Altering Gun Laws

“When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly…When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it.”

William J. Clinton, an American politician who served as the 42nd president of the United States

“The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.”

Janet Reno, an American lawyer and public official who served as the first female and 78th United States attorney general.

“That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”

George Orwell, an English novelist, essayist, journalist, and critic

“I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.”

Ronald Reagan, an American politician, and actor who served as the 40th president of the United States


Altering Gun Laws

Gun violence is a significant problem in the United States. Altering gun laws so that one does not interfere with the right to bear arms yet creates a condition where military-grade assault weapons are removed from the shelves of gunshops. If used in a crime such weapons may be considered a hate crime. Hunters can still go out and shoot defenseless creatures to their heart’s content. According to the BBC website, there were over 600 mass shootings in the United States in 2023. That’s a bit less than 2 per day. If you think that is an acceptable number then shame on you.

Amidst the rise in gun violence, a critical examination of the often-overlooked first clause of the Second Amendment becomes imperative. “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.

Altering Gun Laws: SCOTUS Convoluted Reasoning

Recent Supreme Court decisions have relegated this qualifying phrase to the shadows. Thus, transforming gun ownership into an unbridled right. This is accomplished by ignoring the first clause of the 2nd Amendment quoted above. The repercussions are glaring, with mass shootings becoming an all-too-common menace, surpassing the number of days in a year.

Those Justices who consider themselves ‘Originalists’ claim to interpret the Constitution through the eyes of the founders. Yet, they find themselves in the strange position of overlooking the essence of the 2nd Amendment. Yes, that of a ‘well-regulated militia.” They morphed the second clause of the Amendment, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” as the only meaningful clause in the wording of the Amendment.

Ignoring language that might interfere with their ideology, the Justices find they are not interpreters of the Constitution. Rather, they become legislators from which there is no appeal. The duplicity of the majority creates a breakdown in the public trust in the judgment of the Justices. Thus, corroding the very spirit of a democratic republic based on checks and balances.

Altering Gun Laws: Congress without a Connection to its Constituents

Congress, ensnared by the tendrils of influence woven by the National Rifle Association, exhibits a reluctance to confront this issue. The injection of money into politics, sanctified as free speech by landmark decisions like Citizens United, distorts our political landscape. Allowing corporations and associations to manipulate the system through huge campaign contributions.

When the bond between a representative and voters breaks from flow of money into political coffers bad things happen. We risk losing our national vision. Replaced by an Oligarchy where decisions based on the most ready cash, influence lawmakers into a quid pro quo. You take my money you better do what I want. So long as politicians rely on donor cash, no action taken benefits the people in any way.

Let Us Not Forget SCOTUS Ethics Breaches

We should not turn away from the disclosures of undue influence on members of the majority on the Supreme Court. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch received ‘gifts’ from wealthy donors that enhanced their lifestyle through vacations, and airline tickets. This violates the code of ethics that all federal judges must follow, except the Justices of the Supreme Court. Such behavior undermines the public trust in the Supreme Court. It sets up a question of unprecedented influence on Justices to deliver for their Sugar Daddies.

Gun Violence and Political Will

To effectively grapple with the epidemic of gun violence, a recalibration is imperative. With a renewed focus on the original intent of the Second Amendment: a well-regulated militia. Formulating stringent gun laws grounded in this foundational principle acts to counter to the frequency of gun-related tragedies.

It will take a massive movement to put an end to the epidemic of gun violence. Without the political will to take meaningful action against the forces of chaos, we all lose. Is it not time to remove dark money from the political process. Removing the influence of money from the equation, Congressional politics will restored. If We the People cannot find a way to curtail the Gun lobby and their demands then, nothing will ever change. The grand exception is offering thoughts and prayers after the next mass shooting.

A Well-Regulated Militia as the Blueprint for Gun Ownership: Altering Gun Laws

Far from being an antiquated relic, the concept of a well-regulated militia provides a blueprint for responsible gun ownership. The litany of heart-wrenching incidents – from schools and churches to synagogues and the haunting sniper’s nest in a Las Vegas hotel – underscores the urgent need for a reinvigorated approach to gun regulation.

Using the Well-Regulated Militia Clause, one could envision laws that remove assault rifles or other military-grade weapons from circulation and from the shelves of gun dealers’ stores. Single-shot rifles used for hunting wild game will not impact a simple change in thinking.

To do anything meaningful in curbing the obscene gun violence in the United States one must first get rid of the corrosive influence of money in politics that blinds our lawmakers to the urgent need for substantive change. The narrative, hijacked by mega-donors, corporations, and lobbying groups, silences the voices of ordinary citizens.

Altering Gun Laws: No More Thoughts and Prayers as a Disingenuous Response to Mass Murder

The ritualistic utterance of “Thoughts and Prayers” by politicians, divorced from tangible action, epitomizes the disingenuous response to the deep-seated issue of gun worship in our society. Concrete measures, not empty rhetoric, safeguard lives. Condolences without requisite action that would greatly reduce the incidence of mass shootings are without meaning at any level of believability. False concern arises from the inability to take meaningful action.

Let us lay the disingenuous nature of political inaction to rest. We demand robust gun laws, extricated from the manipulative clutches of mega-donors and corporate interests. Separating genuine civic responsibility from the illusion of an unchecked ‘right’ must become non-negotiable.

Our nation’s stability teeters on the precipice, necessitating a paradigm shift that prioritizes public safety over political posturing. Let us reclaim the spirit of a well-regulated militia to fortify the freedoms we cherish, ensuring a secure and harmonious future for all.

In the face of this pressing issue, citizens must unite, demanding change and holding their representatives accountable for the well-being of the nation. Only through collective action can we break free from the shackles of gun violence and forge a path toward a safer and more secure America.

Oh, and by the way, if thoughts and prayers worked there would be no more mass shootings. Either there is no God or if there is it is not powerful enough to halt the carnage.

Altering Gun Laws: Conclusion

Construe none of the above as a plot to take anyone’s guns away. There are many reasonable explanations for owning a weapon. Shooting up a school, church, synagogue, or mosque is not one of them. This is why reasonable restrictions on gun ownership must work to regulate guns. One could demand that one show proof of insurance to purchase a gun. One could place age restrictions on owning a gun. It is not unreasonable to disallow people who have been incarcerated for crimes in which the criminal did not use a gun.

If the crime itself was nonviolent, e.g. without using a weapon, then there would be no reason to deny gun ownership. Background checks at gunshops AND gun shows do not restrict ownership; it merely put the breaks on so that unstable people cannot own guns. No, I remain unopposed to gun ownership. However, I stand opposed to unrestricted access for people who do not own a gun and cannot purchase one because of their background. The point is gun sales must fall under the utterance WELL REGULATED!

By Politics-as-Usual

Roger is a retired Professor of language and literacy. Over the past 15 years since his retirement, Roger has kept busy with reading, writing, and creating landscape photographs. In this time of National crisis, as Fascist ideas and policies are being introduced to the American people and ignored by the Mainstream Press, he decided to stand up and be counted as a Progressive American with some ideas that should be shared with as many people who care to read and/or participate in discusssions of these issues. He doesn't ask anyone to agree with his point of view, but if entering the conversation he demands civility. No conspiracy theories, no wild accusations, no threats, no disrespect will be tolerated. Roger monitors all comments and email communication. That is the only rule for entering the conversation. One may persuade, argue for a different point of view, or toss out something that has not been discussed so long as the tone remains part of a civil discussion. Only then can we find common ground and meaningful democratic change.

Leave a Reply