With the talk of the federal government, namely the Obama Administration, poised to take measures to restrict the ownership of guns, many pro-gun organizations and individuals have been directing attention to the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution as protection. The 2nd Amendment, of course, was written to protect the individual’s right to bear arms. Despite what I consider to be pretty cut and dry language, this hasn’t stopped the government from trampling on the individual’s right to protect himself or herself.
The 2nd Amendment is almost worshipped by many gun right advocates. These people include supporters of the NRA, Tea Party activists, etc. While they are correct that we as individuals do have the right to arm ourselves, they fall short on the principles from where they derive their stance. You do not get your right to bear arms from the 2nd Amendment. You get your right to bear arms from the same place you get your right to own anything else. In other words, so long as your claim to property doesn’t involve taking property from someone else against their will, what right does anyone have to restrict your ownership of property?
The problem with using the 2nd Amendment, or even the Constitution in general, is that you’re leaving the possibility open to the government to rewrite the laws to take away these rights. While it may be unconstitutional for Obama to put a ban on certain styles of guns, what happens if the government decides to repeal the 2nd Amendment through the processes made perfectly legal under the Constitution? If you believe that your right to own a gun occurs through the Constitution, you have no leg to stand on when the Constitution then says you don’t have that right.
What’s a better argument: you can’t restrict my ownership of guns because the government allows me to have them or you can’t restrict my ownership of guns because you have no right to control the decisions I make regarding my body and property?
In addition to the confusion of the source of ownership rights, many of these 2nd Amendment advocates are in favor of “common sense gun laws.” They say that while you have the right to arm yourself, we need practical rules to control what people have. Do you want your hothead neighbor to have a couple of AK-47s at his disposal? You probably don’t, but why should you be the one to determine who is fit to own what quantity and what kind of weapon? The idea of a common sense rule is purely subjective. The majority of people believe that it’s common sense that we should have public fire departments funded by taxes. I disagree with that sentiment and I can back up my stance. So who’s right? Where do you draw the line on common sense gun laws?
It all comes down to how far you are willing to take personal liberty. If some liberty is good and government controlling your life is bad, does having more and more liberty ever end up as a bad thing? If you’re going to put some restrictions on liberty, who gets to decide the restrictions? Imagine yourself in a group of nine people. You all agree that you’re going to vote on everything that you do. Is everyone going to be happy with every decision? Of course not! Wouldn’t it be better if everyone agreed to do whatever they pleased as long as they didn’t prevent the others from doing as they wanted?
The next time you defend your rights using the Constitution, just think about the fluidity of the Constitution. While it may be difficult to change it, look at the way the government has transformed since the Constitution was ratified. Compare that to how much the Golden Rule has changed in the history of human interaction: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
There’s a lot going on here. I know many conservatives and Christians (many think they are one and the same but they are not) who are all so gung-ho about the 2nd Amendment that they simply can’t see through all the layers. Their concerns are earthly.
Relativism though, is dangerous and unfortunately it has become the basis for the way many people think, believe and behave. What’s right in your eyes may not be right in someone else’s and whwho are you to tell me or anyone else that what they think is wrong? (I’m just quoting what many people say, I’m not saying this). So unless everyone is “like-minded” and has the same Spirit which unites, it’s imposslble to be like-minded with a group of people. Human nature will certainly have its way and rebellion is sure to cause trouble. What I mean is that our nature is rebellious and sinful. Generally speaking, if anyone tries to tell us what is right or wrong, our nature wants to do the opposite and we get indignant that anyone would even think to correct us or tell us what’s right or wrong.
On the other hand, someone who lives by the Spirit, the Spirit of God, will do what His nature is inclined to do, and I don’t mean blow up abortion clinics or kill people in the name of a god. Too many people who call themselves Christians do not live by His Spirit, but by their own and because of this they have caused God’s name to be dishonored and have driven people away from Him. But His Spirit living inside someone will not cause that person to be rebellious but will yield and submit to God and His truth (Galatians 5;222 – “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. ” If someone lives by the Spirit this is the fruit that will be overflowing.
So with that said, human nature cannot and will not ever change. It is what it is. However, those who are God’s children will be of one mind and Spirit because the same Spirit lives in them all. What’s terrible though is that this is not taught or tested and therefore many people in the churches lack the power of the Holy Spirit. This is why there is such division even among those who say they know and love the same God.
“Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.
Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.”
~ Colossians 3:1-17.
Correction: “Galatians 5:22”
Got this in an email, I hope it reposts okay. (Not sure how to link, thought you may enjoy.)
George Bush told America he’d keep us safe from terrorists by having us take off our shoes at the airport.
Yesterday, Barack Obama again took the Oath of Office. And this Obama 2.0 is also going to save America from insane killers – by limiting ammo clips to ten bullets instead of 30.
At a television press conference about the Newtown school massacre last Wednesday, a tearful President called this, “meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this”.
It won’t.
But, once again, we get to pretend that our presidents protect us and save us from what is murdering us and destroying us.
But The Great Assault Rifle Debate, like the War on Terror, is just another Weapon of Mass Distraction.
In all fairness to Obama, he also called – as Bush did – for a massive increase in the number of FBI files kept on Americans. I feel safer already, don’t you?
Here’s the facts, ma’am: There are about 4.5 million assault rifles in American civilian hands. That’s around the same number as in tiny Switzerland (population: eight million). Tens of thousands of Swiss keep a 9mm Sig Sauer, like the one used by the Newtown killer. But we don’t see the Swiss sweeping dead kids out of their schoolyards.
The weapon of America’s deadliest mass killer, Timmy McVeigh, was fertiliser. Maybe we should ban bullshit, but that would shut down Washington and all five major TV networks.
At his assault-gun dog-and-pony show on Wednesday, Obama shed tears for the murdered victims, as well he should. But where are his tears for the victims of the MACT?
Let me explain. Last month, Obama bullied his own Environmental Protection Agency into watering down the “MACT” standards – the limits on industrial boiler pollution.
Under this loosened “MACT” rule, industry will get to triple the hydrogen chloride and triple the particulate filth they may dump into the air. The White House crows that Obama’s bending over on this rule will save corporate polluters $1.5 billion (£945 million) a year. Yippee!
Last year, the White House proudly posted the statement of EPA’s Administrator Sheila Jackson that her proposed boiler pollution rules would help “prevent 17,000 premature deaths [and] 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms.”
Then, last month, the White House posted the REVISED EPA death count. The weakened boiler rule will now, “avoid up to 8,100 premature deaths and 52,000 asthma attacks.”
Do the arithmetic. Obama’s climb-down on the rules will kill at least 8,900 people, and permit at least 68,000 asthma attacks compared to the original rule.
The deadly assault on unarmed Americans followed an Executive Order issued by Obama, after lobbyists stormed the White House, to cut costs to lung-choker industries.
If children die from gunfire, Obama has tears for TV. But if your child suffocates in industrial goo, neither Obama nor the news give a flying fart if your kid chokes or croaks.
So, rather than take away assault rifles, we’d save far more children by taking away the President’s easy access to executive orders.
And the Republicans? Obama killing 9,000 more asthmatics annually is just not enough for them. So, to placate these GOP industry stooges, Obama threw them the severed head of his EPA chief, Sheila Jackson, pushing her to resign.
Here’s a real life-saving proposal: Rather than spy on gun buyers, the FBI should do background checks on Congressmen – and if they have a history of taking donations from polluters, ban them from voting on life-and-death laws.
– Read the full Article at Vice.com
Rollo, I understand totally what you’re saying, but I see nothing at all wrong with citing the constitution. The Declaration of Independence spells it out clearly for you….
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”
If you want to say our government has totally ignored the constitution and has no respect for our founding, etc. I’m all for it. But nothing in the constitution, or anything I have seen that our founders wrote, contains anything that says something to the effect of, “We are the government, we’ll let you have these rights.