Why is the second amendment different from the others?

Posted by Gadsden Dynamics on

There is an enormous amount of contradiction going on in the news today centered around the recent mass shootings. On the news we see liberals taking to the streets demanding stricter gun control and calling for a repeal of the second amendment. They say that the second amendment is no longer needed or is invalid because it was written during a time of war and our society and weaponry has changed in such a way that we no longer need the protection of the "right to keep and bear arms". 

In the same breath, i'm seeing complaint after complaint about "constitutional rights" being violated because the Parkland students are now required to wear clear backpacks in a feeble attempt to provide actual transparency to the matter of weapons being brought into schools. I've seen on multiple occasions those that claim that forcing students to wear clear backpacks violates the first amendment. Now let's stop right there and talk about this.

The first amendment holds absolutely no reference to high school students and what backpacks they may or may not carry. In fact, the constitution makes absolutely no mention of education whatsoever, and that was by design. So there's the first problem. The second problem I have with this claim is: why does the first amendment apply in today's society, but the second doesn't? If you want to make the claim that the second amendment doesn't matter anymore because our forefathers couldn't have ever imagined the societal and technological changes we have undergone, then why would you single out the second amendment, and not include the entire Bill of Rights? 

How about the fourth amendment? I don't think anyone is pushing to remove the protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, but look at how different society has changed with regards to searches and seizures? If societal and technological change is justification for amendment repeal, then surely that line of thinking should apply also to the fourth amendment at the very least, right? Could the founding fathers have ever imagined having cars, cell phones and computers and that they would fall under the protection of the fourth amendment? Probably not, but so far I haven't heard any call for a repeal of the fourth amendment.

Another thing we need to remember is this: the Bill of Rights was not written to reduce crime or violence. The Bill of Rights has a very strong and consistent theme that resonates in every single one of the 10 amendments included, and that is, the rights of the people! In fact, the ninth and tenth amendments confirm this even further, clarifying that the Bill of Rights is not a total summation of all the rights of the people, but that any other rights not specified are reserved either by the state or the individual. 

The argument that the forefathers couldn't have imagined weapons like an AR15 having the capability of killing so many people is irrelevant. The Bill of Rights has no underlying conditions of any kind, whether you are talking about crime, betterment of society, or anything else. It is an explicitly defined list of rights spelled out as a clarification to ensure the government does not overstep its bounds in any way to infringe on the rights that the people already have. 

The Constitution was not written to expire or be updated based on societal changes. It was written "in order to form a more perfect union....and secure the blessings of liberty". The forefathers wrote it to apply then and now. We need to be consistent in the way we discuss these issues. If we are to uphold the constitution we must uphold it all, not pick away at it for reasons that are not even relevant to the original intent of its writing. Now, if your wish is to get rid of the constitution entirely, then that is a different discussion, one I won't be having. 

Feel free to share your thoughts or comments below!

0 comments

Leave a comment

Please note, comments must be approved before they are published