You Asked for a Solution But Can You Bear It?

Problem: The slaughter of innocent civilians by those who can easily obtain weapons to carry out their evil intent

Solution:?Implement a United States federal law equivalent to Switzerland's Gun Laws

Rationale:?The 2nd Amendment, as it was written:

"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."

Our politicians and courts in the modern era have deviated from the original intent of the 2nd Amendment by allowing a legal framework that allows for what is de facto laissez-faire gun ownership.?The resulting slaughter of innocents should be sufficiently weighty evidence to convince rational individuals (as opposed to those who live in a bubble reality of etheric principles and argument) that this was never the Founders' intent.

The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was that people had the right to bear arms, without infringement, so that they would be able to form up into a regulated Militia and defend a free State. It was not only an obligation of the citizenry, but an honor to defend one's country in the militia.

Switzerland's federal gun laws strike a balance that doesn't take guns away from pro-gun individuals like myself, but also ensures we are subjected to rigorous but common sense checks to ensure we know how to use a gun, and that we do so in the defense of life and nation and that we have no bad intent towards our fellow human being.

I know some Americans think such regulation would actually be violative of the 2nd Amendment, but I disagree.?Unless such Americans wish to argue that the 2nd Amendment supersedes "life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", and given the results of our current laws on our fellow humans in the United States, such regulation cannot be rationally construed as being contrary to the law. Furthermore, those who would argue against such regulation would have us maintain a framework that results in preventable tragedies - preventable with sufficient regulation that ensures pro-gun individuals like myself bear the burden of regulation and maintain the security of a free State.?I would argue that current laws, especially in their results over decades, diminish the security and freedom within the United States.

How: Form an alternative to the NRA that will support politicians that actually promote the 2nd Amendment as it was intended - as a citizen's honor and duty to receive the proper training and be subject to regulation that would ensure we could serve in the defense of our nation - of our families and our children.?It will be on the heads of the NRA, and the politicians that support them, if they continue to undermine the Constitution, the original intent of the 2nd Amendment by arming individuals like the ones who slaughtered children and teachers in Uvalde.?We understand the laws today are not entirely on our side.?Just as slavery was lawful at one time, we think the time of laissez-faire gun ownership has passed and has proven, as has been attributed to St. Augustine, "an unjust law is no law at all."

The lawlessness that arms terrorism, domestic or otherwise, should not be embodied as an outcome of our law as it is today.

You wanted a common-sense solution, but I doubt there is the political will to save lives in a common-sense fashion today. Though there is not much difference in how rational individuals feel about the situation, lobbying dollars often trump the concerns of everyday parents and teachers. I refuse to stand idly by to wait for the next tragedy, and fully intend to vote with my feet and action. This position will villainize me in the eyes of many here and so be it. Your outrage is more bearable than waiting for the next slaughter like the one that occurred at Uvalde.

James David "D0c" Muren

Common Sense Pro-gun Advocate

#lifematters