Oh, the times, they are a changing! Especially when a former associate justice of the United States Supreme Court goes on record recommending we repeal the 2nd amendment.

The 2nd amendment of the US Constitution 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.

John Paul Stevens, a former associate justice of the United States Supreme Court wrote an opinion piece that was published Tuesday in the New York Times stating he believes the reasons for needing the protections of the 2nd amendment are outdated. Of course, his words are more eloquent than mine, specifically, he wrote:

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

Even if every American citizen lawfully owned a gun and decided to overthrow the American government, I don't believe that would happen, however I do believe it's my right to protect my home and family. I also believe in an area like ours aka the Sportman's Paradise, you'd have a hard time talking folks out of their hunting gear.

In case you were wondering, the following is necessary to repeal an amendment to the US Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

In light of recent tragic events, the gun control debate is raging. I think the solutions lies somewhere in the middle.