I, too, would favor a reinterpretation of the existing amendment, to allow for militias and to be flexible according to individual needs. I wouldn’t, for instance, be opposed to local militias to patrol high-risk neighborhoods, just maintain a presence. A bunch of armed citizens hanging out where drugs are sold might be a deterence, and could move when the dealers move.

Militias could patrol borders, airports, all manner of things. And, of course, weapons clearly intended for hunting animals would be relatively unrestricted.

First and foremost, just to set a record straight, I am not a gun advocate. Being Infantry-minded and sniper trained, I just have no problem with guns, or the people who own them. My ire is raised only when the gun-totin’ ego-trips hit the newswires and some innocent bystander hits the dust. I type on these pages merely as an advocate for freedom and the integrity of the U.S. Constitution.

Here, Amendments are permitted, ratified and voided by Congressional vote. Prohibition was a colossal mistake, one which was rather quickly corrected with Repeal.

The 2nd Amendment has been around for quite a while, as evidenced by its being only the second of 27. It’s rooted in rather well.

A full repeal of the 2nd Amendment would be a difficult task, and in point of fact, is, for there are several Americans who have tried just that. A sub-Amendment, or breaking the existing Amendment into Sections I think would be a better approach, a breakdown which would allow the free and open possession of firearms, plain and simple. Let’s face it, people do like their guns, and those who have them will hang onto them, no matter what (that “cold, dead hand” quote comes readily to mind … and that’s pretty hard to fight).

A rewrite is now needed. With the world’s largest corporation being the United States Military, the old State Militia is no longer needed.

…However — is a civil militia still needed…?

Securing the Homeland is a big job, considering the Coast to Coast size of the beast, and when coupled with the idea of an actual invasion. We don’t think in this light, though, because we live in a country where invasions do not happen — at least not in the good neighborhoods.

Street and neighborhood watch groups, some of which actually have volunteers patrolling streets at night, on foot or in cars, stem much of this nefarious activity, but what about an encroaching military, a robust force from outside the nation, or even a hostile sleeper group within our borders?

Sketchy, I know, but still a viable threat.

Sketchier still, should the politics of D.C. fall to the wayside and some nefarious person sets up a regime state, one in full control of the U.S. Militaries, who ya gonna call?

I put that the Second Amendment should be left alone and we concentrate more on the idea of weapons training and weapons safety as our overall priorities in this matter. The selling and trading of firearms need better controls, and I really see nothing wrong with background investigations. We go through this today, simply applying for a job, but for a weapon, I would have to include a check for mental disorder and/or imbalance.

Perhaps:
AMENDMENT [II.]
SECTION 1. 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.
SECTION 2. Local constabulary shall have the power to revoke this article on a case-by-case basis, should a requestor for a firearms permit be diagnosed by a practicing medical expert to have a condition marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, and/or emotions to seriously impair the normal psychological functioning of the persona.

Note there is no plurality in Section 2, as this would have to be a case-by-case declaration.

…“Local constabulary” is a bit open-ended, but the choice for the deciding facility might not be an elected official, such as a Sheriff, or even an appointed Marshall, bringing us down to the mayoral police department.
…A “practicing medical expert” would have to be an actual doctor with standard hours of business, not an ad hoc representative brought in simply to deny another’s rights.
…“Seriously impair” might be better revised…

I’m sure there are other problems. I don’t know if this would work, but at least it’s a start.

And they promote an economic system which is inexorably leading the US into the situation where 98% of the wealth is concentrated in 2% of the population. Conservatives are working hard to achieve that result.

When one looks at a Conservative and realizes those are considered desirable situations one necessarily forms an opinion of that person.

Having said that, I know Rob to be a calm, rational, intelligent and thoughtful person. I choose to believe he has some good reasons for rather reasonable Conservative beliefs on some matters and he gets tarred, unfairly, with the entire Conservative burden. I don’t think it’s appropriate.

And yet one of my issues with American Christianity is the stance on war. They may not “believe” in it, but they sure don’t protest it. They allowed Bush, for instance, to claim that God was directing his warmongering with no noticeable show of protest. Disgusting. All the wailing about fetuses and none about real, live humans being slaughtered by Americans. And calling suicide bombers “cowards” while B-52 crewmen are heroes.

When Conservatives have the guts to confront the Tea Party and Christians work against war my opinion will change drastically.

And I know RobVG well enough to say he doesn’t deserve to be included with most Conservatives.
Rob is of a type of Conservative who can be respected. He’s a calm, rational, intelligent guy who has some sincere beliefs which unfortunately tie him to others who have untenable ideas.

By looking the other way, you have encouraged a monster to flourish, one that now threatens to devour you as well. When good men make excuses and cover up for the evil in their camp because they fear alienating a potential ally, they only allow perversions like the Nazis and the Communists to arise.

Today’s Conservatives will be remembered in much the same way we remember the pathetic Liberals of the 1930s when they embraced Stalin. Still, they can plead that they were misled by the urgent need to combat Fascism in Europe, which at the time was only opposed by the Reds. Today, the Red Menace is long gone, in spite of all the efforts of the Right to find them under every upturned stone. Today’s existential threats are neither atheistic, nor anti-capitalist.

As for Don Quixote, I’ve read it, in the original Spanish. Unlike the Anglo Saxon take on the character, as a dreamer, eccentric and noble tilter against windmills, Cervantes wrote him as a pathetic crazy old fool, one who not only embarrassed himself, but managed to betray and endanger the people who loved him.

As he was written, Don Quixote was not a sympathetic character who represented the chivalry and honor of Medieval Spain, he embodied everything that was backward and deluded in that great civilization and its vanishing traditions. Quixote was more like Lear than he was like Hamlet.

Your reference to him was right on target.