Let’s bring the 2nd amendment into the 21st century. Here
is the second amendment of the United States Constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.
But first, let’s examine the first amendment of the
Unites States Constitution:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and
to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
This first one is a doozy. It covers religion, speech,
press, assembly, and petitioning the government. Freedom of religion is the
only one without limits, in the sense that you may establish and practice any
religion of your choice. Of course, religious activities that are criminal or
fraudulent are not a protected right. All of the others have limits. You may
not say whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want. The press is
not all powerful to do as it chooses. Assembling peaceably ( in itself a limit)
has confines. Petitioning the government is subject to protocols and
procedures.
Now back to the second amendment. A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This has limits, too. You don’t get
to bear a rocket propelled grenade. A line has already been drawn. Moving that
line is a matter of societal and cultural change, and technological progress.
The question is simple: what arms do the people have a
right to bear?
The line has already been drawn based on destructiveness.
The people don’t have the right to bear a rocket propelled grenade due to the
weapon’s destructiveness and indiscriminate nature. The people do not have the
right to bear fully automatic weapons because of their destructiveness. It
comes down to how offensive (as opposed to defensive) a weapon is. The greater
the offensive capability, i.e. designed to kill as many humans as possible as
fast as possible, of the weapon the more it should be restricted.
It is time to reconsider the placement of this line.
By their very nature “assault” weapons are highly
destructive; pushed over the line by their ability for rapid fire combined with
high volume magazines. Handguns are too easily concealed; their inherit
stealthiness rendering them much more offensive than defensive.
The following firearms should be legal for the people to
bear:
Bolt action rifles and breech loading shotguns.
With bolt action rifles and breech loading shotguns you
can hunt and protect your home. Everything else should be illegal.
Arguments of gun proponents:
“Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
People murder people; handguns and “assault” weapons make
murder easy and efficient. Let’s make it less so.
“Criminals will always be able to get guns.”
The idea is to make it more difficult for criminals to get
guns. It is currently far too easy.
“Outlawing something just doesn’t make it go away.”
If you can’t have perfect results than don’t even try? So
what you are saying is, “We can’t stop all robberies or rapes or terrorism so
let’s just stop trying.” Whatever.
“Automobiles kill more people than guns.”
If we have mass murderers who kill via vehicular homicide
then I will be more than happy to discuss “car control.”
“The founding fathers wanted to guarantee our right to
bear arms.”
The founding fathers aren’t here and circumstances have
changed necessitating a modification to what constitutes “arms.”
"300 million American guns were not misused again
this week."
It's like we are sharing our homes, buildings, and
places with gather with poisonous snakes. We go days, weeks, months without an
encounter, and then 20 people die. And we do nothing; we simply wait
for them to kill again.
“Gun control is not enough.”
No kidding, but gun control is part of the solution.
“But … The Second Amendment!”
We can change it if we choose, even repeal it. The
brilliance of the constitution is its flexibility of interpretation. As times
change, the interpretation changes. And times, they have changed, and so it is
finally time for the interpretation of the second amendment to join the 21st
century.
