublished

KSL....what kind of troll gives a thumbs down to "Sent you a message."?

burninater
9680
Points
burninater 04/17/13 - 09:19 pm
0
3
@ DarbyThanks for the

@ Darby

Thanks for the clarification on that. I will annotate my OT to note that "Thou shalt not kill" should more accurately read "Thou shalt be equipped to kill at a moment's notice".

You'd think the Creator of All could be clearer in His intent; it's good we have humans on this earth that can tell us what God REALLY meant to say.

Out of curiosity, does this true intent extend to other commandments?

For instance, should "Thou shalt not commit adultery" more accurately read "Keep a Trojan in your wallet Governor, just in case an Appalachian Trail weekend turns up"?

Darby
26878
Points
Darby 04/17/13 - 09:53 pm
3
0
You'd think the Creator of All...

could be clearer in His intent; it's good we have humans on this earth that can tell us what God REALLY meant to say.

.
I don't follow you. Is this your way of saying you have found faith in God??

All I did was state my opinion about the way I believe most people interpret the the word "kill" in one particular phrase. I'm certainly NOT a Bible scholar but I am entitled to my opinion. The cynicism is what YOU alone brought to the discussion. Just wondering where all the anger comes from.???

Are you saying that YOU believe that the commandment DOES mean that any killing is wrong, even to protect your life or the lives of your children? If so, I wouldn't want to be in your family during a mugging, rape or robbery.

On the off chance that you do believe the commandment is intended to protect insects I'll happily leave you to your beliefs and advise you to never leave food out in your kitchen.

Darby
26878
Points
Darby 04/17/13 - 10:04 pm
3
0
"doesn't say much for democracy,

on both sides."

.
Actually faithson, it has little or nothing to do with democracy. Democracy, in it's purest form is two foxes and a chicken voting on what to have for lunch.

As Ben Franklin so aptly phrased it, "We have a Republic". He went on to say, "If you can keep it." Looks more and more lately, that we may not be up to the task.

On the other hand, if we actually had a democracy, chances are we'd still have slavery, and a lot more gosh awful unwanted baggage as well.

burninater
9680
Points
burninater 04/17/13 - 10:52 pm
0
2
Anger? That's an interesting

Anger? That's an interesting take on the simple observation that "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt be equipped to kill at a moment's notice" would appear to have some compatibility issues. I'm not a psychologist, I will leave it to a professional to interpret why someone would view a simple observation like that as "anger".

And no, it never occurred to me that the 10 Commandments applied to insects.

CobaltGeorge
164292
Points
CobaltGeorge 04/17/13 - 10:25 pm
1
1
Angela

I'm really proud of you for handling with expertise in regards to some of the brain dead, uneducated Liberals we have amoung us.

I just love the hear comments like 32 round magazines. How does a 30 round mag with one in the chamber come to 32?

If we have another shoot out, I will show you that I can get off 3 rounds less with 3 - 10 round Magazines.

"Thou shalt be equipped to kill at a moment's notice". burninater , couldn't have said that any better!!

KSL
134138
Points
KSL 04/17/13 - 10:37 pm
2
1
HA

Troll who doesn't like me or you or the both of us.

KSL
134138
Points
KSL 04/17/13 - 10:43 pm
2
1
Angela

I highly recommend cobalt's hospitality. Second to none.

CobaltGeorge
164292
Points
CobaltGeorge 04/17/13 - 10:55 pm
1
1
Geez KSL

I Love You Too.

Remember, I is nothing but an Way Upstate almost canadian farm boy...you southerners have educated the hospitality in me.

Darby
26878
Points
Darby 04/18/13 - 01:21 am
2
0
"And no, it never occurred to me...

that the 10 Commandments applied to insects."

.
Well, sure glad we got that straightened out.

Darby
26878
Points
Darby 04/18/13 - 12:28 pm
3
0
The beauty of freedom

of thought is that while one is free to interpret the Second Amendment as; "Thou shalt be equipped to kill at a moment's notice", another can, and with equal sincerity, believe that it means; "Thou shalt be entitled to defend yourself with violence against violence.."

Freedom, I'm sure you will agree, is a wonderful concept!!!!

Humble Angela
41338
Points
Humble Angela 04/18/13 - 01:00 pm
2
0
Darby....It sound to me that
Unpublished

Darby....It sound to me that to a law abiding citizen, both of the interpretations that you listed mean the same thing.

Darby
26878
Points
Darby 04/18/13 - 05:32 pm
2
0
Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs