The Second Amendment isn't a Hedge against Gun Controls

   I would take the Second Amendment, and use it as the answer to our nation's outcry against mass shootings. Our rocked-with-controversy-right-now Second Amendment need not be a hedge preventing us from doing the things we see need to be done to counter all the violence. Rather, It can be the very key to stopping the carnage and the bloodshed. It can be the very reason we make the changes we see need to be made.

   I have long believed the Founding Fathers inspired, and the Constitution inspired. Now, as I am seeing the Second Amendment in a different light than I ever have in the past -- as I see a whole new meaning in it -- I wonder, the more, about it being inspired.

 Right as our nation reaches a precipice in its outcry against violence, right as our nation's citizens are screaming, "Enough, already!," right as they are demanding to know why we don't have more gun controls, I see the answer in the Second Amendment.

   I see the Second Amendment as if it is saying -- and let this shock you if it will -- Yes, of course, we need some gun controls.  

   Read the Second Amendment. Consider it, and consider it carefully. "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."

   Those were days, we did not have a standing army. When war came, the people came running and the army was quickly assembled. The soldiers brought their own weapons -- their own guns -- and the haste at which the military was assembled demanded that it be done this way. There was no time to go out and buy guns. If the country was to respond quickly, the soldiers had to already have the guns in hand and be ready to be bring and use them. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed.

   But, it is not the end of the Second Amendment, but rather the beginning of it that I wish to point to. It is in those very first words where we find the secret to dealing with the wave of mass murders sweeping our country.

   "A well regulated militia." What does that mean? Well, "well regulated" can mean well conceived, well thought out, well directed . . . well organized.
   If something is well organized, it provides a way to deal with the problem. Even so, if we are to have a well regulated response to gun violence, we have to do the things that successfully counter gun violence. If we can see that those who make threats of violence should not have guns, we should not let them have guns. 
   We should consider on this: The Founding Fathers said a militia was necessary to the security of a free state. That is a very obvious thing. If you do not have have a militia to protect yourself and your country, you will not be secure. You need a military force to fight off the foreign foes from without and you need a police force to fight off the criminal elements from within. Your military and police provide the security for your state. The Founding Fathers acknowledged as much, simply stating an obvious fact.
   But, do not overlook that they said that militia should be "well regulated." You do not "well regulate" something without regulating it. And, you do not regulate something without having controls. 
   I doubt the Founding Fathers had any idea there would be the killings and mass murders and shootings we are now experiencing. Nor, do I say they were even thinking of gun control when they placed those words in the Second Amendment. But, words have meaning. "Well regulated" did find its way into the Second Amendment.
   I do not know but what that wasn't inspired.