Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo
What do you expect to be done?
Seriously, if there was a solution to this things would be done.
|
Obviously there are things that can be done, but no one in authority wants to take the initiative.
This gun issues has been beat to death, and still, many like me, see a solution, but the solution will never happen, because from day one, people have interpreted the 2nd amendment so it coincides with their wants, not as the rule was meant to be.
First let me quote from the federalist papers for those who think it was "the people" who had the right to bear arms, and no one else, then I will state further , after that quote.
Quote:
Federalist No. 36.
Hamilton states that a well-regulated (efficient) militia composed of the people will be more uniform and beneficial to the "public defense" of Americans. He argues that an excessively large militia can harm a nation's work force, as not everyone can leave their profession to go through military exercises. Thus, a smaller, but still well-regulated militia, is the answer. In the end, Hamilton concludes that the militia, as it is constituted directly of the people and managed by the states, is not a danger to liberty when called into use by other states to do things such as quell insurrections.
|
This statement by Hamilton serves to back up what I stated I believe the true intention of the 2nd was, to freely arm the people of a militia, not the general public.
In more understandable terms, the people(general population) could be called up to form a militia, and those people who are now a militia, would have the right to bear arms.
Again, read the paragraph, especially what he states about a "large militia".
He is talking about "people of a militia, not the general public.
The 2nd was reserved for members who would join a militia.
The second part of the amendment states "the people's right to bear arms, shall not be infringed".
Again, reading from Hamilton in the federalist papers, it is more than clear the "people" mentioned in the second sentence of the amendment were people who make up a militia.
Now,the solution to this gun issue is somewhat like a prescription that you doctor has prescribed for you.
When you read the literature that accompanies your medication, this is usually stated in that literature, "your doctor has weighed the evidence, and feels the benefits outweigh the risk involved".
For far to long, we are being bombarded with news of mass shootings, and the problem is never going to go away on it's own.
The sensible solution is to ban ALL firearms in the country, and those who think they could get away with having even one, would face the death penalty, ordered by the courts.
Again," the benefits outweigh the risk".
Looking back Hamilton's words above, it would appear the 2nd was aimed at the people who would form a militia, not the general public, so the general public should not have been armed in the first place.
Disarming the public,with death as the penalty for not conforming to the law, would certainly put an end to violence with firearms as the weapon of choice.
Only a tough policy as this will be effective.
People may try and use alternate weapons as a means to kill many at one time, and as with firearms, they too will be banned.
It is obvious that nothing has worked to date to end the carnage, so it is time stiffer measures were taken.
Perhaps the end result will be , the 2nd amendment will be repealed, if these mass killings continue unabated, and a new, reworded amendment takes it's place, more in line with what the framers intended.
I don't believe fort one minute, the framers intended to have the general population armed.
Not in their wildest imagination could they have foreseen a population in access of 300,000,000 people being armed.
Bob.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
