Let’s have the gun debate. Let’s consider all factors not just those that support your slant on the subject. Let’s consider the intent of the founders of our Republic, the cost of liberty in this post-modern world, and the consequences and sequels of repealing or eroding the sanctity of the Second Amendment. That is what most people who advocate gun control are asking for—to make an ordinary law supersede the Law of the Land or to amend that supreme law.
I just ask that we consider what happens if we remove something that is a part of a very interconnected system. Let’s not ride the wave of emotion while ignoring that we might be crashing into a rocky coastline instead of a sandy shore.
It’s just one amendment, right?
Yes, and no. Consider that the first few amendments to our Constitution are about personal rights and liberties. We are free to peacefully assemble, worship as we desire, and even petition the sovereign for redress of grievances.
We are free from excessive government intrusion in our lives. We can’t just be rounded up and sentenced. We have legal protections from our own government. We even have a right to privacy that is not enumerated but which our highest court found in the penumbras or edges of other rights.
Within these first few amendments are contained the right to free speech and a free press. Most believe these are critical to a free society. But what if, speech and media became inundated with falsehood and deception. Oops. That’s happened.
Are we ready to regulate the press? Are we prepared for censorship of our tweets and posts and all things communicative? With the amount of fake news and never-ending editorials masquerading as news across the modern media, maybe the price we pay for free speech and the free press is too high. Let’s consider kicking it to the curb as well.
And this whole business of the right to privacy might not fit well in our modern world. If the government could keep better watch on everyone, we might have fewer school shootings.
Hold your constitutional horses! I thought that we were talking about guns?
We are. I will make my point. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is the right to make sure that the other rights and freedoms of the people are not revoked. If our government becomes tyrannical (the concern of our founders) or perhaps Orwellian would be better suited for this time, we must be equipped to take our government back.
I don’t ever want to see that day. So, I ask that those who want to enact some measure of gun control, consider that our founders connected this whole business of self-government by first separating executive, legislative, and judicial power at the federal level; then separating rights and liberties that belong to the federal government, state government, and the individual. The mainstay of individual freedoms resides in the Bill of Rights. The founders of our republic also buffered the potential for emotional tidal waves that might put an Oliver Cromwell on an American throne. We know this as the Electoral College.
Individually, we might not like the college or the right to bear arms or the protections afforded liars posing as journalists; but these are not stand-alone protections. Our system of government was surely blessed by God to withstand the consolidation of power in any one area.
It’s not the most efficient system in the world. Dictatorships are generally much more efficient, but for almost 242, we have valued liberty—especially individual liberty—over efficiency.
So, let’s have the debate. Let’s bring in all the facts and information including the impact on our Constitutionally guaranteed liberties. I would think that you might perceive my political and constitutional leanings, but I am willing to listen to facts—complete data not something skewed to support any position—and I will see if I need to accept some or all of the factually supported proposals.
Part of this consider-all-factors discussion must be the motivation to amend the Constitution. Why do people want gun control? Is it to give the government more control? Is it to save innocent lives?
This is where some people are going to become angry that they read this far. If it is to save innocent lives, then let’s include the abortion issue in this all factors discussion. Those are the most innocent of lives taken by the hundreds of thousands each year.
But, the Supreme Court says that the fetus is not a life. You can’t argue with that! The Supreme Court also upheld that the Second Amendment is a right guaranteed to the individual.
So, if we are going to change things at the fundamental level to save lives—innocent lives, let’s get to some real life saving and remove the right to choose (kill) from our acquired individual liberties.
This business of self-government is tough business. Emotions must never carry the day. We must have the same inspiration and dedication to make changes that we believe essential to preserving our liberties not just for ourselves but for our posterity.
Let’s have the full discussion on guns and life and liberty. Set aside the vitriol. Use all of the facts and statistics and make a case for what you think is best. Listen to the positions of others who abide by the same inspiration, dedication, and self-discipline in their arguments. Then see what the best course for our nation is.
This is discussion and debate not a vitriolic condemnation of opinions other than our own. If we are going to have a real debate, then do it right.