When I taught Critical Reasoning and Ethics, I used to get lots of papers written on the topic of gun control. Over the years, the arguments were often the same . I would over and over again write on the returning papers that were calling for restrictions on guns that the paper had good – or even great – arguments that were very persuasive. I told them that these arguments would be great if they were arguing for gun control in Mexico or Egypt or Mongolia… but they carry no weight in the U.S. unless they take into consideration the second Amendment that does not allow the government to “infringe” on the right to bear arms. To infringe means to encroach. To encroach means to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another (Both definitions taken from Miriam Webster). So any even gradual steps to infringe were violations of that amendment. Of course the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of just exactly what “to infringe” means and therefore what arm are protected by the amendment.
If folks are truly serious about solving the problem of mass shootings, I encourage them to do one or both of the following: 1) find solutions that do not “infringe” or 2) get the second amendment overturned. I see no other reasonable options.
———————————————-
If you would like to communicate further about this or any other issues, please email me at jimshaul@gmail.com and we can chat. We can also chat on Messenger once I know who you are.
If you would like to read more of my thoughts, please visit my blog: https://jimshaul.org and follow me there.
If you appreciate my posts, please consider Liking them and Sharing them below if you think they could be a blessing to others.
For His Glory,
Jim