We’re not going to agree on this issue. On the matter of the Second Amendment’s intent being debatable, I disagree flatly. I don’t think it gets any more explicit than “The right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed.” Furthermore, there are tons of evidence in the form of letters, writings, and quotes from our founding fathers which, in a nutshell state that the right to private gun ownership is the right that the Second Amendment exists to protect.

I really wasn’t trying to be simplistic but I was not trying to be long-winded either. I don’t believe that there was anything “anarchist” about my tone, and not all laws exist to curtail rights—many exist to protect rights. For example, any act by another person that infringes upon someone else’s rights is not a right; in other words, we have laws against theft, murder, rape, etc. because nobody has the right to commit those acts against another person. Furthermore, you have the right to defend yourself against someone committing those crimes against you. I don’t see anything “anarchist” about that.

The ability of a person to possess instruments of death cannot be addresses with legislation… lest you’re willing to outlaw cooking utensils, power tools (such as a nailgun), and any blunt object that could be used to beat someone to death. This would be attacking the symptoms and not the problem.

The problem is that all societies will always have people who are willing to break the law and harm other people. There is nothing that can be done about this. Passing draconian laws or increasing the penalties have both proven to be ineffective and full of terrible side-effects. My opinion is that if we focused more on addressing the economic circumstances that lead people to commit violent crime, we could solve most of the problem.

On the matter of rights. The tone you’ve struck there seems to border on anarchist propaganda. You have to remember that all laws and rules have to; by definition curtail some sort of right or freedom. This is the only way to avoid complete chaos. More specifically when it pertains to gun rights you do make it seem as if there is no real debate about the meaning and application of the second amendment. I’m not going to go get into it but there are compelling arguments on both sides and the matter deserves debate.

Love,
Leopold

To me the bottom like is this: The ability of a person to process instruments of death, should absolutely be well monitored and kept in check. We’re not talking about furniture ownership or any other household item. We’re talking about ownership of an item designed to terminate life.