To safeguard individual liberty, the state of Virginia became the last to approve the Bill of Rights Dec. 15, 1791, thus limiting government’s power over its citizens. Today’s protesters have called on government to “do something” about guns and point to retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ recent cry to abolish the Second Amendment.
Well countrymen and women, there’s an “app” to do just that. What’s missing in any discussions, however, seems to be some basic understanding of the process to repeal an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as the reasons why so many Americans find the notion utterly revolting when their liberties are under attack.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 of 50 states). In today’s divide — evidenced at every turn in government — it’s difficult to comprehend any such agreement on anything, let alone something as drastic as limiting foundational, unalienable rights of self-protection. Yet, our forefathers have provided a roadmap that cannot be superseded by any amount of bellyaching alone.
Rationale for gun owners to own a particular type of firearm or sheer numbers of them is often heard in sentences beginning with the words, “Why do you need…?” It’s a bogus question, it’s irrational, and a non-starter for any sensible discussion about guns.
The psychologist Abraham Maslow developed a theory suggesting humans are motivated to satisfy five basic needs, the first of which relates to issues of survival. While many folks today may focus more on pay and benefits to satisfy their most basic needs, others see survival in a more literal sense.
On June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled, once again, that police have no constitutional duty to protect a person from harm.
That duty and its inherent stark reality, therefore, rest on the shoulders of individuals. That’s where the “need” for guns begins for so many of us. What type and how many become no more than personal preference for various situations. Yet, the desire to own even more guns goes deeper than that.
Many people will invest in firearms and knives as alternatives to antique vehicles, gold, or other forms of capital; others keep them for myriad hunting purposes.
Firearms in a general sense were not always the best of investments, however, increasing in value at a lesser rate than inflation in years gone by. But we’ve witnessed the fact that as protesters protest and politicians push for infringements on Second Amendment protections, demand for firearms increases proportionately.
Consider Barack Obama’s administration years as a prime example of this economic reality and incessant talk about banning certain types of guns. The total economic impact of the firearms and ammunition industry in the United States increased from $19.1 billion in 2008 to $51.4 billion in 2017, a 169 percent increase, while the total number of full-time equivalent jobs rose from approximately 166,000 to almost 310,000, an 87 percent increase in that period, according to a recent report released by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the industry’s trade association.
There has been no better gun salesman than Obama and his minions in the history of this country and it occurred in an otherwise downward economy.
So, for those who desire change, you have it.
Tens of millions more firearms are in the hands of law-abiding American citizens since the failed enactment of the “assault weapons” ban of 1994. If “no more guns” means confiscation, just how will it be implemented? How will they be gotten from criminals?
And, how will anyone prevent basement manufacture or black market trade?
So, if anyone wants to begin an honest discussion about guns, let’s begin with some honest reality and not mere hyperbole so prevalent today.