Well, this is gonna be messier than that one dress that Monica wore when President Clinton…well, never mind.
Anyway, the Supreme Court is going to hear a case debating the District of Columbia’s gun ban. My personal opinion is that the gun ban is going to be upheld, and I don’t see how it couldn’t be (even though I am a gun rights advocate, at least partially). The 2nd Amendment only allows for the provision of guns to be used in a militia, which we do NOT have anymore. What allows people like you and me to own guns is STATE constitutions. I would support a new federal amendment replacing the 2nd, but with heavy provisions, such as:
- Background checks – people like the VA Tech guy with mental problems shouldn’t have guns.
- Criminal background checks – if you’ve committed a violent crime or have been convicted of using drugs or abusing alcohol – no gun for you – who knows what you’ll do when not with it.
- You don’t need automatic
or semi-automatic(just a little note, Republican Michigander informed me on some misconceptions of mine – so see below fo why I took out semi-autos from my “banned” category) guns. If you’re that bad of a shot, you don’t need to be shooting at anything.
- Other than this – I love guns – they’re a great means of protection, and as soon as I turn 21, I’m buying a handgun and getting a concealed weapons permit.
The amendment is so ambiguous and just poorly written that this needs to happen. The Supreme Court needs to interpret it in how today uses it – what is today’s translation of a militia? Is it just citizens, or is there no more militia – it’s up to them to decide – but they did this with the 1st Amendment – you can’t yell “Bomb!” on an airplane – and the same thing needs to happen here. But as long as the states provide for the ownership of guns, a federal amendment isn’t even needed (other than for D.C. or if a state goes rogue and outlaws guns).
Guns are good, but only when safely (but not overly) regulated.