Convict the tools?

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by DvlHownd, Dec 29, 2012.

  1. DvlHownd

    Milwaukie, OR
    Silver Supporter Silver Supporter

    Likes Received:
    I wonder... For those out there who would say that the Second Amendment is out dated and passé', because after all, it was written by our Founding Fathers when about the time the most sinister military instrument of the day was a .75 caliber Brown Bess muzzle loading musket, would they say that the current stable of AR-style platform rifles have no place under the 2nd Amendment? Could they have ever envisioned the ability of a rifle, the idea of which was still in its infancy (yes rifle, everything else in its day was a smoothbore musket), having the ability to fire multiple rounds with just the simple pull of the trigger? Of course not. So therefore, say the people, who fear the inanimate, perceived evil, black, sinister looking, demonized, pistol gripped, bayonet lug accoutermented, semi-automatic rifle has no place in today's society. Nah, they couldn't have thought of that so the 2nd Amendment should be retired, repealed, shelved. Besides, we don’t have militias anymore.

    Then I would ask this; Would the framers of our revered Constitution, after drafting the 1st Amendment, could have ever thought of the possibility of having a hand-held device that would allow you to speak with anybody, anywhere in the world instantly? Or to have access to information from learning how to make Grandma's apple pie to the theory of nuclear fission at their fingertips? Somehow I doubt it because Ben Franklin’s key just got zapped by a lightning bolt while attached to his kite just about that time. So with these things never being thought of, using the logic to repeal/modify/abolish the 2nd Amendment, should we abolish and retire the 1st Amendment because they were not pertinent to the times? Oh no! The masses would cry! We need our cell phones! What about our Right of Assembly? We need to be able to “occupy”! What about our right of free speech? We need to be able to protest! What about our right of "expression"?

    What then, of the Fourteenth Amendment? Where it is stated "that nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Did the Framers of the Constitution have abortion in mind when they wrote that? Doubt it. Many people and organizations hold upon high the decision of Roe v. Wade of a woman choosing to have an abortion while being clothed in the protection of the 14th Amendment (which I find ironic in that it states that "nor shall any State deprive any person of life"). Under this Amendment, it allows the willful and intentional termination of life by scraping and suction, a living fetus from a woman's womb. This year alone, there have been over 1,199,732 abortions alone. Over ONE MILLION. What's the ratio of firearm related deaths to that? Firearms deaths pale in comparison to that number. (oh, did I offend you by my blatant statement of fact? Please refer to 1st Amendment.) Should we repeal the 14th Amendment because that has allowed far more cessation of life than the 2nd Amendment? Nope, not gonna happen is it? To be clear, that if it is your decision to have an abortion, that is your decision, and yours alone. It's your choice. Choose wisely. But I digress.

    The Constitution allows you to burn our National Ensign if you have that much lack of respect for the symbol of our country. It allows you to have an abortion if you so choose. And, it allows you to legally purchase and possess a firearm of your own choosing. Why? Simply, BECAUSE YOU CAN! Those are individual rights protected by our Constitution.

    Lately, for those who are not active participants in shooting sports or firearm ownership, and the responsibility that comes with it, there is a lot of head scratching and asking themselves, “in light of recent events, why would somebody want to rush out and buy a new rifle or a thirty round magazine for it? There’s no need for such things.” First off, again I would say, that I, as a law-abiding citizen, having broken no state or federal laws, wouldn’t mind going out and getting one, BECAUSE I CAN. Secondly, for others, they may be starting to realize that the police, regardless of what you may think, are not there to protect you, nor do they really have an obligation to do so (Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, Castle Rock v. Gonzales.). They are there to investigate the crime scene, call the coroner, notify the next of kin, and clean up the mess afterwards. Some people are beginning to accept that responsibilty for the majority of their personal safety and the safety of their loved ones lies upon themselves. To deny the ability to obtain that sense of security because of someone else’s perception of the tool of choice is to try and deny or restrict that individual’s Constitutional right as a citizen.

    The upshot is that there are Amendments to our Constitution. Why should people think that one is more important than the other or that one should be repealed because it is "outdated" or "doesn't fit the times"? They are there. Work within them, do not take them away or infringe upon what the Founding Fathers gave us but rather look at the core of our society and correct the behavior rather than convict the tools.

Share This Page