The two-word gun solution
Changing one word and adding another to the United States Constitution is a lasting solution to the gun control debate that sizzles any time gun violence is out of the ordinary enough for media and political attention
The changes are so simple and the long-term effects so profound that it’s astonishing they’ve not been proposed before. Here’s the one-word change to the Second Amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the duty of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Congress and the courts could wrap that in all sorts of legal cellophane, but it’s really simple -- every citizen has a duty to own and carry a lethal weapon. Now some will want broadswords or crossbows, and that is just diversity in a democracy, but most will want pistols and rifles.
The second change adds a word to the first section of the 26th amendment and is really just housekeeping for the first change:
“Section 1.
The right of armed citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”
The simple meaning is that if you want to be a voting citizen of The United States, you must own and carry a weapon. Some benefits of the change would be immediate.
Gun and ammunition sales would boom and that would bring jobs in manufacturing and supply industries. The NRA and other gun lobbyists would become irrelevant.
Law enforcement payrolls could be significantly reduced with simple public awareness campaigns --”See something? Shoot someone!”
Although as with any change, there would be some implementation expense, but some existing infrastructure could be repurposed. Weapons detectors at airports, polling places and government buildings could be used to make certain individuals were armed and to weed out slackers. Courts and legislatures would have to expand and tidy up existing Stand Your Ground laws.
The long-term benefits of the change would address current concerns about mental instability and violent crime growth. Mentally unstable folks unlawfully threatening their fellow citizens would be quickly dispatched, benefitting the gene pool. Violent criminals would meet similar fates with similar benefits.
Of course there would be some social adjustments. Does a gentleman shoot the purse snatcher for a lady, or does he support gender equality by assuming the lady is equally capable of shooting the purse snatcher herself? Would “show me yours/I’ll show mine” become mutual unholstering?
There are all sorts of details to be worked out over time, but this simple two-word constitutional change does have the potential to settle the gun control issue immediately.
As events in Nevada and Texas recently show, nothing tried so far has worked.
###
