One of the ironies of the second amendment is the attempt from both sides in the gun control battle to only see one meaning.
"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".
So why do both sides of the gun control issue only see their side when a blending of both sides is the obvious remedy? The first portion of the second amendment means a local, state or federal militia that has followed the law, aka well regulated, can carry weapons.
However, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a separate but equal issue. My interpretation is any property owner can own weapons and these weapons are meant to protect their own property and home.
The second amendment issue that keeps getting blurred and obfuscated is the DIFFERENCE between owning weapons that one keeps on their own property versus weapons that that same gun owner transports off of their own property.
The type of weapons that are permitted to be carried off of one's property are not identical to those that are permitted on one's property, there is a difference, and that is where ALL gun control discussion should be focused upon.
One solution could be to have guns that are Travel approved, and guns that are not Travel Approved. This takes the discussion away from "the government is trying to take my gun away" to, "Which guns can I travel with, and which guns can't I travel with".
If every gun that was not travel worthy had a GPS indicator in it that activated if the gun was moved off of one's property, Law enforcement could instantly be notified. The GPS indicator could not turn off the gun, but it would provide the location of where the non legal travel gun was at all times. If the GPS was messed with, that could mean a stiff fine and even a court date.
Everybody gets what they want. Instant notification when a non approved gun has traveled off of one's property, and the gun owner still gets to own guns for the purpose of protecting their own property, both of the Travel and the Non Travel variety.
Everybody gets what they want. Instant notification when a non approved gun has traveled off of one's property, and the gun owner still gets to own guns for the purpose of protecting their own property, both of the Travel and the Non Travel variety.
As for rapid fire assault weapons, that discussion could follow once a travel / non travel designation has been established for all guns. I personally cannot see it as ethical to legally allow a travel permit for a rapid fire assault weapon off of one's property. I am not even convinced they should be allowed on one's property, but if I had to compromise, then allowing some type of rapid fire gun on one's property, properly registered, would be ok as long as the gun had a GPS that would alert officials if the gun was moved off of the homeowners property.
Although having to wage a conflict against a rapid fire weapon is not even fair for our police officers. The bottom line is, the NRA keeps trying to paint the other side as wanting to "take your gun" when the reality is the other side doesn't want gun owners taking their guns everywhere they go, especially in crowded, public areas.
Although having to wage a conflict against a rapid fire weapon is not even fair for our police officers. The bottom line is, the NRA keeps trying to paint the other side as wanting to "take your gun" when the reality is the other side doesn't want gun owners taking their guns everywhere they go, especially in crowded, public areas.
If you are planning on creating or broadcasting a commercial and want an objective, outsiders point of view about your commercial, contact Alessandro Machi about his consulting services at...
info at alexlogic.com
You can also view more
commercial critiques
by Alessandro Machi at
