We have rights! These right are laid out in the Bill of Rights as listed in the United States Constitution. This means that while there might be some restrictions on these rights, such as no bang bang for felons, these rights can not be outlawed by one of the very groups that these laws protect us from i.e. the government.
So it is kind of odd that while one section of the Constitution declares the Constitution to be the “supreme law of the land” some judges have held that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. So I guess it is a good thing that most states have included, in their individual Constitutions their own version of the Bill of Rights and the Right to Bear Arms…
The problem here is that some of these Judges have taken the mention of the “militia” to mean the state, or federal government, will the Constitution says “the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. We are the “people” not the government, who is supposed to get their authority from us, the people.
Recent Supreme Court opinions have even affirmed that the 2nd amendment applies to “the people” and that decision has been used to strike down a number of state, and city, law that banned people from owning hand firearms.
The Gun Control crowd may have the right motives, like trying to cut down on the number of criminals who have access to weapons but, the question come up : how would they do this without violating the Constitution? It would be hard to, for example, ban the so called assault rifle when the supreme court in, I think it was the Miller case, had said that a ban against sawed off shotguns would invalidate its use by a ” well regulated militia”:. So it is actually the right of the people that makes it possible to arm the military, and that barring the people from owning firearms would also ban the military from the same, as the military/militia is made up of citizen soldiers.
Even if the various “Gun Control” people were to ignore this fact and attempt to pass laws based on what they perceive to be our need, the constitution says this is our right, and since this is one of a number of enumerated rights the question come up : who will decide which rights we really need?
Which other rights will they decide we DON”T NEED? The freedom of speech? Religious Freedom, or others.
I hate that criminals can get access to firearms but, I also hate the idea that some bureaucrat could decide which of my rights I don’t need.
I don’t believe that the law abiding citizens of this country should be punished for the crimes of others, and see this as a start down the road to tyranny.
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” so said Benjamin Franklin, and he was right.
To close this off I will repeat the old saying “the price of freedom, is eternal vigilance”.
- Scholars Debate Second Amendment to US Constitution (hawaiireporter.com)
- Does Government Even Have the Power to Ban Guns? (ConservativeActionAlerts.com)
- Gun Rights group wins favorable ruling in Chicago gun law challenge (illinoisreview.typepad.com)
- Obama Still Thinks the Second Amendment Is About Hunting (reason.com)
- Word, Militia was not founded as a Harmful Pretense. (ireport.cnn.com)
- Exploiting A Tragedy To Take Your Rights (personalliberty.com)