Back to Gaffer's Philosophy
Archives.
The Gaffer's Philosophy;
Part 7: Amendment II:
April 15, 2002:
This time I want to take up the second amendment to our constitution.
This one has to be the least ambiguous statement in the entire
constitution. It is truly unequivocal. So, of course, no other
statement has caused more debate, argument, and downright dishonesty.
I can only conclude that the people who shout the loudest about
it have never read it. Here it is in its entirety.
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.
How in the world could anyone choose to misunderstand this? It says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. We can own guns and we can carry them if we please. There are no conditions.
It does not say that a citizen must have the permission of some government agency to own or carry a gun. Every gun permit law and ordinance in this country is a direct violation of this amendment. "Shall not be infringed," is very clear. There is no, yes, but! The government, at any level, has absolutely no right in law to require gun permits or concealed weapon permits.
This amendment does not specify a particular class or type of arms. The Violent Crime Control and Preventions Act is a direct violation of this amendment. Specifically, the ban on semiautomatic weapons constitutes a violation of the second amendment. Its passage was an illegal act by Congress and the President.
Here is an important point. When the government, at all levels, sets the example by consistently violating the law of the land, what do we expect the citizen to do? The citizens are not stupid. Most are very aware and attentive. If they ever bothered to read the second amendment, they would realize that this bill is illegal. The constitution is the law of the land. Everyone says that, but it seems no one really believes it.
Now, I have an inner sense which tells me how these above statements are affecting some of my readers. I can almost hear the muttering. "Oh boy, here's another one of those gun crazies. He wants to have everyone packing heat so it won't be safe to go outside anymore."
For the record, that is not true. I really do not want anyone to be armed all the time. I'm not completely convinced that even the police should be armed all of the time. I will make a large exception for our military; those brave folks who guard our freedom. For everyone else, I think their access to firearms should be controlled. Given my choice, there are a number of folks that I know whom I would never trust with a gun. Some are very near and dear to me. Way it goes.
Do I like the second amendment? Not as it stands. It was fine for the time in which it was written. Now, it's not so fine. I am not adamant, but I think it should be changed; not circumvented, but changed. The constitution provides us with a way to do that. It is not necessary to violate the law. Article five provides a legal way to change the constitution. We can amend it.
If you want to modify the second amendment, that is the way to do it. Making illegal pseudo laws is not a way to do it. Why not propose a new amendment to the constitution. Is it a lot of work? Darn right, and it should be. Changing our basic law should not be easy. It should require thought and effort.
What would we want our amendment to say? If it were up to me, it would add a list exceptions to the second amendment. I would not change the basic intent. I think it is really okay for most folks to have guns for some purposes. Here is my list of exceptions.
No one except military personnel may keep or carry automatic
weapons.
No one except military personnel may keep or carry weapons of
mass destruction.
No one may own or carry a firearm until they have been trained
and certified in the safe use of firearms.
All firearm owners must be re-certified at least every two years.
Firearms may not be discharged except in legally designated areas.
Know felons may not own or carry firearms of any kind.
States and local governments may regulate the ownership and the
use of firearms.
When new weapons or arms are developed, the congress shall have
the duty to classify them as suitable for the use of the general
public or not suitable.
Now, who would object to this amendment? You know darn well. The NRA would object and make a great deal of noise about it. This outfit is very powerful. If we let them, they can be very effective in influencing legislation. This is not because they have the support of the American people. They do not! It is because our politicians are for sale.
The NRA is not a super national organization with billions of members. It is a relatively small organization; much smaller than, say, the American Association of Retired People (AARP). Their power comes from their wealth which they use to influence our legislators. I believe the NRA consists of one very determined man with a handful of very wealthy, shadowy financial supporters and a large number of true believers. I wish I knew what their true agenda was.
It does not matter. The Brady Bill and the Violent Crime Control and Preventions Act were passed over their vehement objections, so it can be done. What it takes is a dedicated group of honest citizens to convince the politicians that we really want this thing. In short, it takes dedication.
This is the thing. There are right ways and wrong ways to do things. Lately, we have been choosing the easy wrong way over the difficult right way. We have been violating our own laws consistently for many years now. We have been violating the spirit of democracy for many years. By taking shortcuts to easy solutions we have gotten far away from our true path.
America is a country with a philosophy. The basis of that philosophy is the rule of law. The very foundation of democracy is the idea that nothing and no one is above the law. It applies to everyone and everything. The Constitution of the United States is the basis for that law. It has worked for more than 200 years. I think we should stick with it.
Next time, I will continue with the amendments to the constitution.
Back to Gaffer's Philosophy
Archives.
|
|
|
|