This option will reset the home page of The Hayride restoring closed widgets and categories.

Reset The Hayride homepage
RSS Feed Facebook twitter

It’s Not Even A 2nd Amendment Issue Anymore


The Japanese internment camps during World War II were the result of a Presidential Executive Order, too.

This government is taking steps on gun control that go way beyond a disagreement on the meaning and relevance of the 2nd Amendment. It has become a constitutional debate on the suspension of guaranteed constitutional rights by executive order. To allow a president to unilaterally ignore one amendment, for any reason, is to accept the power of the presidency to arbitrarily suspend any and all constitutional rights, without the consent of Congress.

The simple fact is that even if the benevolence of this administration with such power can be assumed, there is no guarantee on future administrations. That is among the reasons why the constitution set hard limits on government authority by reserving certain rights for the people. The constitution provides a legal mechanism for evolving these limits to accommodate an issue that is widely regarded as important. Past examples include: women’s suffrage, equal protection, alcohol prohibition, reversing alcohol prohibition, and outlawing poll taxes. But the idea that any president can suspend guaranteed rights by executive order is the exact scary scenario that the Constitution is designed to prevent.

I don’t own a gun. I have never owned a gun. And I have never had any desire to own a gun. In fact, I’m also among the people who think that a populace armed with even the most badass of automatic assault rifles isn’t much of a match for a government that has hydrogen bombs, M1 tanks, stealth aircraft, submarines, satellite targeting, and the general at-will ability to stick a missile up the rear of some unsuspecting a-hole on the other side of the world. However, guns are still a key component to the formula that made and keep America free.

The possibility certainly exists that one day our freedom could be guaranteed indefinitely by the Constitution without the need for an armed populace, and such a discussion should be welcome and ongoing in the appropriate context: a constitutional amendment. But if our chief executive can unilaterally act to curtail the peoples’ constitutional rights, the risks of guns in our society will never outweigh the benefits.


4 Comments

  1. Jim Ryals says:

    "In fact, I’m also among the people who think that a populace armed with even the most badass of automatic assault rifles isn’t much of a match for a government that has hydrogen bombs, M1 tanks, stealth aircraft, submarines, satellite targeting, and the general at-will ability to stick a missile up the rear of some unsuspecting a-hole on the other side of the world." All that great stuff sure let us win decisively in Afghanistan, didn't it?

  2. Re: Jim Ryals comment.

    Very well stated, all wars ultimately require basic ground troops with rifles in order to control territory.

    Millions of people resisting a tyrannical government can defeat the most sophisticated military as long as the have basic weapons to resist.

    That was understood by the founding fathers and is understood by patriots of today as well.

    the ownership of basic weapons is one of the reasons that gun registration can be and is dangerous. A government that knows where the weapons are can in fact at any time seize those weapons.

    Remember, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting, but about self defense against criminals and tyrannical government.

    Fred Speckmann
    commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com

  3. Hello? The constitution forbids the Federal government from using hydrogen bombs, M1 tanks, stealth aircraft, submarines, satellite targeting, and the general at will ability to stick a missile up the rear of some unsuspecting a-hole on the other side of the world on its citizens. And for some fun facts the U N treaties that democrats and this administration have been making us a party to. Which most on the right say is unconstitutional. Just happens to mandate by a matter of international law. That all signing nations recognize the right of any area or region (state) of a country to secede from the central government. In the people of the area or region feel that the central government has become too overbearing and operating in a way that is contrary to the interests and beliefs of the people in an area or region. For some reasons with some of the noise going on right now I find that ironic.

  4. The gun issue is just the beginning. If this administration can win on this one, expect to see other attacks on the Constitution by the left. I fully expect the next four years to be a continuous battle by this administration to nullify the Constitution. By any means possible. This is just the tip of the iceberg, the rest is hidden until after the coronation, er, inauguration on Monday.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.