A question…

…posed by some recent Facebook discussion.

“If the American people want new gun control, why doesn’t Congress try to amend the Constitution? The founding fathers drafted the Constitution so it can be amended…..just throwing random thoughts out there….”

“But that’s too slow. Something must be done NOW! FOR THE CHILDREN OF SANDY HOOK! And the fact that you don’t agree means you hate children and want them to die!…I should note that the above was pure sarcasm. I happen to think that even if an amendment was passed allowing for full-on door-to-door confiscation, we would still have a right and duty to shoot the bastards doing the collecting.”

“Then in theory you would be against the Constitution…”

Interesting viewpoint, to be sure.

It raises an intriguing question, though: At what point would you say the Constitution isn’t worth defending anymore? I certainly think something allowing for gun banning and/or confiscation would be it, because you know such would be the antithesis of everything the Founding Fathers put their dicks on the chopping block for. It’s ultimately not about the Constitution itself but the rights that it protects. We may well be run by a government of laws and not men, but it’s worth asking — just what laws would we have a right and/or duty to break? Thoughts?

Advertisements

Tags:

2 Responses to “A question…”

  1. Andrew Says:

    I think the standard is, and has always been, Natural Law. That’s what we should be telling those who raise this particular issue.

    Natural Law was the standard understood by the Continental Congress which approved the Declaration of Independence. It was also the standard understood by both sides during the Ratification debates. The Anti-Federalists fought ratification until the Bill of Rights was included because they feared that rights not explicitly stated would be infringed. If the Bill of Rights were to be repealed, in whole or in part, the new Government would not be the Founder’s Republic. Insofar as it violated the inalienable rights of previously law-abiding Americans, and thus the Natural Law, it would merit scorn, not respect.

    Of course, then we would have to explain Natural Law, or just hand out copies of Locke’s Second Treatise along with the DoI, USC, and BoR. Folks who won’t trouble themselves to think about their form of government have a very slim chance of keeping that government free.

  2. John Says:

    The Supreme Court has already held that the right to bear arms does not depend on the Constitution for its existence. There is also an argument to be made that the ratification of the Constitution included the Bill of Rights, so that repeal any of the first ten amendments would be an invalidation of the original ratification: quite a can of worms to open.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: