A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.
When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution the world was a much different and far more dangerous place. One couldn’t just dial 911 and expect a speedy response feom police and/or other emergency personnel. “A well regulated Militia” was in that day and age “necessary to the security of a free State,” no question about it. The ability to defend oneself and one’s community in the face of clear and present dangers was paramount.
Fast forward about 240 years, and the world- along with the dangers we face- have changed. The ones we do face are generally much more impersonal and far less immediate. We’ve evolved into a country governed by the rule of law, which is enforced by a cadre of law enforcement personnel who’ve accepted the risks and duties that accompany protecting public safety.
Clearly, the need for a “well regulated Militia” in not what it was in the early days, nor is it any longer “necessary to the security of a free State,” which means the rules we live by in this different world should be different…right? Except that in the case of the 2nd Amendment, we live by the same 27 words that governed weaponry in the hands of private individuals. Almost 240 years after its propagation, the 2nd Amendment has become the most willfully twisted and most subjectively interpreted 27 words in the English language. There’s no longer a need for a “well regulated Militia,” as the “security of a free state” is protected by professional law enforcement personnel and what’s evolved into the most powerful military in the world. Yet there are still Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes © who cling to “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” as if it was an immutable proclamation handed down to the Shining City on the Hill © that is Fortress America by God Almighty His Own Self. They demand “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”…even as the completely ignore the first 13 words of the 2nd Amendment. It serves their agenda to selective ignore the first 13 words in order to selectively interpret the final 14…and they cling to it as if their very lives depended on it, firm in the conviction that God is on their side and anyone who disagrees wants to take their guns away.
The self-serving righteousness of Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes © is as ridiculous, absurd, and intellectually dishonest as it is immoral…not that Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes © will own up to this reality, of course. This leaves us with the question of how to fix the problem. How do we update the 2nd Amendment to reflect the realities of the world we actually live in without ash-canning it and having to start over? Turns out that all it would take to fix the 2nd would be five words.
Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands. Those emotional arguments would be nullified by the adoption of my proposed amendment. The amendment certainly would not silence the powerful voice of the gun lobby; it would merely eliminate its ability to advance one mistaken argument.
If Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes © grant themselves the right to loudly protest even the thought that common sense gun control become law, then it’s time for those of us who believe the 2nd Amendment must be updated to reflect the realities of life in 2015 instead of 1781 to be heard. Screaming like banshees whenever the subject of guns and gun control is raised is no way to conduct a public discussion. No one’s talking about taking anyone’s guns (much as some of us might like to); we want to discuss how to make our day-to-day life less potentially lethal. We want to do what we can to help ensure that no more innocents die simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. We want to stop the ridiculous spectacle of Americans carrying assault rifles in coffee shops, malls, and airports. More than anything, we want to see common sense become part of the equation. For instance, if you’re not part of the military or law enforcement, do you REALLY need an assault rifle? If you cling to “YES!!!” as the answer to that question, there’s something deeply, seriously wrong with you.
I’ll freely admit to supporting a solution along the lines of what Australia and England did in the wake of mass shootings. I would LOVE to see the government take the vast majority of guns from private individuals. I’m realistic enough to recognize that will never happen, so I’m willing to compromise- unlike most Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes ©, who cling to their inaccurate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as if their lives depended on maintaining the status quo.
We can’t take guns, so how about looking at updating the 2nd Amendment? By adding five simple words to the most willful misinterpreted 27 words in the English language, we’d go a long way toward making America a safer place, a place where children could go to school without parents having to worry about a mass shooting claiming their child.
Unfortunately, we live in a world in which Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes © value guns far more than life itself, where their answer to virtually any question is “MOR GUNZ!!!” That there already are more guns than people in the US is beyond absurd; how much more firepower do we need? Must we turn America into a free-fire zone in order that Proudly Closed-minded Gun Control Foes © feel secure? How much lethality will be considered a sufficient deterrent?
If you’re convinced that mass shootings are preventable- but only if we arm as many Americans as possible (An armed society is a polite society, don’tchaknow??)- I have two questions for you:
Which well-regulated militia do you belong to? And why are you so terrified of five words…or ANY update to the 2nd Amendment?
