The second amendment 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."
Clearly, the boundaries are not tight enough.
This question might resonate with Americans only, given that we are only talking about some words written into an amendment to the US Constitution, not anything "universal" in any sense of the word. Many people in the US come across as close to religiously self-righteous, when this subject comes up, so we end up with an endless string of whack jobs, who are allowed to become legally lethal, almost on a daily basis, as we jut our jaw and proclaim their right to be lethal lunatics.
Give these lunatics a knife, or a baseball bat, and the results would be far less dramatic.
The second amendment was written at a time when a local, well-regulated militia, performed the functions we now assign to the National Guard and perhaps, state police. Well-regulated does not mean that every deranged lunatic should be armed and dangerous. The NRA has a way of proposing the most ridiculous "solutions," which clearly do not and cannot work, just to prop up their membership's little personal hobby. The NRA repeats such banalities as "just enforce the existing laws," as if that solves the problem. Deranged people are not flagged to every gun and ammo peddler. Doctor-patient confidentiality, for one thing, usually forbids this. The NRA has not yet figured that out. The whack job in question always "obtained the guns and ammo legally," we are told by the gun peddlers. How is this not comical? They should be embarrassed to use this excuse, time and time again.
If bribes to Congress were not permitted (oh, I meant "campaign contributions"), the NRA would be the paper tiger it should be.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy