Protecting the Constitution

I would hate to think that anyone was secretly wishing for the horrific tragedy last week in Sandy Hook, but the immediate response by a faithful cadre on the left leaves me wondering.  The reaction from liberals from the moments we first heard the story, has been to gleefully shriek that we must turn to the position they have been hoping for for decades - seize all firearms from private citizens.  Immediately!  For the children, of course.  The 2nd amendment be damned.  Their arguments go like this: our founding fathers could not possibly have intended for Americans to have handguns or assault rifles, they lived in the age of muskets and surely would want us limited to that option; madmen and criminals are able to get their hands on guns, so private citizens should not have them to "get them off the streets".  Some even claim we need to take them from the police as well.  Not only should we move quickly for a ban on the mysterious "assault weapons", we should seize them from every registered gun owner.  It's really been a disgusting display!

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - 2nd Amendment to the Constitution

The framers of the Bill of Rights saw the 2nd amendment as a basic right of a free citizenry and even as an obligation in order to defend against a oppressive government or external invasion.  The intent was not to just provide for people defending their homes against burglars   Remember. the Constitution was written for a newly free United States after a revolution against British rule.  An armed citizenry was responsible for the American Revolution.  That's what a militia is.  Would we be able to fight against a military insurrection or oppressive government using single-shot hunting rifles or shotguns?  Yes, but not very effectively given the state of today's military arsenals.  Citizens need to be able to have at least close-to-comparable firepower to that of the government.  That is the entire point of the 2nd amendment.  On the political talk shows we've heard the response, from conservatives even, that even with AR-15s we couldn't defend against the US military.  Really?  That's exactly what the British government thought about some farmers and merchants in the territories taking up arms against the renowned British army.  Every uprising against oppressive, tyrannical governments across the globe have been residents taking up arms against a much more powerful army.  


But what about the "public safety"?  Doesn't it trump our 2nd amendment rights?  Absolutely not!  The fact is that these incidents have been become less frequent, though with immediate, round-the-clock access to anything happening anywhere on earth it does not appear so.  While that does not in the least lessen the gravity of the act, we need to instead consider what contributed to the situation.  Why did the gunman's mother allow access to her legally obtained firearms by her mentally unstable son?  Why hadn't she received the support she needed to ensure he was properly treated?


Haven't we already given away too many of our rights in the name of "public safety"?  The government can tap our phones, indefinitely detain us, monitor our email, and assassinate us on foreign soil with no due process.  Presidents Obama has signed more "secret" Presidential Orders into effect than all other previous presidents combined, taking away more of our liberties with every stroke of the pen.  Haven't we given away enough without actually re-writing the Constitution?  As Benjamin Franklin so famously said,

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

I think we deserve both.