Second Amendment Solution?

I wish to offer my personal condolences to those who were shot or killed today and their families and friends at the Tucson Massacre.

I felt, while it is fresh in our minds and hearts, I would say a few words.

Throughout the previous political campaign, there were references, veiled and direct to what was coined, the 'Second Amendment Solution'. There were political ads which showed the use of firearms, suggesting that if you own a gun you were somehow superior to another candidate, more in tune with how the voters feel. I ask you, right now, how do you feel the a Congressman, a Federal Judge, a 9 year old child and at least 7 others, killing at least 5 were gunned down by an obviously crazed individual. This is what a Second Amendment Solution looks and feels like. It's not funny, or a cute tag line someone can use.

Five people are dead in Tucson because someone exercised their own Second Amendment Solution. How do you feel? I am sick and disgusted that this sort of thing happened in our country. Anyone, politicians and supporters included who supported the notion of a Second Amendment Solution, even in joking may very well have blood on their hands. The psycho's out there, who have 'issues' with our government and politicians may very well be given the idea from all the press that came out over these statements. Crazies can be influenced by these statements. Because they are crazy, they show no remorse or conscience because as a crazy, they believe in the righteousness of their cause. When you have a politician speaking in those terms it may validate the cause or give impetus to the act.

Rational people, who may have a similar complaint may indeed agree, but actually stop short of doing anything such as this because, well in the end they know it's wrong. Of course it won't stop them from talking trash. Now I wonder, how do they feel about saying such things? Are they human enough to admit that maybe saying such things is a bit too extreme?

I think, at the very least, those who subscribed to this nonsense admit, well this is not a solution at all. Certainly not an American solution.

Don't forget, there are more crazies where this guy came from.

I hope as a nation, we can learn from this. Words can hurt or cause others to hurt. This is not a video game American, this is real people, blood and yes, tears.

The Second Amendment Solution is no answer to ANYTHING when it comes to a massacre of innocents and people doing their jobs and going about their lives.

Addendum 01/09/11

The last paragraph from the statement from Kelly's campaign says it all. No remorse, no remote possibility of responsibility;

During his campaign effort to unseat Giffords in November, Republican challenger Jesse Kelly held fundraisers where he urged supporters to help remove Giffords from office by joining him to shoot a fully loaded M-16 rifle. Kelly is a former Marine who served in Iraq and was pictured on his website in military gear holding his automatic weapon and promoting the event.

"I don't see the connection," between the fundraisers featuring weapons and Saturday's shooting, said John Ellinwood, Kelly's spokesman. "I don't know this person, we cannot find any records that he was associated with the campaign in any way. I just don't see the connection."

They don't get it. Just because you 'don't see the connection', does not mean your vitriolic rhetoric did not empower someone to take matters into their own hands. Why not admit that maybe, in hindsight the judgement to use weapons in a campaign to help 'oust' a candidate might not have been the smartest thing to do? The weaponizing of a campaign fundraiser, especially with Second Amendment Solutions being thrown about might, just might send the wrong message to the less educated and clearly insane.

Right bear arms and the right to light 'em up.

Ah the Second Amendment, the one most likely to be misinterpreted, misunderstood or not even read at all by those spouting their 'right to bear arms' rationale.

Consider this article.... At Starbucks, Gun Owners Push Right To Bear Arms...Dale Welch recently walked into a Starbucks in Virginia, handgun strapped to his waist, and ordered a banana Frappuccino with a cinnamon bun. He says the firearm drew a double-take from at least one customer, but not a peep from the baristas. The article goes on to explain that there are people who want to exercise their alleged right to bear arms, even in a public place and private property. Now, I don't know about you but I would find someone coming into any establishment carrying a firearm just a little unnerving. I mean, what is your first thought? Law Enforcement? Maybe. Criminal? Maybe. A jerk acting 'big'? Maybe. Law abiding citizen showing off his weapon just to prove a point? Not likely. I mean, what do we know about this person? Does this person even have the 'right' to carry a weapon like that? What do you do, call the Police and have them come and check the guy out? How would the Police handle a person carrying a weapon into say, a Starbucks and a patron calls 911? Are we not asking for trouble? If carrying a weapon becomes common-place, there won't be enough Police to investigate these kinds of calls, so I would imagine that criminal would pick up on this and figure, why not? It's so commonplace that now one would even question it. Is there a danger looming? I think so.

Interestingly, I cannot walk into a public or private place and light up a cigarette in most places in this country. Hell, I cannot smoke where I live, yet cigarettes are legal and regulated with more stringent rules than firearms. In fact cigarettes are taxed by far greater than firearms and firearm supplies. Yet both are 'legal'. Oddly, I could carry a Bushmaster into a Starbucks and that would be okay, but walk in with the weapon and fire up a cigarette, well we all know what would happen. The question remains, which is more threatening? 33% of those folks would not be intimidated or threatened by me lighting up. How many of the people in a Starbucks would feel intimidated or threatened or maybe a little scared by the sight of a weapon that 'looks' like an assault rifle?

Food for thought.

Oh, the Second Amendment reads..."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."

Now for an example of what was considered a 'well regulated militia'.

An Act for the better regulating and disciplining the Militia, April 1757:

"WHEREAS it is necessary, in this time of danger, that the militia of this colony should be well regulated and disciplined...And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That every person so as aforesaid inlisted (except free mulattoes, negroes, and Indians) shall be armed in the manner following, that is to say: Every soldier shall he furnished with a firelock well fixed, a bayonet fitted to the same, a double cartouch-box, and three charges of powder, and constantly appear with the same at the time and place appointed for muster and exercise, and shall also keep at his place of abode one pound of powder and four pounds of ball, and bring the same with him into the field when he shall be required...And for the better training and exercising the militia, and rendering them more serviceable, Be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, That every captain shall, once in three months, and oftner if thereto required by the lieutenant or chief commanding officer in the county, muster, train, and exercise his company, and the lieutenant or other chief commanding officer in the county shall cause a general muster and exercise of all the companies within his county, to be made in the months of March or April, and September or October, yearly; and if any soldier shall, at any general or private muster, refuse to perform the command of his officer, or behave himself refractorily or mutinously, or misbehave himself at the courts martial to be held in pursuance of this act, as is herein after directed, it shall and may be lawful to and for the chief commanding officer, then present, to cause such offender to be tied neck and heels, for any time not exceeding five minutes, or inflict such corporal punishment as he shall think fit, not exceeding twenty lashes.

Now, as many learned people know, the National Guard replaced the state militias. However if the Second Amendment folks would rather use contemporary, for the time interpretation of a militia and the armaments requirements, I am all for it. I particularily like the twenty lashes part.