Actually, our policy at work has done a remarkable job of creating problem solvers instead of fault finders. You don't have to have THE solution for a problem. You have to have A solution for a problem, and it doesn't even have to be a full, comprehensive solution. It causes a paradigm shift in the way people think when implemented properly. IOW, instead of just picking something apart and pointing out everything that's wrong, that won't work, etc. (which anyone can very easily do), we're looking for people who look beyond the problems to figure out ways to actually
address the issues as opposed to just complaining about them.
If someone
constantly points out faults but
never has any solutions, then even though I have no MBA to speak of, I would tend to agree that such people are whiners.
But we've already talked about how there are varying interpretations of that second amendment. For example, you adamantly believe that the second amendment is first for protection from the government, but it doesn't say that anywhere in the text. The text of the second amendment simply says;
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
It says absolutely nothing about being instituted for protection from the government, and in fact it's actually referring to a well regulated Milita. It amazes me how people will fight for a
literal interpretation of the phrase "shall not be infringed" yet have no problem
adding to it that it's for protection from the government.
Now you've explained why you believe this amendment was written for protection from the government which may well be accurate, but in doing so, you've moved from the literal reading that you say you want to an interpretation of the founding father's
intent. You can't have it both ways.
Personally, I don't for one minute think that the founding father's wrote the second amendment so that we would just hand out guns willy nilly to anyone who had enough money to purchase one. As the amendment reads, they thought the right to bear arms was necessary to the
security of a free state. When someone uses those guns to threaten the security of a free state, then their "right" no longer exists. But there is no way to even attempt to ascertain what someone intends to do with those guns if there are absolutely no controls in place.
