A second look at the 2nd Amendment
As a gun owner, and private citizen, I must say that the second amendment, as written and intended, grants me no right but to keep a simple weapon in my home for security, and in the woods for hunting. Anything anywhere else, and for any other purpose, ought to be illegal, and highly regulated. After all we Americans don't walk around with rocket launchers perched on our shoulders (not yet anyway) like people in some parts of the world do.
Sure, the NRA types will read this, and write diatribes about infringement of their inalienable right to bear arms anywhere and everywhere. They will argue that people, not guns, kill people, and that the issue of mass murder in this society is socioeconomic and pathological. They will be the first ones to tell you that the argument concerning ownership of sophisticated and lethal weapons is a closed case as far as the Supreme Court is concerned (McDonald Vs. City of Chicago, 2010). However people forget that the same court is on record for saying that the right to bear arms is not granted by the constitution (United State V.Cruikshank, 1876). Roe V. Wade is also a closed case as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, but that hasn't stopped anyone from questioning its legality, has it? Constitutional experts will tell you that the second amendment is poorly drafted, and that its usage of words and syntax only creates competing arguments at best. It is by no means an individual right to weaponry of mass destruction.
When the second amendment was drafted, a front loading musket that fired a rather crude ball was the weapon of choice. The gun took a great deal of prep work and fired once, maybe twice, every minute. Even if it can be successfully argued that the preamble of the amendment (a well regulated Militia) implied your average Joe, it can not be argued that the drafters of the amendment intended to ever give AK-47 style guns to the general public. The 18th century champions of gun rights would be appalled by the present-day liberal interpretations of the amendment. The poorly worded language of the document will haunt them if they saw December 14, 2012 unfold on CNN.
Anyone who practices ethical hunting of wild animals will tell you that the use of a rapid-fire arm is not hunting but massacring of animals. They will also tell you that the privilege to discharge a firearm comes with a strict code of personal conduct, and an equally strict set of governmental rules and regulations right down to the details of time of year, shooting hours, permits and tags. So if we can live with stringent gun use regulations in the woods, then why can't we do the same in our neighborhoods?
In this day and age of technology, all hand guns and rapid-fire arms should have geo-tracking devices built in. These weapons, when in the hands of the general public, will simply not fire when close to a school, church or other public place like a shopping mall.
Possibly the ammunition will be smart and inflict enough damage to stop an intruder but not kill him. Gun technology holds the promise, and can help keep the politicians, special interests, and the pundits honest.
In my town, as a "well regulated militia", I may never brandish a rifle much like I may not walk naked in a public place. If my dog attacks and harms you, I am strictly liable for the consequences. The same standard needs to apply to my gun, regardless of who pulls the trigger. A threatening email to you can be traced, so should be the weapon that tries to take you down.
As a gun owner, and private citizen, I must say that the second amendment, as written and intended, grants me no right but to keep a simple weapon in my home for security, and in the woods for hunting. Anything anywhere else, and for any other purpose, ought to be illegal, and highly regulated. After all we Americans don't walk around with rocket launchers perched on our shoulders (not yet anyway) like people in some parts of the world do.
Sure, the NRA types will read this, and write diatribes about infringement of their inalienable right to bear arms anywhere and everywhere. They will argue that people, not guns, kill people, and that the issue of mass murder in this society is socioeconomic and pathological. They will be the first ones to tell you that the argument concerning ownership of sophisticated and lethal weapons is a closed case as far as the Supreme Court is concerned (McDonald Vs. City of Chicago, 2010). However people forget that the same court is on record for saying that the right to bear arms is not granted by the constitution (United State V.Cruikshank, 1876). Roe V. Wade is also a closed case as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, but that hasn't stopped anyone from questioning its legality, has it? Constitutional experts will tell you that the second amendment is poorly drafted, and that its usage of words and syntax only creates competing arguments at best. It is by no means an individual right to weaponry of mass destruction.
When the second amendment was drafted, a front loading musket that fired a rather crude ball was the weapon of choice. The gun took a great deal of prep work and fired once, maybe twice, every minute. Even if it can be successfully argued that the preamble of the amendment (a well regulated Militia) implied your average Joe, it can not be argued that the drafters of the amendment intended to ever give AK-47 style guns to the general public. The 18th century champions of gun rights would be appalled by the present-day liberal interpretations of the amendment. The poorly worded language of the document will haunt them if they saw December 14, 2012 unfold on CNN.
Anyone who practices ethical hunting of wild animals will tell you that the use of a rapid-fire arm is not hunting but massacring of animals. They will also tell you that the privilege to discharge a firearm comes with a strict code of personal conduct, and an equally strict set of governmental rules and regulations right down to the details of time of year, shooting hours, permits and tags. So if we can live with stringent gun use regulations in the woods, then why can't we do the same in our neighborhoods?
Possibly the ammunition will be smart and inflict enough damage to stop an intruder but not kill him. Gun technology holds the promise, and can help keep the politicians, special interests, and the pundits honest.
In my town, as a "well regulated militia", I may never brandish a rifle much like I may not walk naked in a public place. If my dog attacks and harms you, I am strictly liable for the consequences. The same standard needs to apply to my gun, regardless of who pulls the trigger. A threatening email to you can be traced, so should be the weapon that tries to take you down.
