A year after she was shot by her 6-year-old student in a Virginia classroom, former teacher Abby Zwerner said she still worries about the other children who saw it happen, and wonders how they’re faring.
Wounded by a bullet that struck her hand and chest and punctured a lung, Zwerner rushed the other first-graders into the hallway before she collapsed in the elementary school’s office.
“I hope that they are enjoying school, enjoying their second-grade year,” Zwerner, 26, told The Virginian-Pilot newspaper. “I hope that they’re still kind to their classmates, kind to teachers. I hope that they still have happiness, and that their happiness wasn’t completely stripped away.”
The 2nd Amendment exists for the purpose of ensuring “the security of a free State.” Bolt / lever / pump / hammer (etc) action weapons don’t cut it for that purpose in the 21st century.
Instead, we should take a page from Switzerland: issue everybody a military-standard assault rifle and force them to train with it, but don’t let anybody keep any ammo.
The 2nd amendment states that a well regulated malitia is necessary for the security of a free state. It does not state that armed citizens are necessary.
Before you bring up DC vs Heller, please first address how using originalism to rewrite the constitution is reasonable by an appellate court.
Ever look up the definition of “militia?” It’s literally every able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45. I mean, sure, it needs a little updating to get rid of the sexism and ageism, but it really is pretty much “everybody!”
Please stop leaving out the important parts. Clarifying components of a law are very important. Your link clearly states that there are 2 classes of the militia and the 2nd class is unorganized and therefore not part of the “well regulated militia”. The unorganized militia is everyone not in the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Additionally, by your interpretation, anyone over the age of 45 would not be a part of the militia and would therefore not have a right to bear arms. Including Heller who would therefore have lacked standing. Would you agree? If you do not, please explain.
That just means it needs to be better regulated, which is exactly what I proposed to do.
What part of “sure, it needs a little updating to get rid of the sexism and ageism” did you not understand?
I was editing my prior comment while you were writing this. Please see the updated version.
I think you’ve misunderstood the link you provided. Part of the militia is explicitly not regulated because the civilian population is not part of the National Guard.
No, I understood just fine (condescend much?). You, however, misunderstood what I wrote, which is proposing to CHANGE THAT by imposing weapons training requirements on everybody, National Guard or not.
Ummm, no.