The second amendment of the United States Constitution states: "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." < FACT

Arms are defined as weapons and ammunition. <FACT

So why would those who passed the 2nd amendment pass it? OPINION > Most likely because they feared that a government would become like the way the British crown was to the colonies, taxation without representation. And the reason people want arms that are really only good for killing people is because of fear. For some, it is the same fear as those who passed the amendment.

So what is a solution to our current crises of mass killings, more people killed by guns here than in other developed countries? OPINION > I think the clue resides in the first part of the sentence of the 2nd amendment ... "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA." See citizens made up the militias and they owned their own arms. But, even then they saw the need for the citizens bearing arms to be well-regulated (as part of the milita). Point being - having arms for use in a militia is a right ... but well-regulated. A citizen can't just take a cannon and use it as they please. These days, it doesn't make sense for a citizen to have anti-aircraft weapons, machine guns, rocket-launchers, etc. And with the case of all arms that are allowed ... they should be well-regulated and trained.

People should be allowed to keep and bear arms in case of the government turning evil or invasion ... BUT, would you want your neighbor to have a nucelar warhead? a bomb? a missle? a machine gun? Most people would say HELL NO! 

Even those who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment wouldn't be too thrilled with the shootings and proliferation of arms. That isn't what they were wanting. Ya think?

So given the "rights" given by the second amendment, what can be done about guns? Answer is look at the laws in Japan or Australia or other countries who do not have the shootings like in the USA. People can own arms, but they have to go through testing and training. We require more for driving a car than owning arms.

Yes, people who can prove they are capable, and safe to own arms should have them ... but there shouldn't be the ability for those who aren't safe to have them.

Add comment


Security code
Refresh