Revoking rights is not the solution
The United States was designed as a representative republic; a nation established under a constitution that defines the purpose and limitations of the federal government and the freedoms provided to American citizens.
But lately I’m concerned about how many politicians are forgetting their solemn oath to support and defend that constitution. Legislators continue to develop laws that are contradictary, and if losing liberty wasn’t bad enough, as a country we somehow have to function with freedoms that are simultaneously guaranteed and outlawed.
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees American citizens the right to a speedy, public trial. However the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 provided the government power to detain U.S. Citizens indefinitely if they were believed to have supported terrorism.
Sure, Sept. 11, 2001, rocked the country with fears of terrorism, but the government stripped away the freedoms of our citizens in order to provide the illusion of security, and now our Second Amendment is being attacked in a similar fashion.
The new Assault Weapons Legislation proposed by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, seeks to capitalize on the emotional responses to recent tragedies in order to provide the illusion of security but strips rights away from citizens.
A Congressional Research Service report on Gun Control Legislation dated Nov. 14, 2012, found homicides with firearms decreased after the end of the last Assault Weapons Ban, and found no existing data to support the effectiveness of the last assault weapons ban to prevent crimes perpetrated with banned weapons.
The last ban didn’t work, so why are we trying to ban them again? The summary of the new bill is Napoleonic; it outlaws modern semi-automatic rifles and pistols, and forces current owners to be documented and fingerprinted, requiring lawful citizens to prove they are innocent before they can continue to own certain types of firearms.
The forefather’s views on firearms places the right to own military grade rifles in the hands of civilians so they can defend themselves and protect this country. During World War II, Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto advised against invading the United States because there would be, “a rifle behind every blade of grass.” So if Sen. Feinstein thinks that the Second Amendment only applies to an organized militia (such as the National Guard), she is terribly wrong. If modern semi-auto handguns and rifles should be banned, why not just repeal the Second Amendment all together? After all, only 47 out of 50 States have Second Amendment-type clauses in their state Constitutions.
Maybe our politicians should focus on preserving the nation, rather than stripping away the rights of citizens.