FARMINGTON – After the deaths of seventeen Stoneman Douglas High School students and staff members last month, young people across the globe gathered yesterday in an effort to end gun violence in their classrooms. In Washington D.C., organizers estimated 800,000 people participated in the march, with more than 800 events coinciding worldwide.
“It’s time to follow the drum beat our fellow students have started,” a Mt. Blue High School student said at a sister march in downtown Farmington.
The youth-led event brought hundreds to Main Street to join in the movement. Students from elementary grades to college level were joined by teachers, principals, family members and community members for the march, followed by a line up of speakers in Meetinghouse Park. Mt. Blue High School students shared poems, songs and thoughts on the issue, calling for a change in policies.
“Students should not fear school. They shouldn’t have to memorize lock down protocol. Enough is enough. We need to be heard,” student speaker Kayla Kayla LeGrand said. “Congress, the ball is in your court. And we will be voting in the midterm election.”
Speakers included Regional School Unit 9 Superintendent Dr. Thomas Ward, Maine Education Association President Lois Kilby-Chesley and Attorney General Janet Mills. Volunteers helped to register new, young voters- encouraging event goers to continue the momentum after the march.
Nice work River and other students. Well done!!
I think we need to look at society as a whole where we’ve gone wrong. You have video games that are depicting people killing people all the time. We seem to blame guns but we ought to look a little bit deeper into it. It really isn’t very hard to see. If we would all take the time to bring our kids out and introduce them to hunting and fishing and the safeties of it all, then we probably wouldn’t have a problem at all. I am not a perfect parent but we need to spend more time with our children and teach them the ways of the world. Guns are not the problem. Just think about it.
Am I the only person who remembers being an Adolescent? We were overwhelmingly by and large Dumb as the day is long, That is not to disparage myself at that age or kids today BUT there is a reason we don’t give kids adult rights.
I don’t pick up any disdain for the kids at all in any of this commentary Ive read, I see a lot of emotion directed at adults, the Schools, NGOs and Government organizations which were involved. Meanwhile we are being told that we love guns more than kids and all the other nonsense.
Now here is a little math for everyone beaming about how this is going to change the world…Your watching too much TeeVee.
Here are some real world numbers for you…
DC March- 200 Thousand But lets be generous and say you were able to bus in enough school kids, young adults and adults to hit 1 million No other march gives estimates, But lets just say you got another million all around the country (no where near that # actually showed up) So a total of 2million people showed up to ask the government that they don’t trust to put restrictions on what they (and others) can own.
Number of School Students in the US- Give or take its around 50 Million.
Number of adults in the US- 130 Million or so, Its estimated that 39-50% of those 130 million own guns and around 7-8 million of those gun owners account for more than half of all the guns owned in the US.
So out of 180 million you got 2 million to march asking for their rights to be stripped while 178 million of which 50 million or so own guns did not march.
This Is not a Disney movie…You are supposed to help and guide your kids, here you are looking for someone, anyone who will lead you.
That is a very generous offer, What do you have to lose? (Looking at you Scott Erb, Wilton Mom, Marie, Richard, Butch…etc) At the very least you come away with more knowledge to debate this issue with.
You are all leaders and you need to KEEP ON!!! I applaud you, as do all other pediatricians and youth advocates in this great country!!!
Dr. Erika Schumacher, MD
Franklin Health Pediatrics
Pure…you don’t know me and you shouldn’t assume due to my moniker that I live in a “Disney movie.” Did anyone else catch a whiff of patronizing sexism in this comment? I put myself through graduate school (first generation to college) and I’m a single mom that owns her own house and supports herself. As you can imagine, there have been plenty of un-Disney like things to deal with along the way. FYI — we all live in un-Disney lives with at least a little trauma and hardship along the way. To assume that folks that are politically progessive (and for sure, I am) have somehow led easier lives and that is what has shaped their political beliefs leads me to believe that you live in a bubble (liberals = they’re people, just like you). At some point in my adulthood I realized that cynicism, negativity, and paranoia make for unhappiness and chose a different path. The silver lining to the 2016 election is that it brought a lot of people off the fence to start fighting for what we believe in.
I think denigrating others is a very weak discussion tactic. The claim that someone doesn’t understand the issue because they don’t understand how to use guns is, frankly, ridiculous. The claim that people who march are out of touch is just as wrong.
Fact: Gun regulations work – they work world wide. Fact: We have far more gun deaths and suicides than any other advanced industrialized state, but I doubt we have more mental illness or inherently violent people. Fact: regulations might have prevented many of these shooters from being able to so easily get guns, thereby saving lives. Thus, the marchers have a rationale, well reasoned argument. Denigrating them shows weakness.
It’s also a fact that school deaths are rare – even with the shootings, children are safer in schools than in cars. It’s a fact that most gun users are not dangerous, and that the second amendment assures that we have a right to bear arms (though that right can be and already is regulated).
Taking these sets of facts into account, both sides should be able to recognize that the other side has reason for their views, and talk respectfully. Trying to pretend one side is ignorant (you don’t need to know how to use a gun to understand the issue any more than you need to be a doctor to understand the health care issue) is wrong. Mutual respect is necessary here – I think one can praise the students for their efforts and actions while still disagreeing with their position. It’s not good vs. evil, or ignorant vs. informed here. It’s a lot of good informed people who have a disagreement.
Wilton Mom is here to show you that you must live like her and her Lefty friends. It’s mandatory. When shown real information, she defaults to ridicule to evade facing reality and to shut up her opponents. The only “fight” that was brought out was the exposure of one side as political bullies, hysterical because they didn’t get their way. The loss of the peaceful transfer of power there should give everyone pause. The degradation of our society is just another reason why our rights are now more important than ever.
Hrtlss and Pure, thanks for adding some more factual information to this little “debate’. I’m sorry it’s lost on many, though…they’d prefer that the police and Trump (thugs and dictators only 6 weeks ago!) be the only ones capable of self-defense. The pure irrationality of this belief system is on full parade.
So many of us appreciate and applaud those who marched in Farmington, Boston, DC, Parkland, Los Angeles, London, and elsewhere. Gun responsibility is long overdue in this Nation. Thanks to River and her classmates for their focus, fervor, and patriotic citizenship!
I’m rubber, you’re glue, whatever you say to me bounces off and sticks to you.
Yeah, that feels about right.
I just had a thought, older people are really getting the short end of the stick. Think about a 75yo person, they were always told to listen to and respect their elders, that they had seen so much more and their wisdom was priceless, now that they are old and wise, people tell them to listen to the kids…it’s like they missed their window of being the wiser, older person people listened to.
Yes, this is a “ME TOO” moment…lol
I don’t know you nor do you know me nor do either of us need to, why you felt the need to tell me your life story is beyond my ability to decipher but something you may want to discuss with a professional.
I responded to what you said about wanting teenagers to lead you…nothing about you personally, unlike yourself I will debate the posts not the poster.
Contrary to your belief, I don’t live in a bubble. I believe crazy people whom want to harm others are dangerous and I also believe people who want to remove rights from law abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families from “unregulated” criminals are also dangerous.
You speak of what you learned in adulthood, I’m sure like many of us you have thought about the things you wished you knew when you were young, things you would tell your 16-25 year old self not to do…But your comment about teenagers leading you seems to contradict what your saying you learned in adulthood, something only seen in Disney movies (stupid adults, saved by kids) hence the comment.
With firearms, We are Citizens…
Without firearms, We are Subjects.
History is the ‘Fact Checker’
And history ‘does repeat itself,
Using that logic I could debate Ben Carson on surgery’s…or I could debate a school board member on school budgets without attending meetings or looking at information available. Are you sure you believe what you just said?
Facts are great, except these are not really facts Scott. (Ask someone who was raped or killed in one of these glorious places if gun regulations are working for them)
I’m sure we can both come up with a number of stats, the big one is homocides and violent crime increased after banning firearms in the UK.
A question for all…
If we removed the horns from all antelopes, would they be safer from cheetahs?
We’re all just prey for predators, becoming more docile prey will not stop predators, being harder to prey on will stop predators.
This is sad to watch. There are so many on this thread, a rather parochial collection, who think with their hearts. When it comes to the Bill of Rights that is not what is required, but rather, cool reason is necessary, i.e.people using their heads. It is actually frightening to watch. The press has been a real problem for it celebrates the emotional side of this issue and neglects to inform. I fear for the press. It is now doing what it can to remove a protection OF THE PRESS ITSELF namely the Second Amendment. I’m sure most will not understand what I am writing here. The Parkland circus was a Golden opportunity for the press to increase readership or audience share. It was not to inform, but to inflame. If the press manages to neuter the Second Amendment it will be only a few decades before it too is rendered fully controlled by the government even if the First Amendment is still on the books. The British people in Massachusetts in 1775 had the means to rebel against what they regarded as a tyranny imposed by the British Governor and Parliament because the citizens were armed. Fortunately, the citizens had the means to resist. That was the reason the Governor sent 700 soldiers to Concord to seize military supplies that the British Citizens had gathered.
In a democracy the people are the sovereign, not the government. The Bill of Rights was adopted to make it very very difficult for our government to remove protections afforded to the sovereign, the people. Do not think we are immune to government tyranny. Remember the concentration camps organized by our government that locked up innocent Japanese Americans in the WW2. Remember also the disclosure that our government audits our communications.
“The sovereign, the people” It is precisely what the hundreds of thousands of “March for Life ” marchers are doing., telling the government what “We the People ” want. Stop being so paranoid.
See how it is Bill? Greg speaks for WeThePeople and you don’t. You aren’t even People, just a person. I’m not entirely sure what Greg means by being paranoid, but stop it anyway.
Bill and John,
Thanks for your input. Really expected, at least from my perspective. Glad we have some people who can tell us what we are supposed to think and how. Would not know what to do without you guys. Thanks
Funny you should mention paranoid. Correct me if I’m wrong but my impression is this march is because of the high risk of gun violence to the general population.
There are roughly 325.7 million people in the US. It was mentioned earlier in this thread that non-suicide firearms deaths is 15,500 per year, which is 0.00476% of the US population. According to the CDC 80% are gang related (ie inner city – does not pertain to 97% of the Country), 1 in 13 are caused by police, and 1 in 34 is self defense; which leaves roughly 1,850 firearms deaths per year in the US (or 0.000568% of the US population).
Don’t get me wrong. I think 1 homicide is 1 too many but to look at the facts and still feel “change” needs to happen because we aren’t “safe” seems a bit paranoid to me.
Speaking of “change”, what exactly is this movement hoping to change? I invited an open discussion days ago in this thread relating to current gun law deficiencies and proposed solutions but not one commenter took me up on the offer. Is it that you do not know the current laws? Or do you not know the correct course of action?
To demand “change” from politicians without specifying what you want to change doesn’t sound like a good idea to me (be careful what you wish for). Before you say that sounds paranoid just remember what is currently happening with social security, I mean, entitlements. Apples and oranges? Not when they are being attacked by the same pests.
Lisa and Suzanne, YOU may not be calling for disarmament but several on your band wagon are, so please don’t say NO ONE wants to take away our guns.
Wilton Mom, sexism, really? Are you accusing Pure of being a man based on his or her writing because, to my knowledge, Pure has not self-identified as male or female and I believe the LGBTQ community would frown upon anything other than self-identified gender. Certainly doesn’t sound very progressive.
Scott Erb, guns are the issue, of you don’t understand guns by definition you do not understand the issue. And for the record, I don’t begrudge anyone from taking a stand that doesn’t agree with my own opinion. But I do begrudge anyone from taking a stand without first educating themselves of what they are taking a stand for or against.
Butch, “When will they love their kids more than their GUNS!!” Just another fictitious sign by the factless faction.
Amanda, Amanda, Amanda !!! Thank you so much for you rational treatment of this issue.
Amanda 👏🏻👏🏻Well said. Although it will fall on “def ears” you make valid points. We have many gun laws in this country and yes when someone carries out a mass shooting such as Parkland Fla. they most certainly ARE BREAKING THE LAW. How this should effect the rest of the population is that person should be held responsible for their actions or be neutralized as the shooter in Maryland. More laws will not stop criminals.
By the way, the NRA is reporting record high memberships since the organization of March for Our Lives. Some say Soros is the money behind the march but I’m beginning to wonder if LaPierre has anything to do with it. We may never know since it’s filed 501c4 status (unlimited lobbying potential with limited donor disclosure). So keep on Marching people, the NRA needs your support!
Amanda, the idea that you have to “understand guns” to understand “the issue” is absurd. That’s like saying you have to be an addict to understand drug laws, you have to be a physician to have a stance on health care, or you have to be a lawyer to have a stance on legal reform. That’s a dishonest way to try to marginalize people with a real interest from having a voice. That is a slimely tactic.
Pure: Your response is simply wrong. The facts are real – there are fewer people who die in other countries thanks to gun laws. Saying “ask someone who was raped” if the laws worked is illogical. Driverless cars are likely to be on the road in 20 years and could reduce car deaths from 35,000 a year to less than 2000. If that happened one could say “ask one of the families of the 2000 dead if driverless cars worked.” That ignores the fact that probably over 30,000 are alive that would have been dead – but they don’t know it. The fact is that these gun laws do work, and they work EVERYWHERE in the industrialized world.
Bill, you have a weird definition of sovereignty. But the government represents the people and the people can vote to have the government pass laws and regulations, as long as they are constitutional – that is also the peoples’ right. We do have a Supreme Court to make sure that laws passed are constitutional. Banning semi-automatic assault rifles and other proposed regulations are no where close to Japanese internment camps, that’s just silly.
Look, I’m actually not convinced we need strict gun control laws. I’m not on board with the demands of the marchers. But it really pisses me off to see people denigrate and deride these protesters who are taking a rational view, and acting in the way one should in a democracy to get their voice heard. The arrogance (combined with ignorance) of some of the people condemning the protesters is really misguided, irrational, and sad. The lack of understanding of what our country is about and what the constitution means is troubling, but not surprising. Again, kudos to the youth who are acting rationally and taking a stand, organizing and making a difference – the future is in your hands. Ignore the petty nay sayers when they attack you, but if they make good arguments about policy, take that seriously. Democracy requires disagreement, and we should respect disagreement.
If I had used the words ” pisses me off ” there is no doubt TDB would have not printed it.
That’s not what she said or anyone else (here on DB) has said. You have every right (and some of us would defend that right) to support or say whatever you would like to. What is being talked about is people (yourself included) using terms such as “assault rifle” (U.S. Department of Defense defines assault rifles as “selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between sub-machine gun and rifle cartridges.) No gun available today to normal civilians would fit this term.
What I am saying is that if the marchers just said “we want no one to have guns” that would fit your arguments about healthcare and drug laws, But they and their handlers are not saying that- They want to ban One type of weapon because “ITS SCARY” ignoring the fact of more powerful, accurate, faster firing guns being available still makes no overall sense… 9-10 of anti gunners would be fine if I showed you a Mini 14 with a wooden stock, However if I put a rubber stock with a hand grip and flash suppressor, it would frighten people and you would want to ban it even though there is ZERO functional difference between them when it comes to killing something. Now who is being slimy about what they want?
Show me some stats Scott, MY position is that murder and violent crime rates have went UP everywhere Gun bans have been done or tried. (NOT GUN CRIME UP- VIOLENT CRIME AND MURDER WENT UP)
Your less likely to be killed by a gun in those countries but more likely to be a victim of violent crime or murdered in some other fashion than you were before they banned guns.
Again your argument is not valid- IF I were too say that those 2k deaths were attributable to blinker fluid and Johnson rods in driver-less cars, while every car buff and mechanic told me that there is no such thing as blinker fluid and that my description of the Johnson rod encompasses nearly every part of ALL Cars Yet I marched with signs saying BAN THE JOHNSON ROD!! They love their JOHNSON RODS more than their kids!! would you not find that odd that I protest the functionality of the car while telling you I don’t want to ban cars?
And BTW- Do you have any idea how many lives were saved by guns? how many predators decided to look for easier prey when they see a gun? I dont either but Violent crime and murder going up after banning guns tell me there are a lot.
I will also add that Cars by function are dangerous things, just driving to the store I risk my own and many other lives just to use this piece of machinery. Guns are not like that, to risk mine or any others life I have to actually point and fire at myself or another person.
LOL…Your missing the forest for the trees my friend….
His point I believe is that if in 1930 you were told the US government would do such a thing, you would have been aghast. If in 1998 I told you that within 5 years that to fly on an airplane You will have to consent to a federal agent touching your genitals You would have said I was crazy. Hitler was alive (taking away rights of citizens namely the guns) and killing jews in my parents lifetime- Do you think people in Poland would have believed me if I told them what the German government was going to do? We have a lot more examples if you need them…
Putting all your faith in MOB rule doing the right thing is not your best survival strategy.
Your arguing with what you see on MSM, No one here has denigrated and derided these protesters Certainly not to the point that it should anger you…
I see a lot of questioning (here on DB) adults ideas about kids leading them when a lot of kids have a hard time getting to work or school on time, Remembering to do their chores and so on and so forth…And we all know how much age changes us.
Everyone realizes there is a problem with “unregulated” students wanting to harm others, We would all love to talk about policy to make sure Mental Health records make it to NICs. We would like to have the talk about Prescription drugs, Doctors, Parents and Public Schools and their roles in what is going on with some kids today. IMO is that Doctors, Parents and the Schools need to be held accountable along with their “Unregulated” student and/or patient.
But why bother, its the AR15s fault…These sickos would been NFL stars or Actors had it not been for the damn guns! Your side, nor the republicans are working toward a solution…They just want more laws on the books and more good gun owners to become criminals in the eyes of those laws.
Taking rights away from me does not make for a compromise, Deeper background checks and some sort of state licensing might be attainable if there was a Compromise Legal gun owners under those circumstances should be able to buy any manufactured weapon including select fire and full auto, Silencers, night vision etc.. along with the ability to Conceal or Open carry anywhere we choose…BUT its not compromise being sought is it.
Compromise is being sought by many of us, pure. And it will continue to be. Don’t let your personal prejudices blind you to opportunities to continually improve your own life and the lives of others in days ahead.
Happy Easter and Peace.
And again, thanks to River and her many friends/classmates for their important and appreciated leadership as we March for our Lives.
Pure, my argument is based on comparing statistics in the industrialized world. Every country other than the US has stricter gun laws, and everyone one of them has dramatically lower rates of gun deaths. Moreover, their overall murder rates are much lower. This isn’t the case in third world countries, but that’s because they can’t really enforce their laws as well and have other problems. I could throw you literally dozens of cites, but this one is probably best – it compares the US in terms of gun violence and non-gun violence, and the results are conclusive: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/
Simply, it is a fact that strict gun laws yield less gun violence, and that means less overall violence. The same is true for suicide statistics. That doesn’t mean we need to pass strict laws, it does mean that laws work. Denying that laws work has been falsified by massive real world evidence.
I don’t buy the “take rights away” argument. You’re free throughout the advanced industrialized world – in many places you have freedoms abroad you don’t have here. Stricter gun laws simply regulate a dangerous tool, just as we regulate cars and other things. I am absolutely convinced that a lot more lives are lost due to having more guns than are saved – again, the statistics seem pretty convincing.
All that said, for a variety of reasons – many similar to some of your arguments – I’ve made a consistent point that I’m not convinced by the arguments for gun control. What inspired me to write was the kind of derogatory comments made about the marchers. I think the high school students who organized and planned this demonstrated the qualities we want in our young people. They were peaceful, focused on making their case working with the town and authorities, and showed they care for their community. It sickens me when people want to attack others personally just because they disagree on politics. Some of the best people I know have different political views than I do, and I try to respect them. I don’t like how it becomes so easy for people to turn political disagreement into personal insult. (This isn’t necessarily directed at you – I just remember a few posts that got me a bit upset because they insulted the students personally, and didn’t seem to think disagreement on an issue like this was legitimate.)
It’s good to have disagreement, it’s good to have young people care about the community and engage in active, effective and respectful political action.
Scott, you sir are a hypocrite! You chastise people for speaking against the school budget because they don’t understand the process or don’t attend budget meetings but you say I’m using slimely (is that even a word) tactics by suggesting protestors KNOW WHAT THEY ARE PROTESTING.
I welcome differences. Differences lead to growth. I’ve started several debates with one opinion and ended with another because my counterpart was able to convince me with facts that I was wrong.
Knowledge is power. Opinion without knowledge is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinion. No where did I say they need to be experts, I said they need to UNDERSTAND the issue they are taking a stand for or against for their argument to have any merit in my eyes.
You don’t have to be an addict to understand drug laws but you do need to read the actual drug laws to say you understand them. You don’t have to be physician to take a stand on health care but you can’t demand a remedy without having some semblance of knowledge of health conditions. You don’t need to be a lawyer to be part of legal reform but you do need to know what laws do and do not exist.
I’ve heard and read comments (not on the thread but elsewhere) about domestic abusers legally obtaining guns. Those comments are 100% false as there are state and federal statutes that prohibit gun possession by domestic abusers. That’s what I’m talking about. People saying _____ is wrong and something needs to be done about it when it has in fact already been labeled as wrong.
And to say stricter gun laws are preventing gun violence in other industrialized countries is also unsubstantiated. There are several factors involved that you aren’t taking into account. The US has the most lax regulations on food (we are what we eat). ADHD prescription medication usage is 10 times higher in the US than in the UK. We have the highest healthcare costs but rank 11th (of 11 countries) in healthcare. We spend the more per student in education but rank 17th (of 40) in educational performance. We rank 34th (of 35) in child poverty. But hey, we lead the world in drug overdose deaths at more than 6 times the world average so at least we get one blue ribbon to go with our participation trophies.
See what I did there Scott? It’s called research. I’m not an expert but yet I was able to find this information and make an informed argument. More power to the kids taking a stand but take the time to do some research before you use your feelings to shame me for mine.
Scott, I don’t believe comparing countries to other countries is workable. Just compare US to the US and compare your others to themselves. (IE: no gun homicide or suicide in Japan, but suicide numbers are off the charts)
Lets just concentrate on the Britain…these stats are from the parliament reports available at .gov.uk A quick google or duck duck go search will show them I am sure.
They banned handguns in 1997 while the homicide rate was about 11.5 per a million people, It shot up to 18 per a million homicides by 2003 and has since came back down approximately to historic #s which is 11 homicides per a million. Again I say- less people killed with guns? Maybe. Were and are there less people killed? NO. (This does not take into account other violent crime such as Rape, armed robbery, car jacking etc..)
You don’t have to, But I was born with them and along with 99% of other people I have not misused those rights. Its a very slippery slope and at the end The only way everyone is safe is to lock everyone up away from each other, BUT who holds the keys?
I get it, I don’t either…I think most people here have been respectful of each other and it warms my heart to know how many of us “Free Folk” are around.
Like I said I don’t see any real insulting going on HERE at the TDB but I have seen it elsewhere and don’t agree with it, But I also don’t agree with the thoughtless comments to gun owners and supporters about us killing kids or not caring enough, or that we have the blood of children on our hands. I can agree to disagree on gun issues and can say both sides of politics and the media, the NGOs and the government are wrong to take it down to such a level.
Happy Easter everyone and hope its a great weekend!
Richard asked this question;
One question I offer up: Is it ok that two people could potentially commit the exact same crime under the same circumstances and one (the rich one) gets off with no penalty and the poor person is prosecuted and goes to jail? What happened to Equal Protection under the law?
Great question Richard.
And so I wonder why one of the pillars of more gun control, Hillary Rodham Clinton got away with her crimes of mishandling classified documents while a service member was court martialed for doing only a tiny fraction of what she did?
Is that what you meant?
The hypocrisy is astounding and smells very very badly.
Professor Erb,
Surely you must know of the various meanings of the term “sovereign.”. I was not using the term “sovereign” in some new unusual way. Check the versions of definitions for the term you can find here on the net. You’ll find some version of the definition of the term that indicates that the people can be the sovereign. You’ve read John Locke, surely. You’ve read Plato’s REPUBLIC where he distinguishes types of government forms based on whose power is held in a state. In a Monarchy there is one person, the sovereign. Remember The Sun King Louis the 14th . In an Oligarchy the sovereign, the power, belongs to the few. Remember Socrates’s difficulties with the Athenian Oligarchy? In a Democracy the sovereign is the many, the people.
No Monarchy, or Oligarchy would have a Second Amendment.
Sovereignty was originally a theological term, referring to God. In 1625, during the wars of reformation, Hugo Grotius, a Dutch scholar (and father of international law) applied it territories – saying the Monarch could be the ‘sovereign’ of that territory. That was the basis of the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia ending the 30 years war and creating a new political entity, the sovereign state. With Lockean Liberalism the notion of “popular sovereignty” emerged. That’s the idea that sovereignty comes from the people, not God. The US and France first justified rule with that notion (the US with democracy, Napoleon claiming the ‘general will’ expressed in a referendum gave him sovereign authority.) As a concept, sovereignty refers to the state – in a federal system powers of sovereignty are divided between a central government and a state/provincial government, based on a constitution. While the authority to grant sovereignty rests with “the people,” the term sovereignty is not usually used to describe individuals. As a concept of international law, it does not include individuals (as only sovereign states have status in most public international law).
Most constitutional Republicans (aka democracies) lack a second amendment, and all others besides us have stricter gun control. They are nonetheless free, and able to hold their government accountable. I don’t think the 2nd is necessary to protect our freedoms; much like the third amendment, it reflects a different era. That said, I disagree with former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens that it should be abolished.