Does the 2nd Amendment need to be abolished?
The Second Amendment to the U.S. 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.” This one sentence has sparked debate for decades, and mass shootings in America, such as the recent tragedy in Orlando, has resulted in our constitutional right to bear arms to come under attack from all directions.
Take a moment to ask yourself why most countries in the world do not let their citizens own guns. I suppose one argument would be the right to bear arms will keep any government in check, meaning the government would think twice before stepping on its citizens’ rights or run a dictatorship using its military and police force to suppress its citizens who may disagree with what the government is doing. There are an estimated 270 to 350 million guns owned by private citizens in the U.S., a number made more shocking by the fact that it eclipses the number of guns, 250 million, used in WWII.
It is my opinion that the average U.S. citizen is rather clueless about the degradation of our constitutional rights on a daily basis by a myriad of laws being passed. According to www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/02/constitution.html, the following activities, which are largely deemed inherent rights as a U.S. citizen, can potentially label you as a suspected terrorist: being young, using social media, reporting or doing journalism, speaking out against government policies, etc. And let’s not forget the alarming amount of cameras being placed that monitor our daily lives – all you have to do is look up in an intersection and you see cameras watching you. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but there has to be a balancing act that evens the playing field.
Let’s face it, criminals will get their guns illegally and bypass the system altogether; therefore, more regulations will not eliminate the criminal factor. What we should focus on is keeping guns out of the hands of those who are legally obtaining weapons with an intention to harm or engage in terrorism. But how? Certainly it is not by usurping or curtailing the 2nd Amendment, but by putting in place mechanisms to eliminate access to weapons by those intending to go and shoot 50 people in a nightclub, or drop in at a school to shoot innocent students.
The only stop-loss per se is at the point of sale. It is my opinion that gun store owners should be trained and equipped to make the judgment call. More training and questioning is needed at the point of sale. Unfortunately, it is hard to discern the motives of a person who looks normal and has no background issues and applies for a gun license and passes the gun safety requirements. I think we should concentrate on the gun shop owner to be the final safety valve, if you will. If you get a bad feeling, don’t sell it and have the ability to pull the plug on the sale.
It is not the military-style weapons that are at issue. In fact, a handgun in possession of a trained person who knows how to use it can be more lethal than an AR-15 in the hands of the person who has no clue how to release the magazine to load it with rounds! It is a debate that will make all of us chase our own tails, but we need to find a solution as this is all getting out of hand on both sides of the debate. I don’t think anybody has any idea how to fix this quagmire. One thing in my mind is certain: We cannot fiddle with the 2nd Amendment; before you know it, other constitutional rights will be usurped and curtailed. That is how the law works in taking rights away; you open the floodgates a millimeter at a time. JFK said, “For the Bill of Rights is the guardian of our security as well as our liberty.”