Why Americans Should Not Be Restricted From Owning Fully Automatic Weapons.. Part I
As I often note, the problem with many “obvious” solutions as understood and supported by those on the left has to do with the acceptance of a false premise. Such is the case with the ongoing discussion regarding gun control. Constitutional questions always represent a power struggle between those who would take away our freedoms on the one hand and those who wish to protect them on the other.
Although some have argued that Newt Gingrich got the better of Piers Morgan when they faced off on the subject several days ago I’m afraid that I see things a bit differently. As pointed out by Mr. Morgan, and not for the first time, many individuals who claim to support the right to bear arms as expressed in the second amendment don’t really disagree with the basic liberal premise that restrictions on the ownership and possession of firearms restrictions are necessary and proper and thus apparently constitutional. Unfortunately Mr. Gingrich was unable to come up with an adequate response as to why his stand was any more principled or constitutional than the one which Mr. Morgan was espousing.
The fundamental problem is that when rights become subject to interpretation they end up losing much of their power in the translation. As was exemplified by Mr Gingrich, once the slippery slope is embarked upon these self-proclaimed second amendment supporters completely negate their own argument by accepting the fact that the right to bear arms can in fact be infringed upon. The obvious consequence of throwing the second amendment under the bus is that the entire nature of the discussion changes from one addressing the question of whether restrictions are constitutional in the first place to a completely different discussion which assumes that infringing on the right to bear arms is suddenly constitutional leaving only the question of what kind of restrictions are to be enacted to be answered. This was certainly the case in the referenced discussion between Mr Morgan and Mr. Gingrich.
In Part II I will address my remarks to those who are willing to think outside the box and thus allow themselves to see how the Second Amendment is a part of the whole and that the issues involved require a fundamental change in perspective. The question is not whether individual citizens have the right to bear arms, the real question is whether the individual citizen is a part of the government or whether the government is a separate and distinct entity.