Here is an email I received from my friend, Jim Ronca, Esq. It is so well said, that I have nothing more to add, other than, please read it, pass it along, and share your thoughts.
My Friends,
The passage of 72 hours has not, for me, reduced the enormity of the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. I cannot imagine the anguish of those poor families. For the country as a whole and each one of us as parents, family members a
nd citizens, how do we deal with this? Can we not go to a mall, a movie theater , a bowling alley, a political rally, a place of worship or even send our kids to an elementary school without worry that some maniac will come in and shoot the place up. Can a police officer walk home from work without fear that he will be shot? (Echoing a recent event in Philly). Do we have to kowtow to a radical right wing organization, the NRA, because of a 225 year old sentiment in the Constitution about having a Militia in the era of colonialism, when we now stand as the mightiest power in the world? Do we have to suffer more than 10,000 gun murders per year, a much higher rate than any other industrialized nation? It is time to turn our anguish into action. In the same way that those seeking liberty in the Arab Spring used the Internet to change their government, we can start using the Internet to end the tyranny of the 2nd Amendment. Just like Obama used the Internet to raise large parts of his $1 billion campaign fund, so we can start to use it to fight back so a minority does not hold hostage all reasonable gun laws. We can help start and sustain a movement. We all have Facebook pages, yes even me, dozens or hundreds of "friends", linked in, twitter, YouTube many ways we can contact and energize people now.
Amend the Second Amendment!It currently says:
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.
It was important at the time. America’s revolutionary army started as self armed militias. This was an era when even the best soldier, with his material all laid out could not fire more than one bullet in about 45 seconds. Militias were essential. The United States did not have a standing army until the late 1800’s. In fact the Constitution itself, in article 1, section 8 says,” To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years.” While the Congress had the power to have a standing Navy, it’s power to fund an Army was limited to two years. Armies were raised as needed (e.g. The War of 1812).
The 2nd Amendment should be amended to reflect the modern world and modern values:
The people shall have the right to own firearms, subject to reasonable regulation by the Congress and the States. Congress shall not have the power to require a less restrictive regulation than that enacted by an individual state but shall have the power to require more restrictive regulation than an individual state.
In my own life, a former associate and friend, Todd Getgen, was shot and killed in a random murder. Todd was ex-military, a gun enthusiast and an owner of numerous specialty guns. He was also the most careful and responsible gun owner you could imagine and favored the reasonable regulation of guns. About 2 years ago, he was alone at a state game lands shooting range when a maniac arrived who had dreams of a militia overthrowing the government. He wanted Todd’s gun so he shot and killed him. His 7 year old son deprived of a loving father.
There is no reason why we don’t have regulations to enforce the care and responsibility exhibited by a gun owner like Todd. We regulate autos, and baby car seats and ladders and toxic paint in toys but we hardly regulate guns. Everyone should read the editorial by Nicholas Kristof at the following link.http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-do-we-have-the-courage-to-stop-this.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0. It demonstrates the logic of reasonable regulation. We cannot stop all mass murderer but we can slow them down, make it harder. Why does anyone need a gun that fires every time you pull the trigger and can hold 30 bullets? A semi-automatic rifle can fire 2 to 3 bullets every second and can use a 30 round clip in 15 seconds. The Connecticut mass murderer used “numerous” 30 round clips in his rampage against first graders. Why would anyone ever need a semi-automatic military style weapon like this? Note that the criminal who shot Gabrielle Giffords in Tuscon AZ did not have high capacity clips and was wrested to the ground while changing clips before he could cause more mayhem. Each of the dead in Connecticut was shot numerous times. It is crazy that these guns are legal.
Let's start a movement. I am sure others are thinking the same. We can join in and turn our anguish into action. I am already in the process of creating a website. Can we get people to read it? Can we create a you tube video that might go viral? Let's start
The Legal Examiner and our Affiliate Network strive to be the place you look to for news, context, and more, wherever your life intersects with the law.
8 Comments
dan
The right to bear arms was not given to us so that we could go duck hunting. The right to bear arms was given to us so that we would have the ability to rise up and take back our Constitutional rights when the Government became corrupt and was acting outside of the powers that were given to them. The writers of the Constitution said it was our duty to do so.
There are many examples of Corruption. I will give you 1 example for arguments sake.
We were given the freedom of information act. When Dr Shirley Moore and Richard Fine discovered and exposed that the L.A. Superior Court Judges were excepting money that was not authorized by LAW and Sturgeon vs. Los Angeles County 1 declared those payments to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL the Judges paid a lobbyist to pass SBX211 that granted themselves (Retro Active Immunity from Prosecution).
When Government and Corporations are held to the same standards of the rule of LAW as the people are held. Then and only then could there be meaningful discussions about gun control.
When Government stops taking money from the people and giving it to banks and corporations and prosecutes blatant acts of corruption then gun control could be an option.
The presstitutes and politicians will paint the topic of gun control as being about duck and dear hunting.
Rex
"In the same way that those seeking liberty in the Arab Spring used the Internet to change their government. . ."
This was, perhaps, the most uninformed portion of that entire "call to arms." The internet was used to organize people, but it wasn't used to change the government. The change was forced by protest and sometimes violence. Indeed, some of those demonstrations were violently suppressed.
Indeed, the Arab Spring is still unfolding. In Syria, protests were clearly inadequate, and it was necessary for ORDINARY CITIZENS to take up arms. Do you think those arms materialized out of thin air? In many instances, those weapons were hoarded for years.
One more note: A muzzle-loader, by the revolutionary war, would be reloaded in 15 seconds or so, not 45.
Russ
These paranoid posts about people needing guns to overthrow a tyrannical US government disgust me. There is no correlation between having a semi-automatic weapon and the enactment of the Freedom on Information Act. How will a gun stop the influence of corporations in our government? Some nut job will open fire on a Wall Street firm? What will that do? These rants by Timothy McVeigh types to justify owning guns is ridiculous. We need to get past these paranoid "patriots" and act sensibly.
Rex
Matt:
I'm NOT a "Timothy McVeigh type," and I resent your intimation and am annoyed by your ridiculous ad hominem fallacy. Do you think that because your rant is posted online you have a free pass to be a jerk to another? Either I wasn't clear, or you're willfully misunderstanding what I said, though I'm inclined at the moment to think the latter.
I don't mean to suggest that the US government is tyrannical, and I'm as disgusted as you apparently are at the influence that business has on our government. There was also no suggestion in my comment that opening fire on on a Wall Street firm is a good idea; as you allude, it will probably do nothing good.
Name-calling won't get you any discussion with me, or with "Timothy McVeigh types." This sort of rant simply shuts down any conversation and makes any of the progress you might want to see impossible.
Russ
I stand by my comments, and I'm sorry if they offended you. I believe that the idea that guns are a legitimate tool for stopping the excesses of government in our country, at this stage in history, is folly. I don't think the Arab Spring has anything to do with an honest discussion on US gun control. Government change in this country is done with the ballot box, political action committees, lobbyists...not guns. The concept that I have to arm myself to compete with the US military on the off chance we need an Arab Spring style revolution in the US is fantasy talk. I do believe it borders on paranoia, and just allows people to arm themselves to the hilt for a confrontation that will never come, and those guns instead get used against each other. The "guns to stop government" argument might make a good theory, but in practice it's a disaster, and I live in a practical world. I'll take my chances that the US doesn't invade my neighborhood if it means people in schools, movie theaters, and shopping malls may be safer.
mjnellett
People in shopping malls, movies theaters, and schools will be safer when these places stop being "gun free zones"! f someone inside Sandy Hook would have been trained and armed I will almost guarantee you that the shooter would have been stopped long before he massacred those children, or at least delayed until law enforcement got there.The whole Second Amendment revolves around the citizens being able to keep government forces at bay in case of a usurption of power by a corrupt government. Madmen will always find a way to kill, but for every armed and trained citizen it may mean a whole lot less people have to die needlessly. In the case of civil disobedience, would you stand by and watch your family attacked, or would you fight back?
kul
The second amendment is an inalienable right .What part of inalienable don't you understand. I'm sure you lawyers will find a way to get around it.Getting around us gun owners will get be impossible.Governments around the world,have slaughterd 290,000,000 people.Thus the very reason for the second amendment.Our constitution is above all else no matter who you are.
Thomas Payne (non de plume)
Why do people want to change the foundations of our country? Was what we had not good enough to be the worlds dominating "super" power for almost 200 years? I think the reason we had such power was the wording of our constitution. I also believe that the continual chipping away of our inalienable rights is what is bringing about our fall from grace. We waltz across international borders with a list of people we will kill and execute them without warrant and we say it is in the name of justice, etc. We have become the bullies of the world and it was only a matter of time before the people who think they run the country would turn that abuse of granted power inward. They know what's best for us so they will sign executive orders bypassing Judicial oversight and ignoring selectivly the actual constitution they claim to be upholding, all in the name of ghosts. I remember distinctly several presidents and statesmen saying that if we let the terrorists disrupt our way of life, if we devolve into a protectionist society, the terrorists will have won. Well, I think they are not only winning but I think some of the largest terrorists are actually inside our borders and living as paid politicians. It is treasonous to try to find ways to usurp the US Constitution. How is working on loop holes and weasely ways around the law defending the constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC? How can anyone claim that trying to work around our highest legal documents in the land is protecting it? How can they claim that is in our best interests or even legal? That is in fact, an act of treason and I think it's about time we look seriously at putting the actual traitors on trial for their treasonous acts. Gun bans are in fact a treasonous act. Feinstein and her ilk are acting against the law of the US Constitution in trying to ban weapons. She has said in public on the record that if she could disarm the entire US population, she would have tried to pass that. That is treason. Tell me how it is not?
Comments for this article are closed.