Gun Control Debate : A Real Solution

The 2nd Amendment states:

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 couldn’t have been stated more eloquently.  Armed citizens secure freedom of the people from the government.    There is no mention of personal protection, no mention of hunting and no mention of sport shooting. It was in fact a few years ago when I had purchased my wife a pink handgun for Christmas (she loves pink and I was out of new ideas), that I reexamined this amendment. It changed my thinking.

This amendment is informed by English history and incorporated into the Bill of Rights after the Revolutionary War.   The right to arms was a long-established natural right in English law, to defend rights to life, a reasonable approach to a turbulent period in England.  With James II and the King disarming citizens, a bill was introduced ensuring citizens the right to bear arms and succinctly described as a duty.  However, in 1920 England was in fear of revolution and gun control was reinstituted under the guise of “ensuring that all arms are available for redistribution to friends of the government”, which totally defeated the original purpose.

Today, militias are considered fringe, dangerous, and even whacko. The Founding Fathers considered militias necessary, and yet today most consider them to be composed of paranoid ignorant fools.

I personally don’t believe that we are nearing a period of time when the citizens of the United States are likely to be at the mercy of a tyrannical police state government.  But if we were, I would want very few limitations; and this is the express purpose of the 2nd Amendment.  Should such a situation arise where the United States government becomes tyrannical, we will as a people either be able to defend our freedom or not depending upon our weapon capabilities.

However more and most importantly, allowing people to obtain the same weaponry as our military is exactly what prevents this possibility.  And that is what the 2nd Amendment is about: *prevention*.

A basic analogy is the FDIC.  The FDIC was put in place after the stock market crashed that caused bank runs, which subsequently caused bank failures and huge financial losses.  The FDIC insures individual bank accounts up to $250,000.  Since this law passed, there have been and there will be no bank runs.  Similarly, with a restored 2nd Amendment, I assert that there will be no tyranny.

Today, the 2nd Amendment has already been rendered ineffectual.  Should any faction of the government gain control of the military and turn on its citizens, we the people will simply not be able to defend ourselves.  You cannot take a handgun to an airstrike.


Limit the use of arms (arms to be detailed later) to be for the sole purpose of executing on the 2nd Amendment: removing the threat of tyranny.

Limit the firepower of newly purchased handguns, perhaps even to .22 caliber.

Limit the use of rifles and shotguns for the sole purpose of hunting and defense.  Limit the firepower to achieve these results.

All other firearms that the public currently owns must be moved into the “Militia Readiness” system (see later). Since there are already many weapons that exceed these limits, harsh punishments would need to be put in place for weaponry not placed into the Militia Readiness system.

Crimes committed with firearms that fall under the legal limit (.22) require mandatory sentencing (similar to Florida’s laws).  10 years for merely having the weapon during the commission of a crime, 20 years for drawing the weapon, and life for using it.

Crimes committed with firearms that exceed the legal limit and that should have been placed into the Militia Readiness system carry a mandatory sentence of life.

If a crime is committed with any firearm that is registered to a different owner, the owner of that firearm receives the half of the same punishment as the criminal.

If an accidental shooting is committed with a firearm that is registered to a different owner, the owner is charged with a crime and serves a minimum of 5 years.

All weapons that exceed the legal limit must be placed into a Militia Readiness system.  This system is a privately run storage facility which also provide facilities for training and practice.

All weapons in the Militia Readiness system require GPS trackers that are monitored by the government for movement (not position).

If weapons move off the facility, the government can discover the position and confiscate them if necessary, coordinating with, if useful, the militia itself. This of course by definition does not apply should a real uprising take place simply because militias wouldn’t respond.  The ability for the government to confiscate them is for the purpose of situational anomalies where individuals are attempting to remove them.

Arms (or weapons) are limited only by weapons of mass destruction.  That is, anyone can own automatic weapons, fighter jets, explosives or any other weapons available to the military except nuclear and chemical weapons.  And it is in this ability for the people to have equal weapons capabilities to that of the government, that ensures there will be no use for them.

“Gun Shows” are only allowed on Militia premises.


I assert that it is the system I described above that will satisfy all concerns.  And while not every crime will be stopped, we must recognize that freedom comes at a cost.  And yet, most of that cost has been paid already by our brave men and women who secured it and continue to secure it with their lives.

The result will be a reduced crime rate with firearms, a reduced number of shootings, accidental or not, of children or other innocents, and a restoration of the 2nd Amendment, which ensures we will never have a tyrannical government.


5 thoughts on “Gun Control Debate : A Real Solution”

  1. Patrick- I really appreciate the thought and balance in your approach. The USA, and the world for that matter need to be approached with the facts that move the modern world. The Constitution was designed as a document that could maintain and sustain the nation as times changed. Your approach takes that into account very well.
    Americans want balance and security. Some persons need weapons for personal protection or security. That gets lost in the avalanche of NRA Lobbying. I would be very happy to move towards the center on this issue if I thought that it was possible. Your approach is a good way to attempt that. Thanks

    1. I am very much interested in providing a written dialog about this (and other topics). Do you know of any bright liberal bloggers who might collaborate to co-author a book I am writing? I need the “other side” in order to find the common ground.

  2. Brilliant Analysis. Our rights were put in the Constitution of possibly the greatest group of scholars known to mankind. They knew exactly what they were doing. The question is, do WE know what we are doing as a country?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s