Back in the founding fathers' day, arms were basically muskets and dueling pistols. But in today's world, they might be everything from AK47's to pipe bombs to nuclear-armed drones. Certainly, an ordinary citizen should have the right to own a weapon for protection or sport. But in this age of technology-driven terrorism, foreign and domestic, we cannot afford to allow anyone and everyone to brandish weapons of mass killing.
Part of the problem, of course, is the archaic and confusing wording of the 2nd Amendment. I think it is high time that it be amended it in such a way that it accomplishes two things: (1) It would update the 'militia' section with more modern and relevant wording, such as: "Since a well-organized militia may become necessary in a time of crisis to the security of a state..."; and (2) Instead of the vague, ambiguous phrase 'right to keep and bear arms', it would distinguish between "ordinary" weapons and "exceptional" weapons--and define more specifically what kind of 'arms' might reasonably be needed by the everyday person for protection or sport...as opposed to those which are 'exceptional' in the sense that they serve no purpose other than mass killing and should therefore be reserved for trained and certified individuals who have registered as collectors, professional peace officers, persons threatened, etc.
Personally, I would limit the sale of weapons to people who are over eighteen and have proven themselves to have a stable personal history--continuous employment, for instance, and no police record. I would suggest wording in the amendment specifically stating that "Congress shall have the right to define what constitutes "ordinary" and "exceptional" weapons and shall from time to time update those definitions; and that the Congress shall defer to the individual states the responsibility of setting age-limits, mental and physical requirements, and other criteria for gun and weapon ownership"...or something to that effect.
No comments:
Post a Comment