The other day I was watching the news and heard the president say that he had an “appetite for gun control.” Then, he lost his appetite after an hour-long talk with the head of the NRA. Hmmm.

I think we all know that gun control will never be effective in our society and background checks haven’t kept anything in check. With way too many gun owners out there, it seems to me there is one variable left — control the bullets/ammunition! What if Congress drafted a resolution to put a freeze on the manufacture and sale of ammunition for one year? The continuing comment is “Guns don’t kill — people do.” Running out of ammunition might make you think twice before you decide to execute your right to bear arms.

Furthermore — make background checks mandatory and overseen by a committee of victims of gun violence (and families). And if you can’t pass a background check — you can’t buy ammunition. No cool-down period, no wait and see if you come to your senses … just no ammunition. Ever! You then become labeled as too dangerous (or just plain too stupid) to have them in your possession.

I realize this is a stretch of creating a change in such a big business, however, anything is possible and maybe, just maybe, such a delay can reverse the minds of the misguided and the ignorant. I myself have an appetite to live.

(37) comments

horsehouse

I too have a desire to die of natural causes, not a bullet. What most people refuse to acknowledge is that Amendment II is only 27 words. The first four words are: “A well regulated Militia,...”. Everything else, in the remaining 23 words, is open to interpretation and we can change interpretation according to technological change from muskets to assault weapons. My question for the adamant is: what part of a well regulated militia involves anyone purchasing an assault weapon and then going out to commit multiple murders? Not very well regulated I say.

Mike

“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” is not open to interpretation?

horsehouse

In answer to your question, I believe it is open to interpretation, so thanks for asking.

Mike

What would you say is the purpose of the amendment, horsehouse?

horsehouse

Purpose? To be able to bear arms. That it is not to be infringed. We agree so far except that well regulated seems more like; not to be regulated at all.

Mike

“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.”

Mike

It’s not ambiguous!

bill jenkins

when i went to school i was taught a declarative sentence was lead by a premise phrase followed by secondary phrases that support the premise phrase. the premise phrase in question is all about a militia.

horsehouse

Which arms? Seems ambiguous.

horsehouse

So I’m fine with the weapons in the 18th century. Beyond that, not so supportive of living exclusively in the past. The Founding Fathers made amendments and if brought into the present would be open to amendments again. Or, maybe we stopped learning?

bill jenkins

this problem will not be solved until we take the advice of the late justice J P Stevens and repeal the 2nd amendment.

TwoToeJoe

The problem is not the 2nd Amendment Bill. The problem is people who despise our Bill of Rights that were initially listed upon the ratification of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights were inalienable rights to safeguard individual liberties and clear limitations upon our Governments power to impose it's will upon the people. I was taught this when I attended school Bill. I love our Constitution and the individual liberties contained in each of those original 10 Amendments. Good luck in attempting to repeal any of original Amendments listed on our Constitution. John P Stevens may be your hero Bill but he is not one of my favorites!

horsehouse

Talk about hyperbole when implying that someone like me hates our Bill of Rights. Ten Commandments are pretty specific too, but we elect an adulterous president, we execute people, we bear false witness against our neighbors. Seems everything is open to interpretation if it suits one’s predispositions. Better argument, please.

TwoToeJoe

The Supreme Court is the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has determined that it is an individual's right to keep a gun for self-defense. The Supreme Court has determined that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding". Sorry but the Supreme Court does not interpret the ten commandments.

gstiler

When you consider the original intend of the Second Amendment, you must also consider what southern white people feared most at the time: slave revolts and the escape of human property!

Southerners, many of whom lived in counties where slaves outnumbered slave owners, lived in a constant state of fear. As a remedy, Slave Patrol Militias were used to control those populations and to protect southern 'property rights'.

Northern constitutionalists acknowledged that those fears were an important element of the southern mentality at the time, and that the document would not move forward without such a clause. They acquiesced and the 'militia clause' was added to the draft to appease southern slavers.

The Second is indeed a relic!

Unless we desire to continue the great American tradition of 'keeping certain elements of society down', it is high time for an amendment and/or repeal.

TwoToeJoe

Historical revisionism at it's best! Now we learn that the 2nd Amendment was simply included in the Bill of Rights as a racist tool. Hilarious! Excellent example of the current state of the liberal mindset. Pretty extreme but might work well with the gullible.

Mike

@ horsehouse:

“In answer to your question, I believe it is open to interpretation, so thanks for asking.” – You had already said that.

Mike

@ horsehouse:

“Purpose? To be able to bear arms. That it is not to be infringed. We agree so far except that well regulated seems more like; not to be regulated at all.” – Wrong, Right and Wrong, In that order.

Mike

@ Professor Bill:

“when i went to school i was taught a declarative sentence was lead by a premise phrase followed by secondary phrases that support the premise phrase. the premise phrase in question is all about a militia.” – Grammar school Bill? Then you were likely taught how to properly capitalize as well, so what eh? More germane however, were you taught to make your freaking point?

Mike

@ horsehouse:

“Which arms? Seems ambiguous.” – Arms meaning weapons. I think that is clear to most folks.

Mike

@ horsehouse:

“So I’m fine with the weapons in the 18th century. Beyond that, not so supportive of living exclusively in the past. The Founding Fathers made amendments and if brought into the present would be open to amendments again. Or, maybe we stopped learning?” – I thought you said “arms” was ambiguous.

Mike

@ bill jenkins:

“this problem will not be solved until we take the advice of the late justice J P Stevens and repeal the 2nd amendment.” – Now there’s some peas poor advice!

Mike

Everybody, listen up… Without the second amendment, our bill of rights is nothing but wishful thinking. A watch dog without teeth!

gstiler

Sorry Mike, history teaches us that the Second was not intended to be a 'watchdog' amendment. It was entirely a concession to southern slave owners who desired to continue their private 'militias' (called Slave Patrols) in order to protect themselves from slave revolts and chase after escaped 'property'.

The southern founders would not sign the document without this guarantee.


TwoToeJoe

The purpose of the Right to Bear Arms being placed into the Bill of Rights was to subvert tyranny. The Founding Fathers understood the new federal government they were ratifying might one day become just as tyrannical as the government it was replacing. The 2nd Amendment does impose extreme problems towards those who wish to impose new radical firearms legislation(tyranny) regarding firearms ownership. The 2nd Amendment clearly states our specific right to bear arms. It also clearly states that it shall not be infringed. To circumvent problems associated with enacting restrictions (infringement) in firearms ownership (individual liberty) the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms) evidently must be repealed as insinuated by Bill who referenced the statement by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. Even Gary Stiler adamantly embraces the repeal and injects absurd historical revisionism as justification. I value all the individual liberties and fundamental rights established by our Bill of Rights which guarantees our personal freedoms and clear limitations on our government's power. I believe it is a sad day in America when ideas such as repealing any of the first Ten Amendments we refer to as the Bill of Rights. It is really sad when people claim the Second Amendment was intended to subvert slave revolts and keeping certain elements of society down. The ones who despise the Bill of Rights are the ones who seek the repeal of any of our individual liberties granted by our Constitution. Countless hours can be spent on back and forth discourse regarding which type firearms should be restricted but that would be a story of it own. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right and has been for well over two hundred years.

gstiler

There's lots of reasons why each and every word of the entire BoR chosen. It was called then, what we call it now - a compromise. So yes indeed, one of the historical compromises integral to the passage of this great document was to codify southerners' rights to their tradition of Slave Patrol Militias.

Please try to appreciate that the intellectual arguments that we should be having here are much the same as our founding fathers wrestled with. I'm sure that they were quite emotional about their own belief and biases - but compromise won the day!

Mike

@ gstiler: 1791

Mike

Never mind the bullets Rex:

At what cost and to what end? How much effort wasted, how much money spent, how much liberty squandered on tyrannical laws, all to no avail? --- How many more lives will be tragically lost until we stop deluding ourselves, until we stop thinking an inanimate object the cause of the problem rather than the people who misuse it. Why do we continue to think gun regulation, of any sort, will stop the bloodshed? It hasn’t yet. --- When will we recognize the futility of trying to take guns away from law abiding Americans. It won’t happen in our lifetime. Some politicians are more intent on taking guns that than saving lives, that’s unfortunate and deadly. They fiddle while Rome burns. --- Better we set ourselves a tact to an achievable outcome. We all know these murderous acts are carried out misfits and lunatics. Someone knows them. They are all known personally by someone. Whether it’s via the system, the authorities, family, friends, peers, acquaintances or you and me, we know them. We may want to help them, we may even be fearful of them but, because of ill-conceived law, we are powerless in that regard unless the misguided soul wants help. We do have the power to change problematic law however and we could have done it already but we were busy piddling up a rope. --- RATHER THAN CONTINUING TO PURSUE THE IMPOSSIBLE TASK OF KEEPING GUNS AWAY FROM THOSE THAT SHOULDN’T HAVE THEM, WE SHOULD INSTEAD BE KEEPING THOSE FOLKS AWAY FROM THE GUNS! Legislate proper law so we can lock up bad actors and institutionalize dangerous idiots like we are supposed to be doing!






gstiler

Well said Mike.

51citizens killed in August!



Today's August 31st...how many more Brothers, Sisters, Moms, Dads, Aunts and Uncles, Caregivers, Granfathers, Dear Friends and lovers... will we sacrifice in September?

bill jenkins

gun owners have a "Linus" disorder.

TwoToeJoe

A very astute observation Bill. Perhaps we should put the 2nd up for repeal so we can more accurately assess your theory. Maybe, just maybe, we could at least determine exactly who the ones suffering from the "Linus disorder" are.

horsehouse

Obviously the “gun inflexibles” write lengthy justifications which make me think they live totally in a mindset of paranoia. With that thought I stick with the idea that well regulated gun policy is important especially when the paranoid hyperventilate about a tyrannical government. Who gets to decide who is tyrannical? Anyway, I’ve said my piece and nothing else I would say will have any more impact. Adios, until next debate amigos.

dvg

I want someone who is a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment to tell me what they think "well-regulated" means. Many seem to think there should not be any regulations at all. That is clearly not constitutional. So what does it mean?

bill jenkins

well regulated meant organized and trained. it was the fledgling nations answer to a standing army, which it couldn't afford. an unregulated militia is almost worthless. without organization and training you would wind up with a bunch of independent people running around without direction or control. they probably would start shooting each other in the confusion of combat. there is a reason for military drills including marching in rank, it teaches a group of people to obey commands of a single leader. without leadership an control you are hopeless against a trained force under a single leader.

Mike

Well regulated = Armed and ready

Mike

Bill: Your interpretation of the term “well regulated” as meaning “organized and trained” is inconsistent with 1791 parlance and, however intuitive it may seem to you, your subsequent remarks are not exactly borne out in America's history, either.

Mike

By the way Bill, since when are you a staunch supporter of the 2nd amendment?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.