Those of my readers who are among my personal friends may be aware
that for several months I have had health problems which put in question my survival on any given day. Nevertheless things are too dull
for me so I want to introduce a blog topic which is guaranteed to bring plenty of excitement for you and me. For doing so, among the plagues which are likely to descend on me are Bile, Calumny and Ostracism.
The subject is a clause in a document written 300 years ago, when the nation was tiny and no one could even imagine the size, population government structure and state of development as we know it today--
the Second Amendment to the constitution.
Except for the emotional
and commercial content involved in the manufacture and sale of firearms
there is no sensible reason for any one other than those who need them
in the line of duty to possess a deadly handgun.
I am aware of the powerful passions aroused at the mere mention of guns
in the context of control of their possession and display. It is not my desire
or intent to enter that minefield. What I want to do is survey my diverse
readership on their opinions. I will then try, in a non-judgemental
fashion, to present some options for my readers to consider and debate, hopefully in the interest of reducing the number of gun caused deaths.
In the near future I will post a few questions to which I hope a significant number of you will reply.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Please allow me to be the first respondent.
The "right to bear arms" was never intended as justification to obtain and freely carry or use death machinery with wild abandon. The intent at the time of that amendment was to assure society the right to form civil militia using weapons they might have or might be able to obtain for the purpose of protection of self and state. There was never any mention of a universal right or privilege to obtain armament for the singular purpose of killing others.
Today available armament runs the spectrum from "self-defense" to hand-to-hand combat, even supercilious manslaughter because no finite definition exists. I can literally purchase a machine gun just as easily as a hunting rifle. That freedom was obviously never the intent of the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.
Our "founding fathers" would never have condoned a blanket "right" to super societal privileges over pragmatic logic. Defense of cultural norms was obviously their preference but an American version of Muammar al-Gaddafi was clearly not their objective.
Anyone willing to spend a few minutes researching what is known about those 55 signers of the Constitution will quickly recognize thst our founders were by and large, highly conservative but also pacifists. So why, after only a couple hundred years should any of us believe we have the right to bear arms capable of exterminating masses?
Some people simply love guns but that does not mean they have any more "rights" than anyone else.
People who are sane of mind and never convicted of a crime should be allowed to obtain a permit for $250 to obtain a weapon and buy it. Permit renewable yearly.Such money to compensate victims of violent crime.
jacquesmaxx
Post a Comment