Armed Freedom
The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution, adopted on Dec. 15, 1791, 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." This is a policy that originated for the benefit of the European colony as a defense method for their lands, houses and families. However, in the current day, the idea that the security of a free state is sustained by allowing citizens over the age of 21 to keep and bear arms, from a pistol to an assault rifle, is a foolish absurdity. The National Rifle Association (NRA) estimates that between 270 and 300 million guns are in the hands of civilians. The massacre at the primary school in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, falls within the context of this second amendment.
After the tragedy, President Obama promised that measures would be taken to stop these actions. However, the presidential press secretary now reports that "in the next weeks"* he will introduce possible approaches by which to move forward on the subject. Additionally, who will stop the Republicans from refusing to debate gun possession regulation, especially if the Democrats do not move the debate further than Senator Dianne Feinstein has in the past? She announced that in January she would present "a bill to prohibit the purchase of assault rifles," without including other automatic weapons, pistols or revolvers. Indeed, there are those who are of the opinion that teachers should attend class armed in order to confront possible aggressors. Nor have these same people wanted to realize that the killers have had histories of behavioral problems or mental disorders.
The most powerful country in the world is not prepared to offer security to its people while the second amendment to the Constitution is in effect. Moreover, the government does not offer to end its warlike policies while under the military orders of the Pentagon. What moral authority would it have to "control" those who are armed?
*Editor’s Note: This quotation, although accurately translated, could not be verified.
After the tragedy, President Obama promised that measures would be taken to stop these actions. However, the presidential press secretary now reports that "in the next weeks"* he will introduce possible approaches by which to move forward on the subject. Additionally, who will stop the Republicans from refusing to debate gun possession regulation, especially if the Democrats do not move the debate further than Senator Dianne Feinstein has in the past? She announced that in January she would present "a bill to prohibit the purchase of assault rifles," without including other automatic weapons, pistols or revolvers. Indeed, there are those who are of the opinion that teachers should attend class armed in order to confront possible aggressors. Nor have these same people wanted to realize that the killers have had histories of behavioral problems or mental disorders.
The most powerful country in the world is not prepared to offer security to its people while the second amendment to the Constitution is in effect. Moreover, the government does not offer to end its warlike policies while under the military orders of the Pentagon. What moral authority would it have to "control" those who are armed?
*Editor’s Note: This quotation, although accurately translated, could not be verified.
Previous article![]( "Newtown: Between Emotion and Media Circus")
Next article![]( "US Stock Markets Fall Again as Prospect of Fiscal Cliff Deal Recedes")
