Amendment II of The United States Constitution
This is one of the most confusing and most highly debated amendments in the Bill of Rights. Those who favor gun rights for individuals point out the amendment states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Those who favor gun control point out the amendment talks about a well regulated militia. It is time to decide as a nation how we keep people free from government tyranny while at the same time keeping them free from fear of their neighbor.
Americans as a whole seem to love their guns. That transcends race, social status, financial status and even religion (provided your religion allows for shooting people, animals or targets). Americans also see stories about gun violence on the news just about everyday. It seems one side says the best way to stop the violence is to take away all the guns. The other side says the best way to stop the violence is to arm as many law abiding citizens as possible.
The first option would lead to a population that cannot defend itself if need be from a government that one day could become tyrannical. The second option would lead to a society full of people will shoot first and ask questions later if the citizenry stops valuing life.
A new amendment concerning weapons needs to be drafted and passed. While the right to bear arms is a God-given right, there must still be some common sense used. Do citizens need access to small arms? Yes they do. Do they need access to tanks? No they don't. Do individual states need to have their own nuclear arsenal? Not at all. The Federal government will always have the biggest and best weapons. A good check on that power is the people being able to have an armed resistance. Even if that resistance is not proportional to the federal military.
The states need to be the ones that regulate weapons and not the federal government. The original second amendment was put in place to limit the federal government's control on weapons. It was there for the states and people to resist the government if need be. The only way in which the federal government should be involved in the regulation of weapons is to intervene when two states have a dispute about weapons crossing each other's boundaries. The states need to decide the best way to regulate its citizens and their weapons. This amendment would need to make it clear that incorporation does not apply to the states when regulating arms and militias. Each state would vary in that regulation. Texas would probably have many less regulations than Illinois. As a Texan, I would want to see those with guns have to pass background checks by the state government, have a registry maintained by the state government and have state mandated training for every gun owner. I would not want to see these powers in the hands of a central government who already has an overwhelming amount of military strength if they need it to maintain their power and order.
The new amendment would read:
The regulation of weapons and militias will rest entirely in the hands of the states. The Congress, President and Supreme Court will make no laws, orders or regulations concerning small arms other than disputes between states over their transportation across state lines.
No comments:
Post a Comment