Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
Recently four police officers of the state of Washington were gunned down in a coffee shop, by a person who apparently entered the shop for the purpose of deliberately targeting those officers. Since this is a politics-discussion forum, I guess we should ask a political question related to this tragedy, since some people will (as usual) start insisting we need more gun restrictions to keep this from happening.
The 2nd amendment says that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted. Though it is frequently ignored by lawmakers who want to curtail gun rights, it is nonetheless still on the books, and stands in the way of anyone wanting to create new government regulations against citizens owning or carrying guns.
Clearly, since criminals will find ways to get guns despite all laws, the only way gun restrictions will keep guns from falling into criminal hands, is if they eliminate ALL guns from every member of society, criminal and law-abiding alike. People who want to make more restrictions against ordinary people owning guns, must hav this as their ultimate objective, or else there will still be guns available for criminals to acquire by theft, fraud etc., and the goal of disarming criminals will never be achieved as long as such guns are there to steal.
There is clearly a need to protect officers of the law from the murderous intention of the occasional madman. Does that need justify the deliberate disarming of the entire populace and leaving them at the mercy of those same murderous madmen (plus all the ordinary muggers, rapists, and petty criminals)?
Should the 2nd amendment be repealed and something put in its place saying something like:
"Government recognizes no inherent right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms. Government will have the power to regulate, restrict, or ban the ownership of guns and other such weapons by some or all ordinary citizens."?
The 2nd amendment says that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted. Though it is frequently ignored by lawmakers who want to curtail gun rights, it is nonetheless still on the books, and stands in the way of anyone wanting to create new government regulations against citizens owning or carrying guns.
Clearly, since criminals will find ways to get guns despite all laws, the only way gun restrictions will keep guns from falling into criminal hands, is if they eliminate ALL guns from every member of society, criminal and law-abiding alike. People who want to make more restrictions against ordinary people owning guns, must hav this as their ultimate objective, or else there will still be guns available for criminals to acquire by theft, fraud etc., and the goal of disarming criminals will never be achieved as long as such guns are there to steal.
There is clearly a need to protect officers of the law from the murderous intention of the occasional madman. Does that need justify the deliberate disarming of the entire populace and leaving them at the mercy of those same murderous madmen (plus all the ordinary muggers, rapists, and petty criminals)?
Should the 2nd amendment be repealed and something put in its place saying something like:
"Government recognizes no inherent right of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms. Government will have the power to regulate, restrict, or ban the ownership of guns and other such weapons by some or all ordinary citizens."?
