If it's in the Constitution

That one sentence is responsible for hours of debate and news footage and general hot air in our Country.  The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.  That most sacred of documents that created one of the greatest countries to ever exist in modern times.  And the debate has never been more vocal or nasty.

We as a nation are still reeling from recent gun attacks - the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabby Gifford, the rampage in the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and the murder of so many innocent souls in Newtown, CT - and the cry for some sort of national gun control and bans has never been louder.  And instead of being a nation coming together to try and insure that such horrible acts never happen again, the rhetoric over gun control is in danger of tearing this Country apart.

breitbart.com

 

When our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution and the first 10 Amendments - the Bill of Rights - America was coming off a War of Independence with a country where people saw their rights and freedoms changed at will every time a new ruler was crowned, and those brave men wanted to make sure that didn't happen here.  They wanted there to be a set of core values that would define their new country and stand the test of time. This was also the time where a standing army wasn't fully established and I am sure the early Patriots were concerned that a foreign country might try to take over this new land.  That makes sense.  It also makes sense to remember what sorts of weapons they had back then....no 30 bullet magazines, no semi-automatic weapons.  Wonder what they would think if they saw the weapons for sale now?

 

The central part of the debate over guns seems to be this concept that owning a gun is a right that is not to be infringed upon.  But what exactly does that mean?  What does is mean when something is a "right" in the Constitution and in this case - what does infringing upon on that right mean?

 

watchdog.org

 

 

Even before the Founding Fathers addressed the issue of firearms, they laid out the most central parts of a free society - freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of the press.  Why were THESE principles so important to them?  Because they came from a country - England - where you were told by the Crown what religion you must practice, where you could be imprisoned - or worse - if you spoke out against the ever changing rules governing the country and there was no guaranteed way for people to learn the facts of what the government was doing.  The people were always being suppressed by the government - a non-elected government - and the men who created America wanted nothing like that here.  BUT - even these most sacred of rights are not without limits.  As a society we understand that even these freedoms must be curtailed at times.  No one can walk into a movie theater and yell "fire" if there isn't one, no one can print known untruths about another person and no religion can commit acts that violate the rights of others in the name of their "god".  We accept the fact that even these freedoms have limits to them.  These "Constitutional Rights".  So if we accept that these core tenants of liberty, the First Amendment, can - and should - have limits, then why is there such an uproar over limits to the 2nd Amendment?

 

bumperstickersinc.com

 

 

 

 

People seem to lose all sense of civility and general decency when the debate centers around guns and that is something that I truly don't understand.  (For the record - there are no guns in my home.  There are however many knives from my oldest son's knife collection and we have several air soft rifles - that are secured with trigger locks.)  It is troubling that so many people can not separate the need to have better control over the sales of weapons in our Country and the thought that those limits are infringing on the right of people to own weapons.  I do not see how those two are the same issue.  We, as a Country, accept that there are some limits necessary to the rights guaranteed to all citizens in the First Amendment.  So why can't we accept the need for there to be some limits on the right to own guns?  I fail to see what the problem is with requiring universal background checks on ALL gun sales.  No more sales made at gun shows without there being a record of the sale and, even more importantly, no more sales without making sure that the person buying a gun can legally do so.  Why is that so upsetting to some people?  Will it mean that guns can not be obtained on-the-spot?  Most likely yes.  And that is a problem why?  I can't vote without registering in advance - isn't the right to vote a bit more important then the right to walk around packing heat?  I am at a lose to explain this mentality - perhaps because it is so far from my own.

 

keepcalm-o-matic.com.uk

 

There seems to be a theme running through those who are the most vocal about not letting anyone get between them and their guns - they don't trust the government and they see conspiracies everywhere.  Or maybe it is fairer to say they don't trust anyone who doesn't agree with them.  I am saddened by how narrow minded many of these people are.  People I consider my friends.  I have been told that I have "every right to be wrong" when it comes to guns.  My wish to have universal background checks and to limit the sale of some of the high-capacity "assault style" weapons doesn't sit well with many.  My wish to not own a gun is met with scorn.  It really is amazing how judgemental people who want unlimited gun ownership can be.  I am the problem...fascinating.  I have repeatedly stated, that with the exception of "assault-style" weapons, I do not wish to prevent people from legally owning guns.  Yes, it is a right guaranteed in the Constitution, but as we have seen throughout history, the Constitution can be amended and interpreted by the Judicial branch of government.  Our Founding Fathers realized that they were just mere men and as such, even they didn't know what would always be good for America in the future, so they gave us the means to make changes to those rules when necessary.  Am I saying that we need a Constitutional Convention to deal with the issue of gun control?  Maybe I am.

 

spankmymarketer.com

 

After President Obama addressed the Nation this week outlining the action he was going to take as a result of the work done by Vice-President Biden and his committee, a news poll the next morning showed that 98% of the people polled where in favor of tougher and universal background checks for people who wanted to purchase guns.  That number is staggering....even if it is inflated, it is safe to say that the majority of the Country wants tighter rules when it comes to buying and selling guns.  The WILL OF THE PEOPLE needs to be listened to and acted upon.  Not the will of major lobbying groups; not the will of the gun manufacturers.  The will of the People.  The government exists because of the People - not because of the NRA and their money.  Universal background checks for gun purchases is - and SHOULD be - something that every single American can agree upon.  It does NOT prevent anyone who can legally obtain a gun from getting one.  If it takes you five days to get your gun?  My response is SO WHAT?  Other then someone in law enforcement or a soldier, I find it hard to believe that there is any reason for someone else to need to purchase a gun without a waiting period.  And if it costs you extra to get that background check?  Sorry - there is NOTHING in the Second Amendment that says you get your gun for free.  The Courts have ruled that the government - State and Federal levels - can make laws pertaining to the ownership of guns; it isn't unconstitutional to do so. So just deal with it. 

 

The issue of guns in the United States is far more complex then I have time for here and now - but this part, the Universal background checks?  THAT needs to be acted upon now.  Doing that clearly won't solve the problem.  But it is a start - no matter how small.  And isn't that what we need to do?  Actually stop talking and start doing something?