Ohio already has scores of other laws that can be applied where warranted. From negligent homicide to child endangering. Application of existing law is up to prosecutors.

Statists who seek to rule others based on their emotions think "one more law" would ensure that they never have bad feelings ever again - if their opinion is forced upon enough people.

This ignores the reality that the situations they're fretting about are already covered by existing law. The objective reality that "laws don't actually prevent bad things from happening" is lost on these fools.

Requiring firearms to be locked such that they cannot be effectively used in an emergency has been found to violate the Second Amendment, so she's either ignorant or intentionally misleading.

It's strange how the same people who imagine a disarmed populace as a good thing are playing catch-up to arm Ukranian civilians against a military. I've lost count of the children massacred by militaries that are the only groups of people magically trustworthy enough to be armed apparently.

If you left a murderer alone with a room full of kids and a knife for 77 minutes, you'd have the same result - and if you're a student of recent history, you'd know that's exactly the kind of attack that has happened time and again in gun-free victim zones around the world.

To address this issue properly, citizens must understand the #JustPowers Clause of The Declaration of Independence, the foundation that the US Constitution is laid upon; and a universal document that recognizes the rights of ALL humans.

Put simply, it states that neither you, nor I, nor anyone else may justly grant powers to others that we do not have.

If you or I stole our neighbors' firearms, even if we claimed it was for "safety" or "the common good", we'd face criminal charges. We all know this, and the evidence is in our conduct.

Instead, why not focus just powers such has holding adults responsible for the safety of others accountable for negligence?

It should be noted that these people have said the same time every time reform of firearms laws have been proposed.

They have been tremendously wrong every single time.

So why listen to others when they have only been wrong every time?

Hopefully this suggestion will be accepted in the spirit it is offered (gently!) and if acted upon, would not lengthen the intro too much, but rather help clarify the "anticipatory set" of the reading. Although the first sentence is quite accurate, as someone who has been doing extensive reading on the 2nd Amendment lately, I had to re - read this to be sure I understood the assertion. Bouncing back & forth from references to 1) gun control advocates 2) individual rights to gun ownership and back to 3) reference to a well regulated militia is likely to confuse H.S. readers who may have little interest or grasp of the ideas.

Suggest: First of all - since it is so brief, it might be useful to actually provide the complete wording of Amendment Two. (Perhaps above the green "About this text" box.)

Secondly - a note suggesting that gun control advocates tend to focus upon the "militia" clause while gun owner rights advocates often prefer to focus on the second clause re: right to own.

Thirdly - a (brief) suggestion that the two sides do not even agree upon what constitutes a "militia" and that the context and historical evidence for each side's arguments are lengthy and complex.

The second sentence beginning " In the excerpt below, is critical to help set the context of the reading, however, there seems to be room to minimize the verbiage without losing meaning.

Knowing that the founders were mindful of Hobbes, is it also possible that this (pessimistic) passage might have been among the considerations behind the second amendment? An additional document with an interesting passage relating to armed citizenry arguments (for those interested in that question) might be found in the English Bill of Rights (1689) " . . . subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense . . ." Does this passage have anything to do with the 2nd amendment appearing immediately after the establishment and free exercise clauses of Amendment one? http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp[](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp)