But what of States’ Rights?
Those that know me know that I am pretty much a constitutionalist. I spend time considering the founding fathers’ intent behind how the constitution was written. One of the important amendments (more so than, say, prohibition, and the repeal of prohibition, the two dumbest parts of that document), the Second Amendment, is something subject to a great deal of controversy in this country.
Let us speak plainly of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and I’ll, of course, expect to hear from the NRA within the hour.
The 2nd Amendment is not part of the constitution so that citizens of this country can hunt, take part in target practice, or even to protect themselves in their homes against criminals, or on the street against criminals. THE ONE AND ONLY PURPOSE is so that citizens are always properly equipped to, should it be required of them, rise up in arms against the government of the United States of America, should the government become overly despotic (we ain’t anywhere near that, yet, so don’t brand me yet).
Let’s take a look at something. Let’s go back to the Declaration of Independence, and what happened there. The Declaration was a document that pretty much told England where to shove it. England was despotic, at least towards the colonies. The Declaration of Independence was written by subjects of the crown–people who knew that if they failed in obtaining independence for the colonies, they would certainly be put to death for treason. It was not lightly that they decided to take up arms against England. In fact, generally, they did NOT want to, but they felt it was required of them.
So, when the crown tried to keep his colonies, the citizens of the budding United States were able to fight back with the weapons that they had, and did so pretty damned well, if you ask me.
Let’s take a look at another difficult time in the history of this country: The Civil War, aka The War Between The States. That war was all about slavery, right? Not! The Civil War was about states’ rights. Granted, slavery was a reprehensible practice, but that was not exactly the issue. The issue was that of states’ rights. The Confederacy maintained that it was up to the states to decide the issue of slavery, and not the federal government. The CSA stood up and the Union attempted to quell this rebellion. Who was right? Well, let’s start with who won. The Union, pretty much, cleaned the CSA’s chronometer. To the victor go the spoils. Though it is the purpose of the federal government to protect all those persons within her borders, et cetera, it may not have been their place to decide slavery for all of the states. The thing is, however, the Union made the decision, and then won the resulting fight. Right or wrong, it happened.
Being neither a descendant of the slaves of this country, nor slave owners (that I know of), nor any other important demographic (to my knowledge), I can say that I know it as a moral truth that it is wrong for one man to own another. I can also say that it is wrong for the federal government to shove things down the throats of the states.
Currently, .R. 4547-a national Right-to-Carry (RTC) reciprocity bill that would honor state carry licensees nationwide has been introduced. This is something ramroded by the NRA, an organization who proclaims themselves to be very American, patriotic, and all that other flag waving stuff that irritates me.
I have very mixed feelings about this bill. On one level, it would allow me to carry my handgun in any state in the country–That’s a plus. The problem is, it’s shoving stuff down the throats of the states. The constitution says that the states cannot keep us from owning firearms. It doesn’t say a damned thing about states not being able to regulate their purchase, use, and carry. If it isn’t in the constitution, it isn’t there FOR A REASON. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t give me the right to carry a gun on my hip. The laws of the State of Texas do. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t give me the right to have non-registered firearms. The laws of the State of Texas do.
Don’t get me wrong. I think that firearms laws in states like California are terrible, excessive, and dangerous, but it is the right of those states to enact such legislation. It is the right of those states to not allow me to carry a concealed handgun, even though I am trained, certified, and licensed to do so in my home state.
Don’t get me wrong. If the bill passes (doubtful), I’ll be carrying my gat wherever I go, but I am not going to support the legislation in any way. Is that wrong of me? I think not.
One last point: The argument could be made that the federal government enacted legislation essentially forcing other states to honor drivers’ licenses from every state in the union. This bill would be essentially the same concept, right? Wrong. How does carrying a concealed handgun affect interstate commerce in any? Just food for thought.
Oorah
-Head
