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?
No comments:
Post a Comment