How to replace the Second Amendment

How to replace the Second Amendment

An attendee holds a Smith & Wesson Corp. revolver at the company’s booth during the National Rifle Association annual meeting in Dallas on May 5. (Daniel Acker/Bloomberg News) To borrow a phrase from Republicans, it is time to “repeal and replace” the Second Amendment. The fewer guns there are, the less gun violence. Ask Australian, British and Japanese citizens. Hunters can hunt with single-shot rifles and shotguns. If they need another shot, they can cock the weapon again. People can have a revolver for personal protection. Those who are that fearful probably can convince themselves that they are safer that way. We do need a clear law under an amendment that would eliminate all automatic and semiautomatic weapons from our population and that would allow Congress to regulate guns. This may not be an immediate panacea, but our existing permissive practices are woefully insufficient to correct the gun-violence problem. And given the experience of other nations that restrict gun sales and production, it is incumbent on our federal government to assume control of guns capable of mass shootings. Who among us thinks that we are incapable of correcting something that is tearing our country apart? I will leave the writing of the replacement amendment to those more knowledgeable than I. However, it must be clear and concise. No private ownership of weapons that can kill more than one thing with one shot. This is what our Founding Fathers had, and it is the answer to today’s mass killings. Tom […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.