The Second Bear Was Too Soft

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads '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."

Let me go on record to say that I am jiggy with it.

And let me also go on record that I am ok with some laws that restrict what arms can be carried and by whom.

Is that a contradiction? Maybe so.

There are some restrictions that are already in place,undisputed. An example of this is that I can't tote a Thermonuclear bomb in my F150 to the Fry's parking lot.  I think we are all in agreement on that one. Also, I would probably have pretty universal agreement that I can't go patrolling the riverbed down by the Airport with a FIM-92 Stinger positioned on my shoulder.  Other restrictions can probably also be agreed upon. Do we want a five year old child walking down the street with a sawed off shotgun?  Do we want convicted rapists and murderers walking into the church with concealed 22 mag Glocks?  Do we think it is kosher to allow target practice on the grounds of a nursery, or a national cemetery, or in Grand Central Station?

Since I am guessing we can agree that none of this is acceptable behavior anywhere in this country, I think it is safe to say that we are all willing to negotiate what controls are acceptable. 

Let's face it, when our Founding Father's wrote the 2nd amendment, their Arms of choice were single action, muzzle loading, extremely inaccurate, heavy, with no rifling. The ammunition involved leaden Minie balls with no jackets.  It would take a good minute to load and fire, and the destruction rendered would likely be limited to one target.  I am not saying the right to bear arms needs to be restricted to the arms of 1789 when the Amendment was ratified, but it does help to have their perspective of the capabilities when they wrote the Amendment.

We should be able to agree that some restrictions are necessary, and that our Founding Father's did not fully realize the damage potential that Arms would advance to over the next 250 years.

So now, in my reasoning I think it should be possible to sit down at a table and discuss necessary restrictions and controls in a intelligent manner.  If we had been able to restrict the recent killers across America, theater shooters, school shooters, highway shooters, and all the rest to single action muzzle loading un-rifled flintlocks, then much less damage would have been done.  Is this realistic....no. I fully understand the reality of that.  But it is realistic that some degree of control can be regulated, hashed out in intelligent debate.  

Am I the right person to make these decisions. Probably not. I do not carry. And I do not oppose those who choose to carry.  I have found great enjoyment in target shooting over the years, but I am not a sportsman or hunter.  I am willing to be educated on what controls are necessary and which are not.  I myself have thought that allowing concealed weapons in schools and public places is not a good idea.  I also think restrictions on automated weapons, and restrictions on extreme magazines is a good idea. But I am willing to hear the debate with an open mind. But, after the debate is done, I am not alone to think that some changes, including gun controls, are warranted and overdue.

Therefore, let me go on record that I do feel the debate needs to happen, soon, and in a very intelligent and open minded way. I would like to feel that my daughters can be safe in movie theaters and church, and that my grand-children can be safe at school.  My United States is not a third world country, and these precious children should be able to live safe lives protected from the extreme crazies that are already planning their next tragic hits.  If we don't feel that this is possible, in these United States, than something very wrong is going on. 

Cheers, nca