THE SCOURGE OF POLITICAL FUNDAMENTALISM
I feel that, like Christianity, The Constitution of the United States has been high-jacked by fundamentalism, not religious fundamentalists, but political and social fundamentalists who, in a number of cases, are also religious fundamentalists. I hesitate to use the word conservatives, because I don't believe that true conservatives are necessarily political and social fundamentalists, but I do believe there is a growing confusion amongst conservatives as to what their true identity is and we are seeing this played out on political stage during this election year.
What I don't hear are the voices of progressives who, in my opinion, are largely silent about the Constitution as if they don't know how to speak about it. This is what happens when something is being high-jacked by a specific ideology, other opinions become silent, either from not wanting to engage in a war of words or the fatigue of having to argue with stupidity.
We need to talk about our Constitution and we need to protect it, including the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights, but the language needs to change from inane debates over guns as if that's all the second amendment is referring to. We need to talk about guns differently and stop romanticizing them and anthropomorphizing them as if they have rights that are equal to the rights of people.
We need to understand that assault weapons are attack weapons designed to attack other people; that assault means attack and wake up to the obvious!
We need to stop political fundamentalist, supported by a civilian arms industry, who are fomenting an irrational fear about our government being to big and untrustworthy and putting an end to that industry's mass production of civilian assault rifles in the guise of protecting our Second Amendment rights. We need to wake up before it is to late.
As you will read, I'm not against the Second Amendment, but I don't agree with fundamentalist or so-called originalist interpretations that are touted as trying to protect it. I believe that such views ultimately will endanger the Second Amendment and undermine the Constitution itself.
COMAS THAT SPEAK
One point I did not discuss in my opinion paper and wish to make here is that punctuation speaks when it comes to interpreting these amendments. This is particularly true in the case of the Second Amendment. A straightforward reading of the Second Amendment would lead the average, unbiased or unaffected reader to conclude the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to hold and bear arms in case there is a need to form a militia. Grammatically, that makes all kinds of sense, but legally, comas are interpreted as somewhat separating the subject which is actually about militias from the predicate which is about private possession of arms.
This of course has resulted in a variety of proponents and opponents of gun regulation. What appears to be central to the Second Amendment's subject is the modifying participial phrase, "being necessary to the security of a free state." "A free state" is, itself, a vague concept if one treats the Second Amendment as a stand alone amendment; one that has no relation to the rest of the Constitution, which I argue it is not.
To fully grasp the meaning of the Second Amendment, it must necessarily be understood within the context of the Constitution, itself, and specifically its Preamble.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
ON PROTECTING THE CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES
The Role of the Second
Amendment in the Bill of Rights
By
Norm Wright
The title of this short opinion paper is premised on the
much larger topic of protecting the Constitution of the United States and the
importance of the Second Amendment in facilitating the comprehensive purpose of
the Constitution as stated in its Preamble:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defence (sic), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of
Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
The question this short paper addresses is whether governing
entities of the United States of America (federal, state, and local) have a
responsibility regulate the sale and possession of arms, and if they do, in
what way does it protect the United States Constitution and by extension the
Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.
What the Second Amendment states is this:
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.
What I find most interesting in the ever present debate on
gun regulation is that the Second Amendment is frequently treated as an
isolated, disconnected item unrelated to rest of the Constitution by both
opponents and proponents of gun regulation.
Extreme views with regard to the Second Amendment range from those who
would advocate that its “shall not be infringed” phrase be treated like the
religious disestablishment clause in the First Amendment (as in there should be
no law regarding the right to own and carry guns of any type) to repealing of
the Second Amendment in its entirety as an anachronism.
CHECKS AND BALANCES
What is needed is to attach the Second Amendment to the
overall purpose of the Constitution as stated in the Preamble; in particular
the words: “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessing of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterity.” This is
the purpose behind every article of the constitution. I would also suggest that the Second
Amendment is closely related to the First Amendment, which stands as the pinnacle of
the Bill of Rights:
Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances.
There is an irony in
this that I believe stems from an inaccurate understanding of this nation’s
history and the extreme importance the Constitution has in protecting this nation
from utter anarchy by promoting the liberty and freedom enjoyed by all of its
citizens regardless of creed, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, and race. With that said we need to recognize that the
Constitutional rights of every citizen has emerged from an understanding of
government by and for the people that initially began as government by the few,
for the many and has over this nation’s short lifetime come to stand at a
crossing where we can choose the path that realizes the full meaning of government
by and for the people, or to take the backward trail that increasingly will result
in a government by and for the few.
In establishing an orderly government, the founding fathers
were keen on avoiding what they understood as the tyranny of democracy. They saw a need to amend the Constitution; to
include an enumeration of the rights each citizen has. They knew that government, to be effective in
protecting the freedoms and liberties they fought for, had to protect the will,
the thoughts, the ideas, the property and the personhood of each individual from
the tyranny of the majority and as a necessary means to grow this country into
becoming the beacon of freedom it strives to be.
The Constitution is, itself, a model of checks and
balances. Checks and balances are at the
very core and spirit of our constitution, our republic, and our sense of
democracy. It recognizes that no
function or branch of government and, by extension, no article within the
Constitution can function entirely on its own or be treated as an entity free
from the preamble or any other article within the Constitution. The Constitution, itself, has been amended, which
is an attestation to the concept of the checks and balances it can be subjected to
as our nation grows and matures while remaining rooted in its foundation
and purpose as expressed in the Preamble.
THE FOUNDATION OF
RIGHTS IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
Nothing in the Constitution should be construed as
superseding the Preamble. Apart from the Preamble itself, all
articles and amendments in the Constitution are technically amendable,
including the Bill of Rights. While I
shudder to think of the can of worms that might be opened if any articles
within the Bill of Rights should be amended or repealed, it is important to
recognize that they are not sacrosanct and immune from such a constitutional
procedure. Should there ever be an attempt to amend or remove the Preamble from our Constitution, it would no longer be the Constitution that built our nation.
The third through the twelfth articles amended to the United
States Constitution are referred to as the Bill of Rights with article four
being referred to as the Second Amendment of the Bill of rights. As previously mentioned, the Bill of rights
protects the will, thoughts, ideas, property and personhood of each
citizen. It begins with prohibiting
government from establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise of
religion, or abridging free speech, or the freedom of the press, or the freedom
of people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for redress of
grievances. Religion has to be broadly
understood as any ideology that is shared by others or held by an individual.
Its free exercise is within its own private domain and domicile. It ensures
protection of every individual to say what’s on her or his mind in the public
square, and for the press to report what it hears and witnesses, for people to
gather in peace and for people to publicly protest any action they wish to
bring the government’s attention to. The
first of these rights is the pinnacle, not the foundation of our rights.
The foundation of our
rights is the preamble. Most fail to
recognize this fact. The rights that
follow the first amendment in the Bill of Rights support the pinnacle and herein
resides the importance of the Second Amendment.
I believe that the Second Amendments purpose is to guarantee the rights
enumerated in the First Amendment and The Constitution as a whole; that its
purpose is to serve as a check and balance when called upon to do so by our
constitutionally ordained government in the form of militia if needed and when
and if warranted to protect the individual citizen against overt intrusion by any
entity that attempts to unconstitutionally deprive a citizen of the right to
tranquility of personhood and property.
To further this point we need to look at the much overlooked
Third Amendment to the Bill of Rights:
“No Soldier shall, in
time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor
in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”
For most United States citizens this may appear an
anachronism, a leftover from the United States revolutionary period, but I
again would argue that it is essential in understanding the whole of the Bill of
Rights. Yes, there is history behind
this and all amendments. My reason in
pointing out the Third Amendment is that it places the Second Amendment in a
context of checks and balances, which is what both the Second and the Third
Amendment are. The Third Amendment makes
clear what is implicit in the Second Amendment that it serves as check and
balance against unconstitutional activities that attempt to dismantle the core
and spirit of the Constitution as recorded in its Preamble. The Third Amendment is a mirror image of the
Second Amendment. Let me explain:
The Second Amendment starts by talking about creating a
militia and ends with a personal right to hold and bear arms as individuals. The
Third Amendment, interestingly, begins by protecting the right of individual
from having to house soldiers in a time of peace unless with the consent of the
property owner and ends by saying that they may have to do so in a time of war
as prescribed by law. My reason in
pointing this out is that we (including some on the Supreme Court) tend to overlook the issue of balance that is present in both of these Amendment and that the concept of war changes the way in which these
amendments are applied. The implication is clear that situations change how
these amendments are to be applied, which I will explain further on in this paper.
THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA VS HELLER (2008)
With regard to the Second Amendment, the term that often
creates an emotional response is the term infringed; as in, “the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Let’s go back to the First Amendment, for a
moment and the first clause that “Congress shall make no law establishing a
religion,” There is a confusion, I
believe, by those who do not believe in any form of gun regulation of equating
infringement as making laws regulating the use and purchase of guns. The right against infringement is not a legal
impediment against any and all regulation with regard to sale and possession of
identified types of arms. It is a simple
statement that guarantees the rights of individuals to own and carry arms. It is a non-specific statement that requires interpretation in application.
The government of the United States has a
long history of regulating “arms.” This
was made clear in a recent ruling by Supreme courts in a ruling that defended
the right of individuals to possess firearms in
District of Columbia v.
Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(2008). The majority opinion was written
by no less a person whose stature as a conservative/originalist justice is
widely, the late Justice Scalia. What I
find interesting is that “arms” is initially defined as “firearms;” in that,
handguns is the subject of the case that was decided, but I would remind the reader that nowhere
in The Constitution is arms defined to specifically mean firearms or guns; that
this is a “traditional” understanding is clear, but nowhere does The
Constitution define the meaning of arms to be solely firearms or guns.
[It is important to note that while the founding fathers expressed many
diverse personal opinions about all of these amendments, they did not include
them in the final, enacted document.
Sparsity of language is intentional throughout The Constitution as they had the foresight to know
that what they were enacting could not possibly address every contingency this
nation would meet. Each age, each
situation that touches upon these amendments prompts interpretation to adjust
whatever checks and balances are required to preserve the overall purpose of
the Constitution.]
As Scalia points out and what is germane to
the District of Columbia Vs. Heller case is that definition of arms as firearms
is based on a traditional understanding and that possession of handguns, in
particular, can be used by lawful means for self-defense within the home
without any stipulation as to it containment or use within the home, for
example.
What Justice Scalia also wrote in his majority opinion is
that “Like
most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” (page 54 of the
ruling) which is to say it can be limited and goes on to give the example of
“prohibiting dangerous and unusual weapons” (page 55). I find majority opinions comment interesting
in that it expands the definition of “arms” to weapons in
general. If arms is here defined as weapons, then by extension firearms, being
synonymous with weapons, permits that certain types of firearms can be considered
dangerous and unusual weapons and thus subject to prohibition.
This of course was accomplished in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994
which “timed-out” in 2004. This was a widely supported law by both Democrat and
Republicans; such as, former presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald
Regan, and George H. Bush. It was
enacted by then President Bill Clinton, and the future President George W. Bush
favored retaining it. The point in briefly perusing the background and recent
history of the Second Amendment is to simply say that it is meant to provide
and check and balance to the Bill of Rights and The Constitution as a whole and
that it is subject its own checks and balances through legislative process.
Since the abolition of the Assault Weapons Ban, the United States
has experienced an increase in mass killings perpetrated by a lone gunman in
possession of an assault type gun. There
is no doubt of the damage that can be inflicted in a short amount of time by
one person with a military grade gun at his or her disposal in a public place
where people have peaceably gathered, whether it be a school, a theater, a
church, a business party, or a gay nightclub.
The obvious response to these factors to at least reinstate the assaults
weapon ban, once again. That, however,
does not appear feasible since the Gun Lobby and the NRA have the current
Republican controlled Congress in their pocket.
So I’m not wasting my time here to rant about the obvious roadblock to a
reasonable solution but rather stick to the issue at hand, the preservation of
The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights and The U.S. Constitution.
What I will say about the Congress is that it
is demonstrating negligence in its responsibility to uphold and defend The
Constitution of the United States by refusing or failing to enact laws that
protect the public square in this country, that it has deferred the safety of
this nation’s citizenry to the citizens to fend for themselves; as in, "We will do
nothing to control the weapons used by individuals to destroy you. You need to get one yourself, if you want protection." This is a fundamentalist mentality that is self-convinced that it is doing something by doing nothing to interpret the word in The Constitution or for that matter in their sacred scriptures. What seemingly is used as an argument against
any form of gun regulation that would protect the public is that guns are being
inappropriately blamed what is described by gun proponents as a people problem; meaning a mental health problem. This is nothing but slight of hand politicizing.
The illogic of that argument is worth inspection.
PROTECTING GUNS
versus PROTECTING PEOPLE
I don’t think anyone, gun regulation proponents or gun regulation
opponents, disagree that gun regulation is about people. Guns regulation is not about guns, but rather
a it is about people obtaining and using certain types of guns to kill
other people for the purpose of causing fear and terror, whether mentally ill or not. I worked in mental health facilities all my life and the first thing I can tell you is that you don't know who is or isn't mentally ill by looking at a person. Second, guns aren't allowed in mental health facilities and the United States of America is largely becoming one.
When gun regulation opponents say guns don’t
kill people, people kill people, they are right. The trouble is they don’t finish the logic. They don’t go on to say that people make the
guns; that people fire the guns, that people use the guns to kill other people;
especially in the case of assault weapons which are specifically designed
for military use with the sole purpose of effectively killing other people in
combat situations, but being sold to civilians.
For what real purpose other than the illogical paranoia that is sweeping this country of being killed and not trusting the government?
How this inane proposition became an argument
against gun regulation is mind-boggling, but even intelligent people or,
perhaps better said, people we send to congress and our legislatures fall prey
to this illogic. In a recent article in
the New York Times [7/1/2016] reporting on California’s new legislation
restricting assault weapons and ammunition that was signed by Gov. Brown, a
State Assemblywoman, opposed to the legislation, was quoted, “You want to blame
something you can control, but you cannot control murder and you cannot control
insanity.” She is correct that it is far easier to control something used to kill people, than it is to
control those who want to kill people, or who are affected by mental
illness, but she is wrong in saying you cannot control murder and insanity. We cannot control all of it, but we can control some of it by removing the weapons that are being used.
Her choice of the world blame is interesting as in “blaming something
you can control.” No one is blaming guns
for being guns. It’s not about blaming
an inanimate object used to kill people.
We don’t blame rocks used by people to kill people and we don’t blame
guns used by people to kill people. Her
comment, however, reveals a disturbing but common emotional attachment to the
issue of guns that has become so engrained in the psyche of some citizens as to raise
guns to a totem level.
What this illogic also proposes is that guns have equal or more
value than human lives. The anthropomorphizing
of guns revealed in the Assemblywoman’s statement is a fundamentalist phenomenon
that has largely gone unchecked. The
Second Amendment is not about the rights of guns, it is about the rights of
people to have and bear arms; to be and to have and to hold - protect their own person and property. How we have become so unbalanced in our
collective perceptions about guns is a study I’m sure someone else is working
on.
The problem with substituting emotional attachment for logic, in
this case, is that it places domestic tranquility and the public welfare at
risk which in turn places the U.S. Constitution at risk and by extension places
the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights at risk. When Congress fails to address violent acts
that threaten domestic tranquility and the public welfare in form of terrorism,
it fails to support and defend the Constitution. When it tells its citizenry to fend for
themselves, it places our military and law enforcement officers at risk by
creating and influx of high grade military arms in the hands of a largely
untrained and, from the perspective of the military and law enforcement, a
largely unstable and potentially volatile civilian situation. In the end, the congress must own the fact
that its job is, above all, to protect the people of this nation; particularly from harm
coming from within this nation.
INFRINGE
This one word is what the Second Amendment hinges on. It’s a relatively ambiguous term in that
there is no contextual definition to guide its meaning within the
amendment. It does not imply a
prohibition against any or all legislative regulation as Justice Scalia pointed
out. It seems to simply imply that
people have a general, non-specified right to possess and have arms, a term that
is likewise undefined. For example, Tasers
are prohibited in five states. Tasers are arms.
Yet I don’t see anyone becoming particularly upset that these states
have prohibited Tasers and that others have laws regulating their use. Certain types of
weapons grade material are definitely regulated and prohibited from sale to the
public, such as weapons grade plutonium.
These could certainly be considered arms, in the modern sense of arming
oneself and theoretically, at least, could arguably be covered by the Second
Amendment's vague use of the word arms. We don’t seem to have a
problem placing prohibitions on them, but have a dickens of time doing so on
guns and their munitions that is specifically designed to kill massive
quantities of people in short order.
What the infringement seems to imply is that people have the right
to protect and defend their homes and their persons by lethal force if necessary. That is the essence of the Second Amendment. It is not about the means,
but rather the application of arms to do so.
That infringement has been almost solely defined as referring to guns is
a misnomer. Nowhere is arms defined as
guns in The Constitution.
People will
argue that this is what the founding fathers had in mind. Perhaps, but they didn’t specifically say
so. They also had swords, canons,
bayonets, etc. that would have also qualified as arms. They did not specify any of those and I believe
with reason because they understood, already then, that times will change and
application of this amendment will be tested against the conditions of the
times.
The historical argument that arms
means guns is specious. One could argue,
that based on history, arms, as guns, should refer to single load guns, such as
was historically used at the time. This,
of course, is not what the Second Amendment is saying. Infringement is not a prohibition against
any prohibition. It is, as I have said, a guarantee of the right and a
responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and
to defend one’s own property and person by lethal force if necessary.
Ultimately the infringement clause is about the responsibility to protect the frees state as defined by the Preamble and the right to defend one's self and property.
It means that no one can be accused of
violating a law for possessing and using legally permitted arms to protect and defend their property or their own
persons; that being legally armed is right and cannot, by itself, be used to prosecute
an individual in defense of one’s property and person.
I would clarify, however, that infringement is not a ban against regulating arms or the types of arms, as I have pointed out. If a person is carrying a lawfully recognized weapon there should be no consequence for doing so, but should Congress or a state decide that certain weapons are banned out of concern for protecting the well-being of the people, then if person is found possessing and carrying an illegal arm, they could be prosecuted as violating such laws, and such laws have been used in the past with success.
A GAME CHANGER - THE WAR ON
TERRORISM
We are a nation at war with terrorists of various kinds, both
domestic and foreign. So once again let us consider the Third Amendment. The Third Amendment implies that the congress
of the United States has the ability to impose wartime legislation that
infringe upon the rights of citizens including the need to house troops if
called upon to do so. By extension,
situations of war enable the congress to impose other limitations on rights for
the protection and defense of our nation while in a state of war; such as, the Patriot Act. That the Congress and the majority of state
legislative bodies refuse to take action on the supposed principle of defending
Second Amendment rights when terrorists of all makes have ready access to
assault grade military weapons within this country and that we have endured repeated
incidents of terrorist attacks in this country demands safeguarding these weapons
from falling into the hands of those who would do our citizens and nation harm.
Yes.
It’s about protecting our weapons from falling into the hands of used of
those who would destroy our nation. You
don’t do that by putting them on a gun show table for anyone to grab. You protect them; you lock them away for the
time being.
We need to change the conversation about how we talk about the
Second Amendment and how we talk about protecting our constitutional rights to
domestic tranquility and the provision of public welfare. Congress needs to step up to the plate and do
its job. Personally, at a time of war,
such as this one, we need to secure our military grade weapons from falling
into the hands of would be terrorists.
It is far easier to control military grade weapons than to try and
figure out who all the bad guys are or trying to classify who is or isn’t
mentally stable enough to own one. It is simply easier to control things, like
guns, rather than people. This isn’t about blame. It’s about defending and protecting the very foundation of freedom.
CHANGING THE CONVERSATIONWe need such weaponry to be in the hands of those who can best preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States, our voluntary military and our law enforcement agencies. That congress refuses to pass bills that would deter a person on terrorist suspect no-fly list from purchasing any gun while being on that list on the basis that it violates that person’s due process clause is beyond comprehension. That’s the least Congress could and they won’t do that without making such a law with ridiculous expectation and burdens placed on the Department of Justice.
I trust that the Department of Justice has cause to place individuals on a no-fly list or they would not do so. The recent incident in Orlando demonstrated the measures the FBI took to ensure the perpetrator’s rights were not being violated. If the creation of a no-fly list stands the test of due process, it should be sufficient, in a time of domestic terrorism, to prevent such individuals from purchasing a gun until such time that person is off the list. That the Republicans in congress want to put a time limit on the Justice Department to ensure due process is nothing but a farce to lay blame for future attacks on the Justice Department. The fact is being on that list didn’t work in the case of the Orlando perpetrator because he was taken off. Had there been a connection between that list and the purchase of guns might have given the FBI enough pause to keep him on the list.
What would have definitely helped was refusing him legal access to such weaponry
on the basis that all military assault weapons were banned for civilian use;
that no civilian could purchase them at a time of our nation is being threatened
by terrorists. All purchases of military assault weapons should be banned until
such time the war on terrorism is no longer a threat to our domestic
tranquility and the public’s welfare.
And yes – there is a possibility that it would be a very long time
before they are considered safe enough for civilians to purchase them because we have been engaged by has been described as perpetual war. There is nothing in the Second Amendment that
says that whatever the military has at its disposal must be on the market in the
United States for public consumption. That that there are is a decision the
makers of such weapons choose to do because it is profitable and the easily marketed in an atmosphere of fear.
That gun manufacturers are allowed to put them on the public market is
decision that lawmakers choose to permit.
There is nothing in the Second Amendment that requires either party to
allow it. We need laws regulating the
unfettered proliferation of military grade weapons amongst the civilian
population. We need to hold gun
manufactures accountable for selling weapons of mass destruction to civilians.
Such actions are being taken as I write by families of the Sandy Hook School
shooting. If congress does not have the will to make needed changes. It may very well end up that the courts will have to dry up the source of proliferation through endless litigation.
Currently, we’re at war with insidious enemies in our midst. Disarming them should be our first priority.
Those who won’t; those who turn a blind eye to the repeated tragedies that
have taken place, do so to line the pockets of the makers of military assault
weapons for civilian consumption and those congressional leaders who turn a blind eye to the unchecked
sale of such weapons to civilians for profit, under the guise of defending the
Second Amendment, have the blood of United States citizens on their hands.
TIPPING POINT
Most people who own and use guns in the United States are
respectful, law abiding citizens. I live
in a state where hunting for sport is a mainstay of the state’s economy. Although I don’t own a gun myself, I know
many people who do and know them to be safe and careful with them. The Second Amendment is, in my opinion more
than just about guns, it’s about defending our nation and defending our homes
and loved ones. It’s a guarantee that
when our government cannot, rather than will not, preserve and protect the
Constitution of the United States, citizens have a right and responsibility
to step in and see it gets done. We are
not at such a juncture in our nation’s history, but some in Congress and at
various state levels would like us to believe we are, thus boosting gun sales
to line their pockets via the gun lobbies they’re supported by.
As domestic terrorism and violence involving assault grade
military weapons appears to be increasing, the need to curtail access to such
weaponry is needed now.
Will this stop
all acts of terrorism?
No. Not completely.
Undoubtedly those bent on terrorism will try utilizing other means, but
it will make it harder and will likely prevent some of them from doing so. Making it harder to access such weapons will
enhance law enforcement’s and the military’s ability to better track the
movements of those seeking to do our nation harm.
Doing nothing is likely to reach a tipping point with the public.
When we no longer feel safe in our schools,
our places of business, our places of worship, our place of entertainment –
when we are no longer free to move about in our own neighborhoods without
having to carry a weapon in order to do so; while elected officials find
political ways to avoid curtailing a civilian arms industry that cares little
about the carnage that is resulting, there will soon come a time when the
majority of people will have had enough and a groundswell will arise that will
demand an end to the rights of gun ownership in this country. There
are already calls for that to happen. There are already legal experts
suggesting a repeal of the Second Amendment.
Personally, I think that is dangerous course as it leads to setting a precedent that could ultimately be used to undermine other
amendments within the Bill of Rights. It is better to legislate regulation than to repeal or amend the Second Amendment. The trajectory of no regulations does not bode well, in the long run, for private gun ownership.
If
regulation is not forthcoming soon, those opposed to the right to bear arms are
likely to win as those do-nothing members of congress get voted out, which is likely to happen as the number of deaths by assault weaponry
on our soil increases.
Repealing the Second Amendment will be seen as the only option if there
is not some form of reasonable regulation aimed at protecting the public square
from gun violence. The reality is that
the Second Amendment is being placed at risk not by those seeking reasonable
regulation (including what is reported to be the vast majority of gun owners)
but by the intransigent position of those who refuse to do so, particularly by our Republican led congress.
Should this happen, it will be seen as
another failure of the congressional branch of government to do justice, ensure
domestic tranquility, and provide for the general welfare of our citizens. Congress
has largely been dysfunctional for some time now due to blatantly partisan
reasons that have led this nation into quagmire it currently faces. It has only itself to blame for its diminishing role in
governing this nation. It’s time to
start voting for the preservation of the Constitution of United States and by
voting out the dead weight that is that is trying to suffocate the Constitution
into the dead document they want it to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment