There has always been one thing I have never understood. Why do Republicans claim to be “strict constitutionalists”, then pretend words in the 2nd Amendment do not exist?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” - US Bill of Rights.
The words “well regulated Militia” are in the Amendment. I’ll be honest, I believe the exact meaning of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is up for debate. Times have changed, to live by the exact wording of almost a 250-year-old document, doesn’t seem like a rational thing. We should live by the spirit of the Document, but not always by the words written on the page. (If I have to explain why, we can’t, I don’t know what to say to you.)
People can disagree with me, that’s fine. I can understand that and respect that. However, to claim that you’re a “strict constitutionalist”, but then decide words shouldn’t apply when they don’t fit you, isn’t being a “strict constitutionalist”, it’s called being a hypocrite.
I do believe that there are things all Americans should be able to agree on. One of those things is, Military grade Assault rifles being available to the general public. Why do you need them? I can’t comprehend a good reason. The US has not been attacked by a foreign nation on US Homeland soil, since WWII. When 9/11 happened we willingly agreed to hand over some freedom in the name of security. However, After watching a single madman, 16 year years later, harm 600 people, 550+ Injured and 59 deaths. We can’t agree that maybe something should be done about guns? This is just less than 18 months after the previous most deadly shooting in Modern American history. Don’t give me your Ben Franklin quotes, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Can you name, the only 2016 US Presidential candidate who voted against the Patriot act? Hint: if you could, you would Feel the Bern.
Honestly, I’m left speechless. I have much more to say, but it’s difficult to verbalize. I can make the argument, no one needs a gun, but it won’t matter. People have the 2nd amendment to “Support” their claim. Besides, I have no problem with a person having a gun. People should be able to have them for self-defense or for recreation. I do believe 99.9% of gun owners are responsible people. However, it just takes one madman to do an act such as this, and it leaves millions of people grieving. Other countries have figured out how to have responsible gun control to not have massing shootings like this, why can’t we? If we are truly the greatest country in the world, can we at least, not go around shooting each other? When did that become too much to ask for?
I want to linger on that question. However, we still have other important things as a country to do. People in this country, believe we have the right to own a gun. However, they also believe these victims, Don’t have the right to health care. The government won’t foot the bill for them. Some will have to sue for money in order to pay their medical costs because they were the victim of an attack. How is it possible, that people believe it is a “Right" to be able to own a weapon that is powerful enough to harm hundreds of people, but yet, if you are a victim, it’s merely a “Privilege” to receive the care you require to survive?
I want you all to think long and hard about these two questions. Let me know when you think of a rational answer. I can’t and I’m willing to bet you can’t either. Alternatives are available to us, but we don’t use them. Why? I can’t think of a good reason. We can do better as a country, and we must do better. If we don’t try, then we are failing not only ourselves but also everyone who has yet to come into existence. We claim to be a country that never settles, but right now we are. Why?
Senate and House Roll call 2001 Patriot Act Votes:
Second Amendment Text: