The Right to Bear Arms

After the Aurora, Colorado incident, there was the usual discussion (i.e., unilateral rants) about the Second Amendment. Some people took the incredible position that if enough members of the movie audience had been armed, the incident would not have occurred (somehow they failed to note that the shooter was wearing body armor) and others railed that the right to own weapons shouldn't include the right to own assault rifles -- or buy thousands of rounds of ammunition. .

It seems to me that the Republican packed Supreme Court was reading a different version of the Constutution than the one I'm familiar with when they held that the Second Amendment prohibits the Federal or State government's denying an individual's right to own a gun. As I read the constitution, the right to bear arms is granted to the people in a recognized militia, not individuals. When the Constitution references individuals, it does so explicitly, as for instance the qualifications to be a Representative, Senator or President, "(n)o person shall be a Representative ...". The Second Amendment explicitly addressed the collective right of the people, not individuals.

But that's beside the point.  There's no need to parse words or submit to endless litigation. What's needed is sensible penalties for misusing weapons, not their ownership. What's needed is a draconian punishment for anyone who MISUSES a firearm. For instance, a mandatory 10 year sentence, with no possibilty of parole for anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime, said sentence to be served AFTER any sentence for the crime itself. That should be for the FIRST offense. A second offense should carry a mandatory 30 year sentence, tacked on after the sentence for the crime itself.

That puts personal responsibility at the forefront of individual conduct.  I really think we should give it a try.