Is there no middle ground? I've read a lot of view points and BOTH sides have valid concerns. It is when neither side will give anything that we end up with an embarrassing stalemate…
What middle ground do you think there can be. Either we Americans have a right to keep and bear arms, which our government is forbidden from infringing, or else we do not. And the Constitution is rather clear about whether or not we have this right.
When you on the wrong cry for “compromise” what you really mean is that you want us to give up this right, a bit at a time, while getting nothing in return other than an empty promise of safety that no rational person believes will be fulfilled. That's not compromise; that's fraud and tyranny.
Benjamin Franklin had it exactly right when he said that those who would surrender essential liberty for a promise of safety deserve neither.
Dear
OldLady and
Bob Blaylock
1. If there will always be two camps in conflict, one saying it means regulating militia and that's what the arms are for, one saying it's the people who have the rights, and the militia/govt is separate and membership is not required for people to bear arms:
Please note that the same wording of the 2nd Amendment is interpreted both ways.
So if we keep it as is, obviously that is good enough to accommodate both beliefs.
If it is changed, then it favors one belief over the other, so that isn't going to be approved to change it, either way.
(Just like the same Bible is used by Protestants and Catholics, and other denominations who don't agree on all of it; but if you try to change the wording, then groups will protest and demand the original wording. So just leave it as is, and by religious freedom everyone can still interpret and teach it as it applies and works for them.)
2. Instead of changing the law as written
why not reach an agreement how people is interpreted.
I propose interpreting people to mean "LAW ABIDING CITIZENS"
so this is clear the right to bear arms is withing the context of following and enforcing laws, not violating them.
someone in militia still qualifies as a law abiding citizen.
someone in govt, someone in military and police.
citizens whose intent are law abiding are included.
But not criminals seeking to abuse arms, that is not what the law authorizes or it would contradict other protections in the law about security.
Not sick people like the Ft. Hood shooter or police officers who turn out to be serial rapists.
Guns are not authorized for use by people with criminal illness or intent.
It doesn't mean you strip them of all their gun rights, but we put emphasis on making sure all people are law abiding citizens so this does not become an issue of whose rights to target and how. The focus should be on commitment to make sure all citizens are law abiding to reduce risk of crime and abuse, by screening out issues and solving them upon first sign of trouble.
The same way alcoholics in recovery can get to a stage where they know they need to stay away from alcohol and bars (or anyplace that has access to put them at risk), when mentally ill or addicted people get to that similar stage in recovery, they also know to seek help to stay safe and stay away from danger.
We can all make agreements, even with people who are mentally impaired or in process of recovery, what this law means, so we support that goal together. People become self-policing when whole communities make this commitment and seek help if anything prevents that standard from being maintained.
People who are unable to agree and exercise being a "law abiding citizen" would be legally incompetent and require assisted supervision anyway by someone who is a "law abiding citizen" able to exercise this level of responsibility. We can screen that better in communities with an agreed commitment to uphold laws instead of leaving this to chance
Having a public consensus on what this means as "law abiding"
would resolve the need to argue over whether people are members of militia or not.
Even if they are military or police, you don't want criminally ill officers invoking rights when they aren't legally competent and responsible but impaired.
That's what I would propose.
I don't think any wording needs to be changed, but perhaps parties could sign agreements
to interpret "people" as "law abiding citizens" and allow both beliefs about requiring official militia or not.
And agree not to push laws that would attempt to impose one belief over the other.
I would also recommend the same screening/training for both police, military and citizens
in order to ensure people accept legal responsibility as "law abiding citizens."
But leave it to districts, cities or states to determine their own agreed process for this training and screening.
It has to ensure "law abiding citizens" as the standard, but may vary from state to state, or per district,
similar to each local level determining its own policy on conceal and carry or open carry, and opting in or out.
