An editorial in a newspaper run by the Chinese Communist Party sharply criticized the U.S. in the midst of the current debate over gun control—a debate that's been resolved for decades in most of the world's industrialized countries—and accused the U.S. of hypocrisy in touting its human rights record.
The answer is clear – the unthinkable. We need to start a campaign to modify the US Constitution to repeal the Second Amendment. No other country on the planet has such a guarantee, except maybe Switzerland whose defense strategy the founders copied, and no other country in the developed world has anywhere near the gun violence Americans experience.
The 2nd Amendment is why Americans are allowed to carry concealed weapons most anywhere. The 2nd Amendment is why cops kill so many citizens they are pledged to protect and serve – they never know if a suspect has a gun. The 2nd Amendment is why so many reasonable gun laws have been overturned by the US Supreme Court over the past 50 years. While the 2nd Amendment is in our founding document, we will never be able to control gun violence.
In 2018, we need to ask those running for congress if they support a repeal and press them if they are against it. There are so many arguments in favor of repealing the 2nd Amendment which is why it is never discussed in the corporate-owned and controlled media. If we can get it passed through congress, we can set a 20 year or more limit on getting 3/4 of the states to approve. As the number of massacres continues to climb, more states will come on board. It is the only sensible first step.
The truth hurts but this truth cannot be denied. Just think if they had written about all of our violations. Women’s rights, native american right’s and on and on and on. This is not the land of the free and home of the brave. This is the land of hate. What is hate? Hate is fear. Fear of the “other”. So america suppresses and oppresses so that tyranny can rein supreme. White supremacy. Where is the shame? I feel the guilt, I know others do as well but our dear leaders turn a blind eye.
So…who is going to sacrifice (die) themselves to get this amendment repeal ratified?
While the U.S. government acts as an arbiter of human rights abuses around the world, the paper said
The U.S. may advertise itself as such, but it’s actions are anything but that of an arbiter of human rights. The article, of course, was citing this for the sake of making a point, but the sad fact is that the U.S. is seen by much of the world as the greatest danger to world peace.
Given that you cannot separate foreign policy from domestic policy, it should come as no surprise that flooding a country with guns, either in an unstable country in the mideast via our government or right here at home, via the gun lobby, guarantees bloodshed and violence in the population. Flooding a country with guns has never made any country or its people safer. It is a distinctly American myth to think it does.
So who had the defense strategy copied?
Murkin proliferation of weapons is more than a "stain on US human rights’ it is state sponsored terrorism.
Yes, just like war is state sanctioned murder…
How polite of the Chinese not to point out how selective is the US’s concern for human rights; it’s greatly concerned with regard to Cuba and Venezuela, for example, but not at all with regard to Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, arguably among the worst violators.
In Switzerland, every able-bodied male under the age of 45 is required to own a gun and have it ready in order to muster in the event of invasion. This is the same idea as the colonial Minutemen before the American resolution. That is “well organized militia” of which the 2nd amendment speaks.
The founders, Jefferson in particular, considered a standing army during peacetime a threat to democracy. Therefor, the idea was to have each state organize a militia of able-bodied men armed and ready for foreign invasion, but standing down in between conflicts.
Unfortunately, the conflicts never ended for the most part from the founding of the republic up to today.
It’s pretty hard to argue with anything in this editorial, as it is right on every point!
I didn’t say it was possible, just logically the best course forward. Everyone believes it’s impossible – just like “everybody believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction” and so forth. It is removed from the discussion when discussion is necessary. What purpose does it serve today? I would say absolutely nothing.
Private citizens freely own weapons in most other countries without any second amendment guarantees. In the US, the 2nd amendment, as interpreted by our captured Supreme Court, makes most any sensible restriction damn near impossible. In any case, the possibility of repeal could be used as a threat against the gun extremists who want no regulation whatsoever. Compromise maybe?
Agree. In the meantime, however, a new total ban on private ownership and sales of military-style assault weapons could and should be enacted. This is not a complete solution, but many lives would be saved during the course of a long and difficult fight to amend, repeal or modify the Second Amendment.
Thank you .
I understand your concern. But from my perspective, don’t you understand that any attempt to repeal the Second Amendment will start a civil war in America!
You are absolutely right, but would it pass constitutional muster? Rather than ban ownership of a particular type of weapon which will result in gun manufacturers driving trucks though the loopholes our congress always provides, I wo approach it from the other side. Describe the types of firearms that are legal to own - for instance only 6-shooter revolvers, bolt-action long rifles (limit 5 bullets in clip, one in chamber), double-barrelled shotguns, and pump-action shotguns (one in chamber, 2 in clip). Done – define what can be owned, don’t try to play footsie with those trying to get around it.
For immediate passage, the idea I would propose (thanks to Thom Hartmann) is requiring liability insurance from every gun owner. The beauty of it, something I realized just this morning, is that despite the fact the government cannot ask gun owners how many and what type of firearm they own and how it is stored, private business has no such restriction. Your rate depends up all these factors and the insurance industry is well acquainted in how to statistically assign risk. Have a tragic accident and caught without insurance? You get hit with an expensive lawsuit. Lie on you insurance form about your arsenal – your insurance is invalidated.
In any case, there is one problem I see with banning military-style weaponry. The outrage and tragedies on both sides resulting from the federal government’s attempts to confiscate illegal weapons – especially AR-15 of which there are estimated to be nearly 3 million in private hands, would be devastating. Not to mention the press coverage.
I’m 63 years old. I am well aware of the emotional reaction that would result, I’ve been discussing the issue for well over 50 years. It’s not a new debate…
Appreciate your reply.
Well said! Like I have posted before, this paradigm is nothing new and goes back to the Roman Empire: ODERNT DUM MUTANT. Let them hate; provided the fear.
Any/all of your proposals would be fine with me, just so something is done swiftly to slow down the slaughter of innocents.
The ban will eventually have to happen, one way or the other. The fact of 3 million of these weapons in private hands will come back on us in a very bad way, I fear. You cannot have a
stable, diverse, free and peaceful society with such a widespread saturation of weaponry designed to efficiently kill large numbers of people. These chickens will come home to roost!
It is not a question of IF, but only WHEN.
If we continue to do nothing, it is at our own peril.