OPINION by JOE BIALEK
The Second Amendment of the United States 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.”
Obviously, the need for a state militia has been replaced by the National Guard and Coast Guard whereby trained military personnel are entrusted with the defense of this country against domestic enemies. Their weapons are tightly controlled and safeguarded.
The only two reasons for a citizen to own a firearm are for hunting or defense of the household from intruders. In either case, ownership of a handgun, shotgun or rifle is more than adequate to satisfy these purposes. There is absolutely no need for any U.S. civilian to own any weapon more powerful or sophisticated than these.
Accordingly, all handguns, shotguns and rifles must be licensed and registered to the degree necessary to match weapon to owner at the click of a computer key. Furthermore, we must guarantee that the mentally ill do not gain access to them under any circumstances. Finally, if we had prohibited the purchase of more sophisticated weapons several innocent victims would not have died or been harmed at shopping malls, college campuses, Congressional meetings, churches and now concerts.
We as a country must deal with this issue immediately lest our society fall back to the days when everyone carried a holster.
The Second Amendment was put in place to protect it’s citizens from the tyranny of the Government, not for “The only two reasons for a citizen to own a firearm are for hunting or defense of the household from intruders” as stated.
I don’t own any or have guns in my home, but do believe in the right to bear arms. As horrendous as these shootings have been, nothing like the death toll of country’s like Nazi Germany that stripped it’s citizens of arms. Background checks and Mental Illness evaluations are well and good, and I to think are necessary, but let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water!!!
Hey Joe, I’m curious you state that “if we had prohibited the purchase of more sophisticated weapons several innocent victims would not have died or been harmed at shopping malls, college campuses, Congressional meetings, churches and now concerts.” Could you be more specific? Which weapons should we have banned? And if banned who would have been spared. If you want real effective control over the people doing harm to each other then we should institute a policy whereby the government must monitor all people, do constant psychological evaluations and allow the NSA to do whatever is necessary to determine which humans pose a threat to the other humans. Doesn’t that sound more like an effective program to protect the people from the people?