Lurch wrote:Peder: Nice try but the 18th was in 1919, far outside founding fathers and bill of rights territory
But that's WAY outside the spectrum of this thread, so I think it honestly comes down to just a couple questions.
1. Do you oppose the idea of concealed carry?
2. Do you oppose the idea of open carry?
3. Does the type of weapon matter?
4. So long as there is no criminal intent, does the reason for carry matter?
5. Does location matter?.
I think that I had a very valid point by mentioning the Eighteenth Amendment: That amendment was replaced and other amendments can likewise be revised. These are “
Amendments” (not Commandments!) after all and, in my opinion, not carved in stone.
Furthermore, the Prohibition of Alcohol was a wise decision, as the consumption of alcohol causes numerous deaths: For example “Teen alcohol use kills about 6000 people each year, more than all illegal drugs combined.” (
source MADD) and 40% of traffic deaths are alcohol related, as is the case for suicide attempts. Worse, 54% of all violent crimes are alcohol-related, 60% of all emergency room admissions are alcohol-related and 80% of all domestic disputes are alcohol-related. (
source)
So banning alcohol, an addictive drug that does so much damage in our society, can be justified. That said, I would regret missing my annual glass of
Château de Tomroy on Mt Whittier.
Therefore, if the Eighteenth Amendment were still in place, the US would be a healthier and safer place. Other decisions imposed by authorities, such as imposing the use of seatbelts in cars, reduces the number of road fatalities.
That brings me to the Second Amendment, which refers to the militia that became the National Guard in 1903. The
National Guard website describes the history as follows: “Throughout the 19th century the size of the Regular Army was small, and the militia provided the bulk of the troops during the Mexican War, the early months of the Civil War, and the Spanish-American War.” Obviously, when the “militia” became the National Guard in 1903, the Second Amendment became obsolete or should have been updated.
In my opinion, the Supreme Court (of “corporations are persons” fame), the NRA and the gun industry deliberately misinterpret the Second Amendment to their end. Sadly, guns are deadly and the US statistics reflect this: Other than the fact that about 60% of gun deaths are suicides,
the daily carnage is appalling. Heroes defending their home or fighting crime do not cause these deaths. It is mostly senseless deaths and injuries, such as an 11 year old killed by her army veteran stepfather practicing his quick draw or a police officer shot by a schizophrenic middle-age woman during a routine traffic stop.
In the interest of public safety, and to protect people from themselves, stricter gun laws would make a lot of sense: Firmer gun laws will save lives, just as the law forcing us to wear seatbelts saves
about 9,500 lives in the US every year. Therefore, for those of us with compassion for fellow humans killed by guns, improved gun regulations seem logic and mandatory. With sensible gun laws, the 11-year-old girl and the police officer would both still be alive today...
Some people are really fit at eighty; thankfully I still have many years to get into shape…
