Discussion about the second amendment
The second amendment of the United States constitution states:
"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."
One can google terms such as well-regulated militia and second amendment and find numerous opinions about the intentions of the framers of this amendment. Some might interpret this to mean groups of citizens who organized to protect them and other citizens from some individual or group who wants to take over control of the nation. Some seem to interpret it more narrowly. A good example of those individuals might be those who took over the Oregon national wildlife refuge. Still others might interpret it to mean a group which is formed to oppose the legalization of certain behavior such as gay marriage or other behaviors which some might think is inconsistent with what was intended when this nation, the constitution and the amendments were formulated. Yet another group might be concerned that there are too many laws restricting behavior in these United States.
The question of the interpretation of the second amendment is certain to occupy the minds and “pens” of numerous citizens of the United States and possibility the Supreme Court of the United States for many years to come. There is no doubt that many citizens of these United States are very serious about what they consider their right to own a variety of weapons, including some which was designed for military purposes. It is also commonly known that United States manufacturers make and sell a great many guns to United States citizens and to other countries. As I have pointed out in other blogs it is an enormous business. If it would cease to exist the effect on local and national economies would be enormous.
There are a variety of weapons which can be used to main or kill some living creature. Guns are clearly the most controversial. As near as I can determine although guns can be designed to temporary halt a person, for the most part they are intended to kill. They are used primary for:
· Killing those we define as the enemy of the United States. These are normally used by a person who is a legal, active service member of one of the branches of the U. S. military.
· To assist local, state and national law enforcement individuals in insuring that folks obey the laws and apprehending those who are suspected of not doing so.
· To assist prison and jail guards/correctional officers in carrying out their duties involving those imprisoned for committing a crime or awaiting trial for an alleged crime.
· Hunting to provide food for oneself and one’s family.
· Big game hunting for sport.
· Other sports, i. e. target practice.
· Personal protection against those who might potentially assault or steal from an individual or a family member/friend of that individual.
· Committing criminal activity such as robbery which is frequently related to drug addiction or some other dis order.
· Committing criminal activity such as mass shootings.
The gun that the Orlando shooter used was a Sig Sauer MCX and not an AR-15.
In an article in the Washington Post on June 14, 2016 Thomas Gibbons-Neff wrote:
“The gun the Orlando shooter used was a Sig Sauer MCX, not an AR-15. That doesn’t change much.”
On Monday night, officials clarified that the rifle Omar Mateen used in the shooting was not an AR-15, but a Sig Sauer MCX rifle.
While aesthetically similar to and just as lethal as an AR-15, the MCX is internally a different beast, thus all but removing it from the AR-15 family of rifles. Yet while the weapon is different, the MCX and the AR-15 share the same design purpose: providing a highly portable, customizable, easy to operate, and accurate rifle for the individual who possesses it.
As Bob Owens from the blog “Bearing Arms” points out, the MCX is a modular rifle designed to be able to change between a variety of calibers and “otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form.”
Originally designed for U.S. Special Operations forces, the MCX was built from the “ground up” to be lightweight and short, and it accepts “a broad array of accessories, enabling you to build a complete weapon system for any scenario or environment,” Sig Sauer’s website says.
While able to shoot the same caliber ammunition — .223 — as an AR-15, the MCX was initially meant to fire a round called a .300 Blackout. The relatively new caliber, according to Owens, was designed to provide Special Operations Command with a bullet that was as quiet as a pistol round but packed the range and lethality of a rifle cartridge. A side effect of the bullet’s design is that the it mimics the size of the round fired by AK-47-type rifles.’
Leaving aside the question of the justification for war, I fail to understand why any private citizen would need such a gun. I do understand why someone from an engineering or mechanical standpoint might be able to appreciate such an amazing creation. I am personally fascinated by the fact that men and women can figure out how to engineer such a device. I can admire engineering or creativity of many of the weapons, machines and other systems used by the military.
I can also accept that people and not guns kill. Obviously, in order for a weapon to operate in a hand from a remote location a human has to physically shoot or program the weapon. I get it. I also get it that there are so many weapons being manufactured that someone who is determined and knows how to find them can purchase a weapon no matter what the laws. Even if as of today no additional weapons were sold to the general public, it would take a long time to even make a dent in the availability. I also know that weapons sold or given to other countries or even used by our own military forces “find” their way into the hands of those who may be tempted to use them to commit a mass, non-military-sanctioned killing.
I would like to see we, as a nation, as a first step, focus on:
· Continuing to do background checks and exploring ways of increasing same.
· Selling rifles appropriate for hunting game one is going to use for food to be sold to those who authorities can make an educated guess are safe to own same.
· Continuing a dialogue about the attachment to hand guns for private protection use.
· Starting and/or continuing a non-judgmental, non-emotional debate about the role of profit in manufacturing and selling guns and other weapons.
· Starting or continuing a debate about forbidding the direct or indirect contributions of weapons manufacturers to political campaigns or PACs.
· Starting or continuing a debate about the long-term results of selling or giving weapons to various groups or countries.
There is, in my opinion, something to be said for making a positive statement. If we, as a nation, think it desirable that we humans find non-violent ways to argue a point, make a stance or resolve conflicts, let’s begin as communities, states and nations to serious experiment with same.
I also think that we need to explore ways to treat mental illness rather than ignoring it or punishing those who suffer from it by putting them in jail.
It might behoove us to think of the second amendment in terms of who we want to be as a nation rather than as a way of proving that no one can take away our “right” to be violent and crazy.
Written June 18, 2016
The second amendment of the United States constitution states:
"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."
One can google terms such as well-regulated militia and second amendment and find numerous opinions about the intentions of the framers of this amendment. Some might interpret this to mean groups of citizens who organized to protect them and other citizens from some individual or group who wants to take over control of the nation. Some seem to interpret it more narrowly. A good example of those individuals might be those who took over the Oregon national wildlife refuge. Still others might interpret it to mean a group which is formed to oppose the legalization of certain behavior such as gay marriage or other behaviors which some might think is inconsistent with what was intended when this nation, the constitution and the amendments were formulated. Yet another group might be concerned that there are too many laws restricting behavior in these United States.
The question of the interpretation of the second amendment is certain to occupy the minds and “pens” of numerous citizens of the United States and possibility the Supreme Court of the United States for many years to come. There is no doubt that many citizens of these United States are very serious about what they consider their right to own a variety of weapons, including some which was designed for military purposes. It is also commonly known that United States manufacturers make and sell a great many guns to United States citizens and to other countries. As I have pointed out in other blogs it is an enormous business. If it would cease to exist the effect on local and national economies would be enormous.
There are a variety of weapons which can be used to main or kill some living creature. Guns are clearly the most controversial. As near as I can determine although guns can be designed to temporary halt a person, for the most part they are intended to kill. They are used primary for:
· Killing those we define as the enemy of the United States. These are normally used by a person who is a legal, active service member of one of the branches of the U. S. military.
· To assist local, state and national law enforcement individuals in insuring that folks obey the laws and apprehending those who are suspected of not doing so.
· To assist prison and jail guards/correctional officers in carrying out their duties involving those imprisoned for committing a crime or awaiting trial for an alleged crime.
· Hunting to provide food for oneself and one’s family.
· Big game hunting for sport.
· Other sports, i. e. target practice.
· Personal protection against those who might potentially assault or steal from an individual or a family member/friend of that individual.
· Committing criminal activity such as robbery which is frequently related to drug addiction or some other dis order.
· Committing criminal activity such as mass shootings.
The gun that the Orlando shooter used was a Sig Sauer MCX and not an AR-15.
In an article in the Washington Post on June 14, 2016 Thomas Gibbons-Neff wrote:
“The gun the Orlando shooter used was a Sig Sauer MCX, not an AR-15. That doesn’t change much.”
On Monday night, officials clarified that the rifle Omar Mateen used in the shooting was not an AR-15, but a Sig Sauer MCX rifle.
While aesthetically similar to and just as lethal as an AR-15, the MCX is internally a different beast, thus all but removing it from the AR-15 family of rifles. Yet while the weapon is different, the MCX and the AR-15 share the same design purpose: providing a highly portable, customizable, easy to operate, and accurate rifle for the individual who possesses it.
As Bob Owens from the blog “Bearing Arms” points out, the MCX is a modular rifle designed to be able to change between a variety of calibers and “otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form.”
Originally designed for U.S. Special Operations forces, the MCX was built from the “ground up” to be lightweight and short, and it accepts “a broad array of accessories, enabling you to build a complete weapon system for any scenario or environment,” Sig Sauer’s website says.
While able to shoot the same caliber ammunition — .223 — as an AR-15, the MCX was initially meant to fire a round called a .300 Blackout. The relatively new caliber, according to Owens, was designed to provide Special Operations Command with a bullet that was as quiet as a pistol round but packed the range and lethality of a rifle cartridge. A side effect of the bullet’s design is that the it mimics the size of the round fired by AK-47-type rifles.’
Leaving aside the question of the justification for war, I fail to understand why any private citizen would need such a gun. I do understand why someone from an engineering or mechanical standpoint might be able to appreciate such an amazing creation. I am personally fascinated by the fact that men and women can figure out how to engineer such a device. I can admire engineering or creativity of many of the weapons, machines and other systems used by the military.
I can also accept that people and not guns kill. Obviously, in order for a weapon to operate in a hand from a remote location a human has to physically shoot or program the weapon. I get it. I also get it that there are so many weapons being manufactured that someone who is determined and knows how to find them can purchase a weapon no matter what the laws. Even if as of today no additional weapons were sold to the general public, it would take a long time to even make a dent in the availability. I also know that weapons sold or given to other countries or even used by our own military forces “find” their way into the hands of those who may be tempted to use them to commit a mass, non-military-sanctioned killing.
I would like to see we, as a nation, as a first step, focus on:
· Continuing to do background checks and exploring ways of increasing same.
· Selling rifles appropriate for hunting game one is going to use for food to be sold to those who authorities can make an educated guess are safe to own same.
· Continuing a dialogue about the attachment to hand guns for private protection use.
· Starting and/or continuing a non-judgmental, non-emotional debate about the role of profit in manufacturing and selling guns and other weapons.
· Starting or continuing a debate about forbidding the direct or indirect contributions of weapons manufacturers to political campaigns or PACs.
· Starting or continuing a debate about the long-term results of selling or giving weapons to various groups or countries.
There is, in my opinion, something to be said for making a positive statement. If we, as a nation, think it desirable that we humans find non-violent ways to argue a point, make a stance or resolve conflicts, let’s begin as communities, states and nations to serious experiment with same.
I also think that we need to explore ways to treat mental illness rather than ignoring it or punishing those who suffer from it by putting them in jail.
It might behoove us to think of the second amendment in terms of who we want to be as a nation rather than as a way of proving that no one can take away our “right” to be violent and crazy.
Written June 18, 2016
RSS Feed