I remain convinced that, if we are to obey the Second Amendment, no restrictions on bearing guns should be allowed. That runs me against the ruling out of California, where an appeals court ruled there can be restrictions placed on who can carry concealed weapons.
I am with those who say that if the Constitution says, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," then that means no law shall be created that restricts, diminishes or limits the practice of bearing weapons.
We are too afraid of changing our Constitution. I, too, believe it an inspired document. But, if there is wisdom in a law, and the Constitution prevents it, then the Constitution should be changed. Our founding fathers were wise, but we must be just as wise. No, they didn't foresee all the intricacies that would arise. We are the ones seeing them, and facing them, and we are the ones who must address them.
At this point, we should consider the wisdom of each of the laws already on the books. What is wisdom? Can laws be crafted allowing some restrictions without jeopardizing the things the founding fathers apparently wanted to protect? If they were wanting to ensure we had guns to protect us from government tyranny, can we craft laws that do not jeopardize this? Do our current laws fail to jeopardize this freedom? If this is the reason for the Second Amendment, to begin with, then simply craft laws so that citizens do not lose their ability to protect themselves. And, consider on the wisdom of that. If we say citizens have the right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves against government tyranny, what might they consider to be tyranny? If they oppose the government for owning public lands, do we want to invite them to take up arms against the "tyrannical" government?
Then, when we have considered all these things -- when we have decided what is wise -- then we still should not proceed without first amending the Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment