Clicking through the net we are bombarded by endless commentaries concerning “gun rights”, both in support and against. The bigger issue I see in the argument is not whether we “should” pass gun laws but more “can” we, legally? The second amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, just what is the Bill of Rights and how did they come to be?
During the debates in congress in writing a final draft of the Constitution many felt that there multiple loops holes were the government they were creating could someday grow to be so powerful as to be as bad, or worse, than the very government they were attempting to over throw. To appease these concerns and get the Constitution signed by all it was agreed that they would amend it to address everyone’s concerns at a later date.
They set about to close these loop holes and finalized twelve amendments to the Constitution that were to be sent out and ratified at the state level before being added to the Constitution. After going through each states ratifying procedures ten of the twelve were agreed to by all and made part of the final draft.
So this brings us to present day, the very part of our greatest document, possibly the greatest government document ever written, is now being threaten by the very government it sought to limit. How is it that we can put into place a document to limit the power of government and then turn around and feel it is acceptable for that government to demand we weaken that document, and in a sense, gain it more power over us? How does that even make sense?
If that doesn't mess with your head enough wrap your brain around this one. If we make it ok to change the laws restricting the power of government at its request because it “makes us safer”, then what would stop them from going after ANY part of the Constitution in the future using the same argument?