Tag Archives: National Guard.

Donald Trump and the American question through Brit eyes.

Did Donald Trump suggest Hilary Clinton should be assassinated by second amendment supporters? Probably no, but it was certainly a questionable statement that he should thoroughly explain. It wouldn’t be much of a joke considering the number of assassination attempts on Presidents and Presidential candidates in the past.

Having brought up the question of the Second Amendment in a way that suggests supporters of that should be backing his run for the Presidency also suggests that all supporters of a reasonable move towards gun control should be supporting Hilary Clinton. I suggest she makes a big play of this in her run for the White House. There must in fact be  arguments for and against gun control within both parties which could find some people crossing the voting floor.

When I think about the time that the second amendment was written and the wording of it I’m easily confused. No way could the signatories have envisioned the weapons available today and had they done so, I’m sure they would have included much more to curtail their use. But the wording of the Second Amendment itself leads people to think that the weapons needed in the hands of the people  would be those of a well regulated militia, not the whole of the population. From the time in question that no doubt made sense. Today it doesn’t given that there is a National Guard who serve as a well regulated militia in times of trouble and who have access to the weapons they need.

For people to cry at the thought of the Second Amendment curtailing their access to some of the weapons they hold might suggest they find The National  Guard as someone they need arm against. I’ve oft heard the cry that weapons are needed for hunting purposes. So be it, but it’s not very sporting to hunt an animal with an automatic weapon. And for protection in the home, where there are two people need there be more than two guns?

Thanks to the Second Amendment laws, some inappropriate people have had access to arsenals of guns and have committed terrible outrages in schools and churches. Why the fear of having gun control laws limit the number of guns in an individual’s possession and the type of guns held? Surely with access to a court of law and the propensity for using them it would be easy to plead your case for having a mac-10 for target practise? Surely in limiting the access to guns most people win out as there’s less chance of a random nutter having access to them and if you find you have no choice but to shoot them at least they might not be shooting back.

Isn’t it time to apply some common sense and logic to the problem of gun control? Not taking your guns and therefore your Second Amendment right (if that’s how you read the legislation) away but trying to make sure that the population who don’t hold guns and the innocent in schools etc are that bit more safe. Is it really such a sacrifice to ensure the safety of a child?

And if you did think Trump was suggesting the murder of a Presidential hopeful, even if you dislike her, I hope you won’t be voting for him or you may just put a man in the White House who’s next joke is aimed at you.

This is not intended represent the views of the British public, just those of myself. Nor is it in any way Anti-American as I have some good friends over the pond whose views may not agree with mine. They are the views of someone who thinks the NRA wields too much power and that arms manufacturers don’t care who their weapons kill as it’s all good business for them.

Hugs to all.


Filed under Uncategorized