Of Rights and Regulation

0937e0e96df56c0107d64810adea3448How much security can one safely expect in the modern world?

About this terrible shooting  by Omar Mateen in Orlando, Florida last weekend. Here is some weight I have to get off my conscience. It goes like this;

This shooter should never have had access to the weapon used, but because of our laws, that so far have served the purpose they were intended to, he was.

Why is that?

Our constitution is supposed to guarantee certain inalienable rights. The second amendment says we have the right to bear arms, but it also says that privilege is limited to “a well regulated Militia” and we now have the National Guard for that purpose. That still leaves open the definition of what constitutes a Militia. Is it run by the government? Then it is not a true Militia.

The other part of the 2nd Amendment that says that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”; is also open to interpretation, an interpretation widely held by some people to be absolute without any restrictions. But that one is too vague on it’s face.

This man involved had been on an FBI or Homeland Security watch list and that is where I have a problem. Our government is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people, yet we have our own government virtually spying on it’s own citizens and that is unconstitutional in my estimation.

The 14th Amendment is about civil rights and basically says, and this is supposed to apply nationally, that; “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection under the law.

This man had been spied on and evaluated and yet he still got a weapon and was still not denied his right to bear arms even with the spying. So we’re supposed to think that this spy system we have now gives us a sense of security? It sure doesn’t me. It must be eliminated.

One former president said that those that give up any rights and expect to gain security lose their rights and have no security (paraphrased of course).

He’s the problem. Assault type weapons. No one should have the right to any gun that has clips that require virtually no reloading, shots that can be fired as fast as one can pull the trigger, can be altered to full automatic easily and are basically weapons that only a trained military enlisted person should own. Why? Because they have just one purpose, to kill as many people as fast as possible.

That’s my interpretation of the 2nd and 14th Amendments and although I believe that this man had yet to commit any felony and therefore should not have been spied on, he had all the rights to these weapons just like any other U.S. citizen.

It’s the weapons that are so easily available is what needs to change here. Not the constitution, but the changing of some constitutionally legal laws designed to do some “well regulating” if you will.

This tragedy might have been prevented with a federal law that bans ALL assault type semi-automatic rifles.

I believe that also to have a real lasting effect the ban should also include any hand gun with the same features (semi-auto, clip fed, easily altered).

This stance, or opinion if you prefer and I expect to be called out. Be my guest.

This is legal to do and should be done. As for the whole spying thing, another day another subject.

Advertisements

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