Re(2): The Australian Example Posted on 2/17/2018 at 09:15:52 by John Wells
The basic problem with gun control is that it flies in the face of our pesky Second Amendment. In his Farewell Address, Washington warns us about such radical beneficial measures: “If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”
However, I believe that the time has come for the people to demand a new Constitutional Amendment that would limit the un-infringed right to bear arms. The objection to any such amendment would be opposed by enough people belonging to the NRA that it would surely fail because of its potential to place too much power in the hands of the central government. I think that this objection could be mollified by delivering most of the gun-control power into the hands of the States. This is logical, because the problems faced by people living in Wyoming and the West are different from those living in New York and the East, and so the resulting regulations from these two regions would differ.
I’ve thought about how this amendment could be phrased to be acceptable, and come up with the following suggestion: “In the Second Amendment, the definition of ‘arms’ shall be construed to mean a single or double shot firearm that requires manually reloading between each firing. Each State, Territory, and the District of Columbia shall have the power to regulate the ownership and bearing of all other arms.”