Let's have the gun debate

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.

Let's talk about guns in America, and while we are at it, the shootings as well

Let’s talk guns.  Everyone else is breaking out their clichés for and against them, so let’s break the mold of immobilization and actually talk about the issues.

First in any discussion that pertains to guns is the fact that the crux of the discussion cannot be about the tragedy of the moment.  The shooting of the week will surely bring the discussion to the forefront of the national discussion; but the two are separate issues.

There is senseless killing, very often accomplished with guns; and there is the issue of guns in America.

Let’s begin with the latter.  The United States of America is a unique nation in that the right to bear arms is fundamental to our foundation.  It is the second of ten initial amendments to our Constitution.  It is integral to the operation of our system of government.  It is not a standalone provision that may be removed without impacting the system.

If you don’t want satellite radio on your vehicle, then you don’t get it.  The vehicle operates just as well.  If you don’t want a suspension system; the ride might be much bumpier than you had anticipated.

If we want to have a national discussion on guns in America, then let’s do it in the proper arena—the constitutional arena.  I find it odd that the National Rifle Association has emerged as the leading advocate of Second Amendment Rights.

Who better?

How about the American Civil Liberties Union?  What!  Those guys won’t get anywhere near this.  That’s too bad because the Second Amendment is the ultimate civil liberty. 

If we want to restrict or do away with guns in this nation, we must first answer a fundamental question.  Do we no longer fear tyranny or oppression from our own government?  Our system of government was not set up for efficiency but for stability—that no branch or individual was able to seize too much power.

Do we no longer fear tyranny or oppression from our own government?

We must first answer this question before proceeding.

The right to bear arms is about throwing off a government that no longer represents the people.  I hope that we never see that day, but if we do, a few handguns against the full force of whatever government has supplanted our republic won’t do the trick.

The very weapons that cause the most damage in these mass shootings are the ones that would be needed to overthrow an unjust government.  Yes, if we are at odds with tyranny in our own government, we will need assault weapons not small caliber pistols to wrestle back our liberties.

Our government is a mess, but I don’t think we need a call to arms at this point; but the question is, “Must we preserve the power to overthrow our own government should it cease to be one that is of the people, by the people, and for the people?”

That’s a tough question.  That is a gut wrenching question.  That is a constitutional question not a matter for simple legislation or executive order.  Constitution amendments are difficult by design, but not impossible.  We have knocked out more than two dozen after the Bill of Rights.  That’s an average of more than one each decade in the life of our young nation.  It can be done.  If it is important, it will be done.

It can be done and it should be difficult.  We must decide if our duty to preserve the blessings of liberty not only for ourselves, but to our posterity, is at risk when we change the system.  Make no mistake; changing the Second Amendment changes the entire system.

If we need to do this, then let’s do it as a constitutional amendment with the labyrinth of process that must accompany it.  It should not be done lightly but if it is necessary, then let’s have a true national, constitutional discussion.

Knee jerk legislation and executive orders are not the answer.

But what about all of the people who will die while we are having this protracted constitutional dialogue?

That’s another issue.  That is about the sanctity of life.  Addressing this doesn’t take any laws or amendments.  It takes a willingness to return to seeking God.

Even without another law hitting the books, it is already illegal to murder one, two, or two dozen people.  Whether it is done with a truck bomb, pipe bomb, or assault weapon; the malice aforethought is what is responsible for the killing.

We as a nation must once again value life.  Black lives?  Yes!  Hispanic lives?  Yes!  Asian lives?  Yes.  Christian Lives?  Yes!  Lives of people who don’t even believe in God?  Yes!

Unborn life?  Yes!

Ouch!  Let’s frame that as a woman’s right to choose.

Let’s not.  Let’s look at it first from the sanctity of life.  We don’t need more abortion laws or overturned court decisions.  We need to value life from conception to the last breath.

We don’t do that!  We do not value life.  We get upset—for a while—when a couple dozen people are killed in a school or at a Christmas party or one person is shot by a police officer but by and large, our culture does not value life.

We must return to God and value the sanctity of life if we want to see the shootings and bombings and other recurring forms of human hatred stopped in our time.

If we need a constitutional discussion of the right to bear arms, then let’s have it.  It needs to be one of the most robust discussions that we have ever engaged in as a nation.  It will take at least a decade.

If we want to stop the senseless violence, then let’s stop it.  This has to do with everyone—not just the faithful few—the modern day remnant—but everyone repenting of their selfish ways and returning to God.

Jesus broke it down to one command, that you love one another.  This is what will stop the violence.  This turning from the wickedness of this age can begin now.  It doesn’t have to take a decade.  Once we as a nation turn to God, he will draw near to us.

We will know his blessings.

The challenge is that this will take courage.  Do we have enough men and women of courage left among us to lead us back to God?

Where are you men and women of courage?

Will you lead this nation back to God and out of this senseless violence?

Where are you?