The right to keep and bear arms

It's estimated there are as many as 300 million guns in the US; that's about one for every citizen, and the number increases daily. It's unlikely that any meaningful "gun control" will be acceptable to those who believe it is their right to keep and bear arms, and it's unlikely that any acceptable gun control will have much impact on keeping weapons away from individuals with a deranged mind.

The Second Amendment simply states "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."

The Second Amendment must be considered in the context of the time. While the benefits of having a "well-regulated militia" had just been proven in the Revolutionary War, there was little desire among the founding fathers to create and maintain a standing army supplied with muskets and cannon. They chose instead to provide for our future security via "a well regulated Militia" (that was self-armed). In other words, in the event of some conflict, the government could, once again, call on its citizens to form a militia, and bring their muskets along. "Well regulated" does not imply "gun control," and the "right to keep and bear arms" was to provide for the "security of a free State."

The founding fathers could not possibly have envisioned our modern military, let alone the numerous paramilitary organizations that include local sheriffs, police, and state police, and the vast amount of armaments at their disposal.

They never envisioned B-52s, aircraft carriers, attack helicopters, stealth fighter aircraft, nuclear missiles, tanks, armored personnel carriers, SWAT teams; let alone assault weapons.

The security of our modern free state is no longer dependant on a well-regulated militia.

The Second Amendment makes no mention of hunting, or individual self-defense, or the right to keep and bear arms for those purposes.

Where the folks who are part of the gun culture get hung up is "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Currently, those who own guns, and the NRA, feel their rights may be under siege.

And the data shows they are responding by buying more guns and

ammunition.

I am not suggesting that any one of those buyers is contemplating an act similar to the one we have just witnessed. But down the line something goes wrong for one of them, or someone in their family, or someone who manages to get their hands on one, or several, of those weapons, something snaps, something horrific follows, and then, as a nation, we return to this same conversation.

When a society creates laws, it does so for the common good.

In the current situation we can define the common good as the lives of innocent children and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary.

Does the value of that common good outweigh the individual right of 70 to 80 million Americans to own firearms? I think it does, and I think it is time to reconsider the necessity for the Second Amendment.

Given the lack of emphasis on mental health in our society, it is not likely that we will ever eliminate the deranged mind from our midst - though we really should try.

The only possible alternative is to completely eliminate the plentiful tools of destruction that always seem to be at their disposal.

I appreciate that this is a radical approach, but when you think of the variously discussed alternatives, it is foolish to think that any of them will be successful in ending this violence.

How many more of these events will we tolerate?

80 percent of gun deaths that occur among the 23 wealthiest countries are Americans.

Ed Protas is a resident of Sisters.