Topic: Politics
An awful lot of discussion goes on concerning the Constitution for the United States of America. Most notably concerning the first ten amendments, which are collectively known as the Bill of Rights. Now the first thing to keep in mind during any discussion of the Bill of Rights is that these are not rights granted to you by our government, as many people mistakenly think, and as many people in the government would undoubtedly love for you to believe. It was stated in the second paragraph of The Declaration of Independence that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”, and that that “among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. This is key to understanding what the founders intended. Government does not grant you rights, they are inherently yours already.
Now when crafting The Declaration of Independence, the founders did indeed call out three rights, those being life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However they said these were among our rights, not our only rights. So shortly after crafting the Constitution for the United States of America, the founders laid out what they believed to be our key rights. I have read the Bill of Rights, and it really is painstakingly clear, i.e. it does not need a lot of blowhards getting together to “interpret” the meaning. However interpret they do, over and over. But when I say interpret I think what is really happening is that they are attempting to justify not following it. The most glaring example is the second amendment.
The second amendment reads, “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.” That’s it, plain and simple. The fact that it mentions a well regulated militia makes some people insist that it applies only to organized, (and presumably government sanctioned), groups. Well, the founders knew what the folly of putting total trust in the government was. They kept arms not only to protect themselves from every day threats, but also as a form of insurance that government could not exceed it’s proper role. It plainly states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”. Would anyone honestly think the first amendment only applies to government sanctioned groups when it comes to establishment of religion, 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. Of course not, these rights are specified to specifically protect us from government usurpation of power.
Another common argument is that guns today are above and beyond anything the founders could have imagined. Well a bullet in the head still kills you no matter what. Besides, does the invention of mass broadcasting and the Internet nullify freedom of speech or of the press? Of course not! The rights remain no matter what the technology implementing them.
Finally the argument is that if the federal government does not have the power to constrict gun rights, surely state governments do have that power. Well let’s take a look at the tenth amendment. It states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Do you see the line that mentions “prohibited by it to the states”? The constitution can and does prohibit individual states from certain things. How about the line in the second amendment “, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” If that is not a clear cut example of the Constitution prohibiting something, then I sure as hell don’t know what is.
The federal and state governments have far exceeded their authority with prohibitive gun laws.
James West
Widefield CO
