Update the Second Amendment

The Tucson sheriff who let loose with his inner feelings about civility when he gave the first television update of the Arizona shooting was well spoken. Civility has left the building.

The "talking heads" on TV and the radio are talking louder, faster and more furious; they have as many as four people talking, all at once, shouting over each other. The politicians are following suit.

The time has arrived to get the Second Amendment tweaked for the 21st century before another "civil” war breaks out. It’s brewing.

There will never be any ties to what happened in Arizona, other than one person with a very serious problem.

Let’s get at least one thing done right — better gun control. I venture to say there are more people for it than against it. We just need to have politicians with a better backbone to meet the NRA head on. Push it to the Supreme Court, then amend the Second Amendment. Our forefathers would surely agree, given what we have to deal with now.

Arms have their place and in that place they should stay.

The time has come.

Gary David, Lisbon Falls

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



 's picture

Mr. David seems to overlook

Mr. David seems to overlook many points in his letter and his many comments. THe 2nd Amendment has been amended over 2000 times already ssince it was pout into our Constitution. What has that done for stopping the acts of a crazy man. It appears ro me that both law enforce ment and others in Tuczon should have recognized this young mans actions and done something to reign him in. Trying to stop gun violence by more laws is futile. There is no way to change the SA without doing serious damage to our freedoms. I nfor one do not want to rely on the police to protect me. They always show up after the fact and oversee the cleanup. What Mr. David needs to do is read just how and why the SA was out into our Constitution.

RONALD RIML's picture

The Second Amendment has never been amended.....

That would take either a Constitutional Convention or else ratification of 3/4 of the State Legislatures of a 2/3 vote in Congress.

"Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified."

--> http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/usconstitution/a/constamend.htm

Thanks for the information on

Thanks for the information on that.

 's picture

Thank you for pointing that

Thank you for pointing that out. Could you imagine the chaos of a Constitutional Convention?!

I learn something every day!

I learn something every day! Thanks. Looks like I was "out in left field". I'll take some of that humble pie thank you.

Overlooked much probably, but still concerned

What I was thinking was to modify the SA to include all the federally banned weapons and structure it so all states could use it. I know states have their unique laws but wouldn't it be great to have the same gun laws and controls no matter where you went? I was just thinking that the 2nd Amendment would be a good place to start, where it's so vague. This letter has been a learning experience!
I would love to see some facts on how many instances a person has used his weapon to stop or prevent some sort of crime. My letter is probably fruitless but I believe having a weapon for protection is as much. I'd need facts to change my mind.

Your Facts, that's fine. Just not mine

The only fact is the right to bear arms. Show me where the people are dealing with the problems of criminals and the tyrannical
government with their weapons. I watch the news and haven't seen any. I'd like some facts that substantiate what you're explaining.
Facts on people protecting themselves. Figures that outline where people have used their weapons to stop/hinder crime. Show me those and I'd begin to reason with you. Until then what your describing is pure theory, and don't use the colonial days like most people. That's
the past, it's gone forever, this is the future.
I totally understand the issue of criminal access to guns. I just believe we can make it harder for them.
It's so interesting how there's so much negativity about law enforcement. Why is that I wonder. If that's a problem people should go to meetings
and vote them out. Then we see what the results would be, and it wouldn't be pretty. We'd revert back 100's of years and start over again. Not in my lifetime if I can help it. There's no anger in this. I listened. Thank you for listening also.

Ronald Miller's picture

Mr. David. "Studies indicate

Mr. David.
"Studies indicate that firearms are used over 2 million times a year for personal protection, and that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances. Shooting usually can be justified only where crime constitutes an immediate, imminent threat to life, limb, or, in some cases, property."
You can find many real facts on people protecting themselfs through the "the armed citizen" www.americanrifleman.org
Its a shame that more news medial outlets do not show the cases of gun owners protecting themselfs. Hopefully, this will help you get the facts you desire.
Personally, I believe, that our "Fore Fathers" were beyond their time in the writing of the Constituion, and its serving this country of ours very well as it was written.

Checked the site but nothing found as of yet

I checked the site Ron and couldn't find anything specifically but I'll keep looking. Quite honestly I'd trust
a non biased group putting out that kind of information. Each side had their agenda as you know but I'm not disputing
you. If what your saying is in fact true it should be in the media, unless there are other facts that aren't as positive . Since I started this letter I have found out some interesting things along the way. What no one seemed to really explain, or explain well for me was what we have for controls already. I decided to find out for myself and, with the help of my local law enforcement was pointed to some places. One of them was the ATF. That site answered a lot of questions. Most of them actually. I now stand corrected and informed. It seems, at least federally, we have plenty of controls already in place and, and that my letter was "out in left field" as some would say and I now realize it. I'm only left with concerns for concealed weapons and what sets the qualifications. I hope people replying here realize I'm no one man kamikaze looking to ban guns. I only have a concern for the lack of morals and ethics people seem to be showing now along with the ability to pack a weapon. One concerned citizen feeling the two don't mix. Nothing more nothing less.
I agree with you about our forefathers but it doesn't hurt to make sure it always pertains to how the country is changing. I thought automatic weapons should be in there. Wrong. Federal laws cover that. Onward I learn eh??

MARK GRAVEL's picture

What is your Motive?

Mr. David,
What is your motive here? Is it to save lives, or are you using this tragedy as a means to push ideology?

Homicide by gunshot is statically low compared to other death statistics. Moreover, those states and districts with the most stringent gun regulation have more gun related violence than some states with the most relaxed regulations, take Washington DC for example.

Many states already restrict firearm access to high risk individuals. You keep asserting that we should tweak the 2nd amendment but provide little in terms of proposal. Unless you completely outlaw firearms to the general public, the criminal element and the mentally unstable will find access. Loughner may have done far more damage if he drove a vehicle into the crowd – what do you do then?

Moreover, the founding fathers were far more caviler with firearms than we are in the 21st century. Please name one 21st politician that would duel over a disagreement? Now ask the same question of a 18th century politician - http://politicalgraveyard.com/special/duel-participants.html.

These events, albeit tragic and unacceptable, are anomalies and statically insignificant in relation to cause of death.

With all due respect, I believe that most of your argument is based on ideology rather than reason and altruism of life. You could save far more lives by championing good dietary practices since heart attacks kill far more Americans than homicide by gun.

My Motive is .....

My motive is simple. Concern for the way this country is going, no morals, no ethics and anger that's brewing under the radar. People with guns mixed with anger aren't a good mix, even for the person with a good head on their shoulders given the one bad situation.
I was thinking that making some modifications could improve the controls somehow. I can see some very troubled times ahead.
I can't believe we've done everything to help gun control. If we have then .... that's it.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Here is your chance - what will you do!

Mr. David,
Clearly you have a lot of passion on this topic. That being said, you still fail to provide specifics in your responses. What about the 2nd Amendment would you change?

What weapons do you what to see regulated, restricted, or outlawed?

Handguns – Do you want all handguns to be outlawed? Regulated? how?

Shotguns – same question.

Long rifles – same question.

Other ?

You have written a great deal on this blog, but I’m still not clear where you stand. Please answer the questions above, so I can better understand your point of view. You have a quill and the constitution before you, what will you do?

Just remember people will find a way to get what they want. Passing laws to restrict access to firearms will not prevent people from obtaining them. Just look to the war on drugs to see how that is going. Moreover, if just passing a law compelled good behavior, we would have empty prisons. While that type of thinking is naive, so is thinking regulating firearms will alter the concerns you have.

 's picture

I agree with you tron...

I know you are not accustomed to reading that! So in order to prevent you from having a coronary, let me qualify the statement. I too think that it's a bit ridiculous that citizens have assault rifles, and grenade launchers. It's true that the Founders could not foresee the future. They recognized that fact. That is precisely WHY they created an amendment process. If the Constitution is properly amended to forbid assault rifles, grenade launchers, et al., I would support it and defend it as vehemently as I defend the Constitution as it now exists. But let me play devil's advocate for a moment. If we agree that the purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the government could not take muskets away from the citizenry. And if we agree it was because they believed that the citizens should be able to defend themselves from criminals and a government that has overstepped it's boundaries. Then it must be clear that for the government to limit citizens to pistols and hunting rifles while the government itself has assault rifles and grenade launchers, is a contravention of the framers intent.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

How more can you regulate weapons that are already illegal?

Fact: Automatic weapons are illegal own without a Federal Firearms license.
Fact: Grenade launchers are illegal to own.
Fact: Ammunition clips that hold large number of rounds are illegal in most states.
Fact: Some individuals have them anyway.
Conclusion: Just because a weapon is illegal, doesn’t mean someone will not risk the consequences to have one. The rank and file that own guns, do possess these. Why do you want to restrict liberty based on the actions of a few individuals? How more can you regulate weapons that are already illegal?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

The rank and file that own

The rank and file that own guns, do[n't] possess these [types of weapons.]

This makes sense ... except for the last part!

This is where I was headed. I'm stopping at the devil's advocate part tho. If I ain't mistaken there weren't much of a
police force, FBI, CIA and other law enforcement back then so we don't need to be equal in fire power with law enforcement now. Their intent was valid for back then, not now. If we have to keep up with them just step back for a moment and think about where that would lead us. They can't even keep up with the drug cartels!

 's picture

All three of the weapons you

All three of the weapons you mention are heavily regulated or outright banned (against the law) for the general public to own. I do now a specific permit must be had to own any automatic weapon.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Misleading Information

“However an automatic weapon, a bazooka or grenade launcher….” All of the weapons here are already regulated (i.e. illegal to own by the general population). Mr. David is proposing applying additional regulation to what is considered legal today – handguns, shotguns, and long rifles – signal shot, revolver and semi-automatic. Please note there is a difference between automatic (illegal without special licenses) and semi-automatic (legal).

Precisely the point!

That's about what I was getting at. Sometimes it's hard to explain in words? This is where I would like to see the politicians sit down with the NRA and any other pertinent people, and discuss the situation, with their heads on their shoulders and guns turned in at the door. Come up with something viable THEN get it to the Supreme Court. Then, we have some better guidance to the states.

We're going on a tangent ?? by the way ......

Wayne, you're treading into another area that I have problems, careful! LOL
I really didn't want to touch on this yet but, here goes.
I know the regulators have passed something but don't remember what but it's likely charging a fee. I do
know there's plenty of flak. The internet, mobile devices, facebook and many other things
have grown beyond any ones expectations. Sound familiar? What was a fun thing, the internet,
has turned into what can be termed very loosely, a very very dangerous place. Like hate and guns,
hate and unaccountability have a way of making people's lives miserable. Enough said. My wish for
using the internet is that everyone should have to register an IP address, name address and the
whole works! No more anons. More controls from this guy! Don't get me started! This is about weapons!

Never heard Supreme Court called that .. thanks!

What I disagreed with, and I should have been more explicit, was this part referring to the founders, "and today would be appalled at the sudden rush to trade liberty for security". I don't want to trade anything. Adjust for the current times and they could understand. They made it difficult to change the Constitution and we have laws that make it difficult for the government to overrun the people. To refer back to "the old" days just doesn't cut it any more. This is the age of the internet, unaccountability and hate like never seen before and most of the hate is just lurking under the radar. Hate and weapons just don't mix. Guns just happen to be the choice of weapon.

RONALD RIML's picture

Elected Officials get to voice opinions.

Or are you all for for muzzling them also, Barb? - If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik has almost fifty years of law enforcement experience; and has been elected to the Office of Sheriff seven times. He's not exactly 'civil service' who have to keep their mouths shut about opinions there, and I'm sure he knows a hell of a lot more about you as to what jeopardize a case.

So what's your qualifications? How do they stack up against Sheriff Dupnick's - and how many times have the voters returned you to office to do a job?? We're not going to get a straight answer out of you - and no doubt you'll be gone come February 1 as a phantom who won't back up their opinions as Sheriff Dupnik does.

The Constitution was written

The Constitution was written hundreds of years ago and, as great as the writers were, they in no way could envision what we have today. Why are people so afraid of the government? I feel it can be amended to better suit the current and future times. Rights with limits.

Mark Elliott's picture

Tweak it today, tweak it

Tweak it today, tweak it tomorrow, tweak it next year, in five years, again in ten years and before you know it, there is nothing left and our children will not enjoy the rights we have today.........

Don't be so negative!

I don't see that happening. It's a risk that it wouldn't get done right the first time and would need a tweak. Many laws have been that way
and a big example are the drug laws. Massachusetts had a firearm law that had to be tweaked many years ago because of mandatory jail laws.
Nothing EVER perfect, or even close sometimes. I just think we need something better.

 's picture

You need to understand

You need to understand something, Mr. David...I don't surrender my rights because some deranged nut abused theirs. One of the first "inalienable rights" asserted by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence was "life." I have the inalienable right to protect my life...it is not a privilege, sir. Typically that is done with the right to own the means of self-defense. If I surrender my right to arm myself, I have then surrendered my right to life to...who? The local authorities? The military? You, Mr. David? No, it is my God-given right to defend my life. Shall we also outlaw machetes, baseball bats, or other device that may be sued to kill someone? The 2nd Amendment is in place to protect you from being deprived of your God-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Abolish it, or "tweak it," at your peril. Thanks for reminding me to send in my NRA membership dues.

Understand? I'm trying to use reasoning

Why are so many people afraid of the government? My thoughts aren't to abolish but to tweak, as you say, to deal with what's going on to meet the 21st century. Rights but rights with some limits. Maybe this would provide a base for the stricter controls that are so badly needed. A broad base that all states could use. I'm all for guns but, guns in their right place. If everyone were armed think of what that would be like! Just my thoughts.

RONALD RIML's picture

Arkansas' 'Robbery Rate (per Capita) four times that of Maine

Sorry F&H....

"Robbery" - which is one of the FBI's UCR (Uniform Crime Reporting) classifications of crime - is roughly described as "Taking of property of person by force or the threat of force" This normally involves a weapon; fireasrms and knives being the most common.

In reporting year 2008, Arkansas' Robbery rate was 99.1 per 100,000 population; for the same year, Maine's was 25.3 per 100,000 population.

"Aggravated Assault" - An unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

In 2008, Arkansas' Aggravated Assault rate was 361 per 100,000 population; for the same year, Maine's was 63 per 100,000 population. That's almost six times higher than Maine, per capita.

These figures are compiled from the FBI UCR reports --> http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0304.pdf

No doubt many of those violent crimes involved guns - as you say everybody has them.

I envy you in Arkansas!

I see why your happy! If every state had the results that you say you have we wouldn't be having this discussion. Unfortunately
that isn't the case for many states and like in many areas, the many have to suffer for the few. You don't
like it, I don't like it but, sometimes it's what we're left with. I get really mad when I have to open a bottle of aspirin
with the different layers of sealing because some idiot thought it cool to taint them.
I agree with what your saying but that's as it applies to where you are. It's different across the country.

I'm not familiar with SCOTUS.

I'm not familiar with SCOTUS. The intent of my article was not to trade anything and I disagree with with you on the Founders. I'll always respect what they did but they could not have envisioned what we have today, no way. I believe in the right to bear arms but with some 21st century reasoning, like some limitations. A base that all states can deal with, be uniform and the states could then add what they need. An example maybe WHO has the "right". I'm not for removing, just limiting.
I understand what your saying about privacy rights. Privacy is a whole other issue. Somehow I wish these issues could be tied together but there are "rights" that seem to get abused.

McVeigh is not the Issue

McVeigh comes under what you call a crazy killer. We both agree. That's a whole different issue.
I'm am not advocating stripping anything from anyone qualified. What I'm saying is adding something to the amendment
that states something other than right to bear arms. Someone further down this thread explained it better than I. Using
words like bazooka, grenade launcher, Sherman tank, something that has some reason to it. The tank was a bit much but you get where I'm going?
People in the know should be able to come up with something that matches the 21st century and beyond.
The line about the gun didn't jump up and he could have found some other weapon is still, and always will be, beyond good reasoning. Guns don't move unless moved (or goes off!) and he really didn't find another way. To do what he needed to do required something unique is my guess. Something that he could hide but do a lot of damage is my other guess. The man was the problem, what he used is a concern, the 9mm and the magazines.


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...