Guns and the 2nd Amendment

This is a horribly touchy topic. Why? Should we not try and fix a problem? Should we not figure out what the actual problem is? Three weeks into 2023 and we are already averaging 12 mass shootings a week, if this continues, we will top 624 shootings this year. More deaths, more fear, and an increasingly fearful society. Is this the cost of having the right to bear arms? Lets start with the Second Amendment and the actual statement:

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.

I question the current interpretations. Does this say everyone can have a gun of their choice? The NRA sure wants you to believe it does. My daughters middle school teachers handed out curriculum that said the wording was "people have the right to own a gun". That was an interesting discussion. I want to continue this discussion with you. Are we at our best right now? What can we do to work within the constitution and to get money out of the decision making?

The first part of the amendment deals with a well regulated Militia. Regulated means organized by authorities, the current armed forces would be that well regulated Militia. The homegrown militias that meet and train and prepare for whatever becomes "necessary" is not considered a well regulated Militia and in fact is illegal in all 50 states. Why is that necessary? Can well regulated Militias peacefully exist within the private sector? Can we seperate domestic terrorist militias from casual private militias with no ill intent? The Militias are intended for security purposes not offensive purposes according to the amendment's wording.

The biggest question is the intent of the statement. Did the founders intend to say everyone should have a gun? Did they think only those working with the militias for defense and state organization should have them? Was this right nationwide or on a state by state basis? Was guns the arms they were referring to? I am not here to tell you what to think or how to interpret this one sentence that has led to so many disagreements. I only ask that the answers to the questions be well thought out before acting on.

When this was added the crime rates were high, the government was not formed and we were scrambling to determine who was still British loyalists. States maintained laws about owning, carrying, and storage. Many current beliefs did not emerge for at least a century and regulations were not loudly challenged until the NRA decided there was money behind the argument. Should corporations or organizations be able to use their funds to help steer the conversation?

There is one word in the Amendment that is often overlooked, regulated. Laws and policies regarding restriction of ownership, carrying, or storage are needed in place to protect the public and to assist law enforcement with determining the legal from illegal guns. If everyone is allowed to carry, then how do they really know when to step in to possibly prevent another tragedy? Should anyone be able to have a gun? Should that gun be one of choice or one of limited selection?

This is an argument that will never get anywhere near resolved in the current state of our political system. The two parties are actual three different teams with one team bowing to their home team decisions. America is a central moderate democracy that needs both regulations and rights to balance life and function. America also needs to understand that adaptabiltiy to what rights and regulations that are required to maintain that balance with change with societal expansion and enlightenment. We are a nation of many whose voices echo as one.