Dueling Column: The Second Amendment needs amending

John Sutija / Contributing Writer


Back in May this year, Andrea Colledani wrote an article for The Beacon suggesting that the Second Amendment needed to be revised to fit modern needs. Unfortunately, she did not have any suggestion for what course of action might be taken.

Colledani was right of course, the Second Amendment is outdated. Militias are redundant in the modern developed world, but the right to bear arms goes beyond that. The guns used at Lexington and Concord were hunting rifles, and regardless of your participation in the sport, there is no denying that its practice is beneficial. When deer populations skyrocket, the creatures destroy crops worse than rats, and coyotes are more violent pests. I realize that these are less of an issue in Miami than in my native Iowa, but the U.S. is made of much more than South Florida.

If I had my way, the solution to gun rights would be in your wallet. I don’t believe anyone needs to own a gun. Some careers may benefit from their use, but that’s on a professional level, not a personal one. If you need a gun at work, you should pick up your sidearm when you punch in and drop it off when you punch out. But what about the every man, those hunters I spent my last paragraph defending? They wouldn’t own their guns or their relatives. I say all ranged weapons – shotguns, rifles, pistols and bows – need to be collected by the government, catalogued and put in a library. You want to shoot Bambi? Fine, but I’ll need to see your gun-library-card.

They would, of course, be exceptions to the rule. Your grandfather’s WWI rifle is an heirloom, not a weapon, and would be categorized as such. Antiques would be examined by an expert who would make sure they are safe enough to be kept in a home and then be returned to their cabinets.

In concept, that’s it. You can go rent a gun whenever you want, but your name, the date, your address and your intent are recorded. And if you don’t have it back in two weeks, no amount of firepower will protect you from five-cents-a-day late fees.

It couldn’t be that simple of course. To get such a license would require in-depth background checks and mental evaluations. You would likely have to make an appointment, and you yourself would never be allowed into the actual gun vault. You would tell the person at the register what you intend to do and they would go in back and bring you their recommendation, chosen from the limited stock they have. Things like Uzis, AKs, P90s or anything that has “armor-piercing” in its name would be ridiculous, and unless your game weighs over 500 pounds, most high-power rifles are, too. You’d be handed the weapon and a box a munitions and pointed toward gun range. When you’re happy with your choice, then comes the paper work.

Does this make the people safer? Yes, it pulls the weapons out of the home. Does it let you fulfill your primal instincts? Yes, have fun Billy-Joe. Is it the perfect end-all? No, I’m not saying it’s the best solution, but it’s better than our current means of gun oversight – and that’s what the nation needs right now.


Read the other side: No guns is not the answer

Photo credit


About the Author

Sam Smith
The Beacon - Editor-in-Chief

35 Comments on "Dueling Column: The Second Amendment needs amending"

  1. in 1980 only about eight states had laws on the books that facilitated citizens lawfully arming themselves. Today there are about 42 states. and add to that the states that have adopted constitutional carry with more to follow. Gun sales have skyrocketed and crime plummeted by more than half over a 20-year period. Gun control "Gliberals" have outspent the second amendment community nearly five-to one, yet they rarely win…and what they have won usually ends up overturned. At what point do you people say, "We have failed?" Gun control policies suck and you folks are losers.

  2. I totally agree with Mr. Sujita.

    Guns owners are disrespectful of authority. A failure to rely on authorities is an invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes. The mere fact that they gather together to talk about guns at gun shops, gun shows, shooting ranges, and on the internet means that they have some plot going against us normal people. A gun owner has no right to associate with another gun owner.

    Therefore, to help ensure our right to happiness and safety we must ban and seize all guns from private hands, and forbid NRA-based criticism towards people who are only trying to help. Searching the homes of all NRA members for any guns and pro-gun literature will go a long way towards reducing crime

    Common sense requires only uniformed soldiers, police, and other agents of the state have access to firearms, and think of all the money we can save by just taking away the guns from private owners and giving them to the military and police. No person should be able to challenge this by writing to Congress or the President. If they do they should be forced in court to admit to it and then fined a hundred million dollars for each time. Subjecting them to torture will probably change their minds.
    Making it mandatory that church ministers preach against guns or else they can’t get licensed will certainly force the church folk onto our side.

    People who don’t like all this prove they are on the side of the killers with the guns and should be put in jail alongside all the gangbangers and other gun nuts. Letting them sit in jail for a few years before they are charged will give the government plenty of time to find something wrong in their lives. Anything they say, write, or express should be held against them to prove their guilt. We should bring all of them here to Chicago to be tried by Mayor Rahmfather as judge, and we should allow only mothers who have lost children to gunfire to be on the juries. Any attorney who tries to defend them should be arrested also. If we don’t get the right verdict the first time we can just keep trying them until we do.

    No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or murder and should just leave crime prevention to the Police who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime’s completion. A woman using a gun in self-defense interferes with and makes the attempted crime a "non-event," which unnecessarily complicates the Police investigation. Any woman who does this should be put in jail for interfering with an investigation.

    If someone still really, really thinks they have a need for a gun in their home for protection then the Army should just force them to host and feed some armed soldiers.

    Those who claim that the 2nd amendment was given to because we might someday need guns to use against an oppressive government forget that Constitution has strong internal safeguards to protect our freedoms. So there!

    Long live our Constitution!

  3. We Americans have a few MILLION firearms. Like 300 million AND COUNTING. You can pass all the un-Constitutional laws that you want, but in the end, YOU will have to come and take them from us.
    Do the numbers- say 100 million gun owners against say 1 million in the army and national guard (if they all obey their un-Constitutional orders) trying to confiscate 3 guns apiece from gun owners- well, even YOU can probably see the problem here.
    There will be thousands of gun battles on the front porches and front steps of gun owners’ homes, and when the government loses a few thousand gun-grabbers a day for a week, (regardless of the number of gun owners killed) they will see that they are fighting a LOSING battle.
    You see, as shown by the numbers of non-compliers in Connecticut and Washington state, gun owners will not obey un-Constitutional orders to give up their scary black guns and so-called illegal magazines, and trying to confiscate them by force will kick off the second civil war.

  4. We Americans have a few MILLION firearms. Like 300 million AND COUNTING. You can pass all the un-Constitutional laws that you want, but in the end, YOU will have to come and take them from us.
    Do the numbers- say 100 million gun owners against say 1 million in the army and national guard (if they all obey their un-Constitutional orders) trying to confiscate 3 guns apiece from gun owners- well, even YOU can probably see the problem here.
    There will be thousands of gun battles on the front porches and front steps of gun owners’ homes, and when the government loses a few thousand gun-grabbers a day for a week, (regardless of the number of gun owners killed) they will see that they are fighting a LOSING battle.
    You see, as shown by the numbers of non-compliers in Connecticut and Washington state, gun owners will not obey un-Constitutional orders to give up their scary black guns and so-called illegal magazines, and trying to confiscate them by force will kick off the second civil war.

  5. Fuck you in the fucking neck, you fucking fuck!!
    Traitors like you should be sent to ISIS

  6. Fuck you in the fucking neck, you fucking fuck!!
    Traitors like you should be sent to ISIS

  7. Carl Stevenson | June 10, 2015 at 2:00 PM | Reply

    It never ceases to amaze me what ignorant morons our "institutions of higher learning" are churning out these days.
    If you want my guns come and try to take them. If you are so firm in your convictions, you’ll have the courage to do it yourself, rather than sending an army of jackbooted thugs to do your dirty work.
    Otherwise, go to hell with the former generation of collectivist bastards like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. They all wanted to disarm everyone to ,,, for pretty much the same reason as you ,,, control.

  8. You want to ban bow and arrows too! Are the Indians in Iowa on the war path again? You sir need to be civilly committed for your own good and the good of society.

    • Actually, in my full proposal, Native Americans and residents of Native American Reservations are exempted.

  9. I can hardly keep up with you.
    I have read (as of 12:30p.m. Wednesday the tenth of May, 2015) all of your comments, and present the following points in response.
    Most of you don’t seem to understand me, my perspective, or my background, so I will elaborate on this first, and save you all the confusion. Firstly, my name is John Rhys Sutija. I thought I made it quite clear in my response to the first comment that I only use my first name, John Rhys. Mr. Sutija is my father; he is a conservative Eastern European man with whom I rarely agree. Most of you insisted on calling me Mr. Sutija, even after I asked you do not. One of you called me Mr. Rhys, which really caught me off guard. My name is John Rhys, I go by John Rhys, I would appreciate you call me John Rhys. Any complaints for Mr. Sutija, or J. Sutija will be forwarded. Secondarily, the assertion that I am a Liberal, Leftist, or Marxist. I am a Centrist Technocratic Socialist. Thirdly, my education. My education is something of a let-down to me, because – as some of you were able to guess – my knowledge of American history is severely lacking. The American Public Education System failed when it decided that the bible should be taught, rather than American History. What I know is self-taught, and I strive every day to increase my knowledge. I thank those of you who offered those wonderful tidbits to look up so as to expand my horizons. Corollary: I am not from some large liberal city. I am from a small conservative town in the Midwest. Someone mentioned that the founding fathers were well read. I too have read the classic social philosophers. Beings smart does not always mean being right, and being right does not always involve declaring universal truths. Next, the idea that I am anti-militia. This is an incorrect assumption resulting from my own lack of knowledge. I did not know that the National Guard et al. was a Militia. Now I do. I do not oppose the existence of these formal militias, but I do oppose the informal everyman militia so many of you seem to be part of. I conclude this section by asking how am I racist, and whom have I discriminated against? Someone brought that up and I’d very much like to know why.
    Most of you seem to take this as a full and proper proposed course of action. It is not. It is an incomplete and simplified idea from a more comprehensive document. Furthermore, some believe this to be a persuasive piece. It is not. This is a hypothetical solution.
    Now I will begin to address your responses. Firstly by saying that many of you are overly fond of logical fallacies. In the hard copy of your comments that I printed, I have struck out the ad hominem comments and false comparisons. The later consisting mostly of statements equating the second and first amendments, or worse, guns to television sets. Another group of you are struck out for threatening martial action. Those comments added nothing to the discussion.
    Next are those of you who challenged me. Would I participate as a door to door collector were this system implemented today. Yes, why wouldn’t I? This argument is based in the assumption that I fear the gun, or death, or some aspect thereof. The only thing I fear is that a weapon may be used to harm another person. The next challenge was that I leave the country is I didn’t want to live with this government’ system. Unfortunately, leaving the US and revoking citizenship are different things. The latter is incredibly hard, and it would be easier for you to time travel to the 1780s and live in a time that accepts your outdated mindsets. The former still requires that I pay taxes, and then I’m still supporting a system I protest, so what’s the point? I’d rather stay and do what I can to help. The final challenge was to find a case of a gun that had been legally purchased being used in illicit activity. While not included here, I will look for one and post it in response when I do.
    Many made the argument, which I paraphrase here, Criminals are Criminals. Tautologies aside, I acknowledge this issue, self-defense and the nature of crime. But it is beyond the scope of this writing. And many of you who argued this made complaint of the police. If you want to complaint about the police, see my other article on this site.
    Left are those who believe my intents and modus are violent, and those who believe the government is trying to enslave you. I will address them in that order. At no point did I say, directly or indirectly, that the collection process would be a violent one. Yet, you lash out with threats against those who would be involved. It would be like attacking the census taker or the UPS man.
    I will conclude by telling that last party that you have failed. You claim your guns are to prevent the government from establishing a totalitarian reign that would strip us of our rights, and yet the corrupt oligarchs stand like cyclopean monoliths. What was the point of your guns when they did not serve their intended purpose? You have been placated by the monster you claim to oppose, because it has left you your blanket. If the government decided to invade your homes today, your guns would not stop them. You would throw your lives away because your enemy told you, you stood a chance. You have been deceived.

  10. StBernardnot | June 10, 2015 at 4:20 PM | Reply

    Does it hurt? It must hurt to be that dumb.

  11. eaglesnester | June 10, 2015 at 6:37 PM | Reply

    Clearly this individual is an idiot. Ya cant fix stupid.

  12. Sam, obviously, has not read much history and has never heard the saying, those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. He thinks his freedom to write dribble is a given. He has no concept that those rights he has were all fought for and won with guns.

    If all the guns were collected, which is a BIG if because that could not happen without his version of government being overthrown, he would not longer be free to write what he wanted. The all powerful government, with it’s monopoly on armed violence, would dictate what he wrote about. As a matter of fact, one day he would look around and realize that he had no real freedom. Then he’d wish he had a gun.

  13. If you ask me the whole article is meant as a joke. Albeit a sick joke, but none the less a joke not worth the space taken up to write it.

  14. Give it a shot, skippy, and see what it gets you.
    I’ll be waiting…

  15. We should all listen to the wisdom and experience that comes from the incredible capacities of an 19 year old. Who could doubt such knowledge and vast education. What do we have to fear from the law abiding citizens of Ferguson or Baltimore, especially when brave Sir Sutija can be counted on to defend our families from harm and brutality? Can anyone doubt his like minded cohorts will not man the walls against the barbarians that confront society?

    One wonders if the Second Amendment is outmoded than why stop. The First amendment was clearly printed when typeset was in common use, not computers. As we all know the fourth amendment is a bad joke, and our court system has revised it allowing the government to search our premises and jail citizens on the whim of the moment. So we can understand where the author gets his inspiration.

    I can trust his judgement about as much as Mexican tap water and I’d rather invest with Bernie Madoff than trust my life and liberty to someone with such maturity and commonsense.

  16. What frat does the "author" of this garbage belong to, Animal House? This is one of the most ignorant, elitist, asinine pieces of literary crap I have ever seen, and I’ve seen a LOT of them.

    The PRIMARY PURPOSE of the Second Amendment is to PREVENT government from denying, limiting, restricting, or otherwise INFRINGING upon a fundamental, civil, human, Constitutionally protected RIGHT to arms.

    The "author" states such proposals as he makes will make us safer. Look at the REAL WORLD, youngster: in virtually every place where such Draconian measures have been put into effect, violent FIREARM-RELATED crime is at very high levels. If "gun control" was such a success, New York, New Jersey, Kalifornicatia, and other such places would be Utopian paradises. Reality says different.

    Next time, write about a subject that you have at least SOME knowledge of.

  17. Americans fought a civil war to enshrine the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in a Constitution.

    Oh yes, the Revolutionary war was civil war – 1 people split into 2. And it was vicious.

    Are you willing to fight another civil war to get the control over guns that you want?

    I doubt it. And more than that I doubt that you personally would put yourself in harms way to achieve your tyrannical goals.

    But make no mistake about those whom you seek to enslave.

    We are willing to fight another civil war to protect our liberty.

    I urge you – don’t test us.

    You won’t like what happens.

  18. Before the Civil War in a SC case known as Dredd Scott the court said that if "blacks were citizens they would have the right to keep and carry arms wherever they go"".

    In 1876 the SC said in Cruishank that the 2A "protected a right that existed prior to the adoption of the Constitution and the right doesn’t depend on the 2A for its existence".

    So you can even repeal the 2A but the right will remain.

    One has the right to life (liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

    Therefore one has the right to defend that life.

    So one has the right to the means to defend that life.

    Therefor the right to arms exists no matter what, and for all people, everywhere, at all times.

    Only murderous tyrants talk about wanting to take it away.

  19. Okay then, when you break into my house instead of shooting you I’ll hack you into tiny twink pieces with a machete? You are an idiot not worthy to be paid attention to unless it is to send you to your room without supper you stupid, spoiled, uneducated, welp from the arse of a whore.

  20. Wow hunting rifles. Actually the militias preferred smooth bore muskets because they could be reloaded quickly as black powder fouled the lands and grooves in rifled barrels. But no fear a group of riflemen was formed because of their advanced technology that delivered long range shots accurately. The British soon joined in and they formed their own group called Ferguson’s Rifles after the British Officer who adopted the civilian hunting rifle for military use because the Americans were so damned effective. Well also did you think that the Bayonets required in the militia statutes were for "hunting rifles"??? Their cartridge box was to contain 20 prepared cartridges wax paper with powder ball and patch twisted at the ends to hold prepared charges for quick and easy loading-the equivalent of todays 20 round magazine.

    The Boston Artillery Company possessed 4 canon. They were a militia outfit. Two guns belonged to the Government of Massachusetts and the other two were owned by several citizens of Boston. Henry Knox drafted a beautiful comment when he returned the two guns, the Adams and the Hancock to several citizens of Boston because the state owned guns were seized by the enemy. One of the guns is still there in Minute Man Park in Concord, Mass. But don’t let historical fact get in the way of your agenda…. Oh I suppose canon are for hunting, how silly of me.

    The Privateer Navy consisted of nearly 2000 ships with a combined arms compliment of over 14,000 canon and swivel guns. The American Navy only consisted of 64 ships with about 1200 mounted canon and swivel guns. So you see the civilian Navy out gunned and out shipped the regular Navy. this information can be found in the US Maritime Museum. But I suppose all those armed ships were for hunting???

    You are like a child with a firearm shooting indiscriminately and a danger. In fact I think you need a permit to post things on the net. How’s that for in your face??

    Ignorance can be cured with diligent study and a desire to find the truth. Stupid, however, knows no bounds and can be only fixed by Nature. Nature abhors stupid, that is why she tries to kill it off every chance she gets.

    Why don’t you read a book to show the respect you need in order to use the freedom I volunteered to assure you by being armed against tyranny. That is what the Supreme Court said in 2010. We are armed to resist, prevent and overthrow tyranny. And just to make sure you understand what an inalienable right is, it is one every human being is born with. I nor anyone else cannot take that away from you. It is beyond government and majorities. And I have laid my life on the line so you could run your pie hole because you have that inalienable right. How’s about keeping the same sense of respect for mine. The right to keep and bear is an unalienable right so get over yourself..

  21. The Second Amendment requires government to protect a preexisting, intrinsic right to self defense with any weapon.

    Even if the Second Amendment was scrapped completely, the right would continue to exist and gun owners would continue to have the means to protect their rights.

    Gun owners won’t obey any laws to regulate or disarm them, they will defend their rights with complete and total vigor.

  22. "If I had my way, the solution to gun rights would be in your wallet. I don’t believe anyone needs to own a gun."

    You won’t get your way and I don’t care what you believe.

    Have a great day,

  23. Come take it.

  24. Author is a bigot, and fundamentally ignorant.

    Please attempt aerial fornication with a rotationally transiting toroidal pastry.

  25. Yeah. The first amendment is outdated too. When the founding father’s endorsed freedom of the press, they were writing about ink and dye presses. Not internet “journalism.” Really need to take a hatchet to the Bill of Rights.

  26. Why stop with the 2nd amendment. Why not abolish the 19th amendment so women can’t vote because this wirter is obviously one.

  27. I’ve read some ridiculous things in my lifetime, but this absolutely takes the cake. I had to double check to make sure this wasn’t an article on The Onion.

  28. “I don’t believe anyone needs to own a gun.”

    You lost all credibility there. Everyone should have the right to protect themselves and loved ones. Your idea for a rent a gun service and all owners handing their guns over to the government is silly and won’t ever happen. There’s too many guns out there and even good people who wouldn’t kill others wouldn’t just fork them over to the government.

    “Shall not be infringed.”

  29. I am a 53 year old soon to be divorced female with a college degree living by myself in an area where everyone around me has a gun. I’m pretty sure I’m the only who “owns” a gun. Legally anyhow. I have a concealed carry license from my state that I obtained after multiple classes, hours and hours in a gun range practicing and a full fingerprint and background check. You want ME to give up MY gun??? Tell you what. When you get all the guns rounded up from my neighbors, then come see me and we’ll discuss mine.

  30. You might feel different if the Manson family came charging through your front door.

  31. Good one!

    This has to be the best trolling article I’ve read in a long time.

    It’s easy to believe that the author is serious, then you snap to and realize that no one is actually that stupid.

  32. You're The King of Bad Ideas | October 11, 2017 at 3:04 PM | Reply

    Let’s say we do have your utopian gun-less society, for the purpose of this hypothetical. You’re home with your wife and kids and your new labrador retriever puppy and someone breaks in. They aren’t armed with a gun because nobody has those anymore but he has knives, pepper spray, a taser, a bat, and brass knuckles. You’re not trained in martial arts so you’re pretty much defenseless unless you have a fleet of attack dogs wearing kevlar vests, goggles, gas masks, helmets, and full body armor… The intruder comes in and you come downstairs because you hear him. You end up facing the intruder, he stabs and kills you and then goes after your family and that super cute puppy of yours. At the end of the break-in, this guy has killed you and your family, stolen everything in your home, and left without a trace. Now, if you had a gun (and even if he had one as well), you run downstairs with your AR-15 equipped with a blinding light and a laser. You see the intruder and unleash the wrath of your firearm, putting 10 rounds into him and calling the police to report that you stood your ground and saved your family’s life along with your adorable puppy.

    Your idea would get millions killed…

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.