Perhaps time to take another critical look at the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Which of these two is more logical, likely, and socially acceptable:
- A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the militia people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
- A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of all people, with no weaponry, age, mental or criminal exceptions, to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Hasn’t the second, NRA-backed interpretation cost enough lives yet? How many more school children and other innocent people need to be gunned down, before the gun-crazy, money hungry see the light?
Back to New Post
Jorg,
Instead of quibbling over the meaning of a sentence written in 18th Century grammar, why don’t you suggest a plan of action to solve the problem of innocents being killed by gunfire?
There are already many gun control laws, but they are often circumvented, and sometimes poorly enforced.
Some horrible mass shootings happened in such a way that current laws did not present an obstacle.
I think it was the Sandy Hook case where the shooter used a gun owned legally by his mother.
So, what do you suggest?
And if you suggest a new law, by what means will it be enforced?
Al: The overall problem is too easy access to all kinds of weapons, including assault weapons, for just about anybody, until proven unfit because they have conducted mass murder, which is one mass killing too late. All is justified by what I believe is wrong interpretation of the the 2nd Amendment, which I tried to explain in the blog post above.
Who needs assault weapons, for any other reason than to kill as many as possible, as quickly as possible? Why is a deranged 18-year old able to stop by a gun store and buy an assault weapon on his way to a school to commit mass murder? Because the 2nd Amendment says that’s OK? Yeah, that makes sense!
I repeat my question: What do you suggest?
Bear in mind that more than 82,000,000 Americans own firearms, and many of those firearms are semi-automatic, which you insist upon calling assault weapons.
Is it really so hard to understand, and what on flat Earth does your statement have to do with the point I’m making?