GUNS, GUNS, AND MORE GUNS!

In order to have some understanding of our second amendment rights, I scrolled back over its inception, to at least give us a starting point.

It’s clear that the birth of this “right to bear arms”, comes from the Bill of Rights of 1689 under English common law. The main reason these laws were implemented in England was over the constant confrontation between Roman Catholic and Protestant followers. When James ll died in 1689, a Roman Catholic, the new King William lll of Orange who was a Protestant, had laws passed on guns, some of which have been adopted in the second amendment.

1.     The ten amendments adopted on December fifteenth 1791, included the second amendment. It was described as an, “auxiliary right”, with the paramount reason to defend an individual’s ‘SELF DEFENSE’, amongst other conditions.

2.     In 1876, “The Supreme Court”, ruled that “the right to bear arms” is not granted by the constitution, neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. It then ruled that the federal government along with States could limit any weapon types not having “reasonable relationship” to the preservation of a well-regulated militia.

3.     James Madison, Father of the constitution, along with George Mason, also became, Fathers of this second amendment. They stated that “the right to bear arms” would not be restricted by British Law.

Since this time the amount of debate that has existed based on the correct wording of this amendment, is enough to fill the Smithsonian Institute.

So where to now? You may well ask. Obviously this so called inalienable right of self defense is not going to be regulated without an uproar.

Photo Credit: Freethoughtproject.com 

So let us go back to the time of the enactment, by Madison and Mason. This was done at a time when this country and its landscape were entirely different. A small island like England, is a not like a vast continent. America has become the largest organized landmass on the face of the Earth. In 1791, this country was not as advanced as the thirteen original colonies. So in the middle of nowhere without a firearm, would have been difficult in view of, Indians, cattle rustlers and horse thieves to say the least. It was necessary for farmers and the like to be able to defend themselves.

Today? It’s a completely different situation.  We can lay hands on an automatic rifle at a time when it’s not as needed as the revolver was then. What I don’t understand is we now have the militia in the form of the National Guard and the police force, so yes I believe in the right of ‘self defense’, but is all this choice of weapons really necessary?

There needs to be a restriction on certain weapons that are better used by the military, unless it’s for ‘hunting purposes’, in which case automatic weapons would be unnecessary.

Photo Credit: CNN

So what’s the conclusion? Congress must limit the type of gun required for self defense, greater training must be given, licenses are issued base upon the skill level and intelligent purpose for the gun’s use. In other words our elected officials must realize that times have changed, what was necessary in 1791 is not the same as today. The amendment criteria needs to be updated, to respect the times we live in, with regard to the right type of gun needed for self protection.

Obviously background checks for a persons’ mental health and/or restricted for persons with a criminal record. Fines made upon suppliers of weapons that have not accomplished a proper audit, on the consumer. Parents, relatives, are subject to fines, confiscation in the event their firearms are too easily acquired by unsafe protection in proper gun racks, by family and anyone without a designated license.

The above is easily enforced, as it is in most civilized nations. Will it happen? I doubt it. I guess the fact that our country has a 10.64 deaths per 100k people is senseless. The UK is .23 per 100K. If we can keep out the terrorists, we can surely tighten down on so many of these loop holes, yes?

So why? You may well ask. The manufacturing of fire arms is big business, not only here but through arms dealers, who have ways of putting them into the hands of rogue nations and undesirable people such as terrorists and the like. Some exports are legitimate, but not all. In addition this means jobs. So big money is being made and the firearm manufacturers can spend inaudible amounts on campaign financing. These so-called super pacts are well known, in particular one, which fanatically lobbies against change.

So are we all going to stand back and be a fly on the wall? Or stand-up for what is truly right. I’m not advocating for the abolition of the second amendment, I’m asking for a review of its wording in today’s world, for common sense values to take place. How many more people must die before stricter, better, more sensible rules, regulations and accountability are put in place?