In light of Jim Webb’s terrific blunder with a staff member and a loaded firearm, and his subsequent mishandling of the scandal, I guess a lot of Democrats are eager to have this issue go away. Some are beginning to propose potential solutions, one of which is apparently to repeal the Second Amendment. It won’t do much to save Webb, but it at least gives raging liberals something better to think about than the stark reality of what a bad candidate Jim Webb was as their standard-bearer. Jim Webb’s statements about how important these Second Amendment rights are seem to suffer from selective listening by Democrats who are eager to believe that every inane thing he says is worthy of great consideration and the acme of common sense. When he manages to talk about something which can actually be underpinned by the founding principles of our republic, Democrats instantly become hearing-impaired. Or they’re just embarrassed.
Not only is it a terrifically dumb idea to start monkeying around with the Bill of Rights, but the level of misunderstanding these folks have about the Second Amendment is stunning. Now that the concept of the citizen’s ultimate power to retain the means of their own defense should the government ever devolve into tyranny is seen as a quaint throwback to a long-distant past, some Democrats think that it’s time for the ultimate in the “living document” philosophy: that it’s time to re-craft which God-given rights should be protected from encroachment, and which shall be subjected to the shifting winds of public popularity. I can only wonder what other mischief serious consideration of a constitutional re-write might make possible.
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned are the numerous provisions in state constitutions that might help those few who seem to have such a hard time understanding what the Second Amendment means. Perhaps they’re not aware of the following, which is a pretty good one as it’s the inspiration for the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution:
Constitution Of Virginia, Article 1, Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Democrats love to dismiss the notion that many of us actually are strongly motivated by our respect for constitutionally-protected rights, and characterize our concerns over some candidates who lack this respect as a near pavlovian response to anyone that mentions the phrase “gun grabber.” It’s nice of them to prove that our concerns are not at all unfounded, that there are folks out there seriously considering the notion that our rights don’t deserve protection, and that under the guise of “gun control” a nanny state might possibly craft a utopian society where brutal governments and violent criminals cannot possibly exist. We know from history that all it takes in order to eliminate crime and repression is one more law to be enacted. Or one more after that. Or yet another one. Or, well, you get the idea.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.