A Constitutional Rant

I wish, sincerely, Second Amendment advocates and “strict constructionists” of the Constitution would do their effing homework. Just for the record, here’ s a brief synopsis of the real world:

  • U.S. Constitution (absent the first ten amendments) was adopted in September, 1787, but it was not ratified until June 21, 1788, when New Hampshire became the ninth of the thirteen states to ratify it.
  • The Second Amendment (one of ten amendments that form the Bill of Rights) was adopted on December 15, 1791.  People who can read calendars will understand that the Second Amendment, then, was not ratified until three and one-half years after the Constitution was adopted.  What this means, among other things, is that the original document can be changed, augmented, and otherwise clarified in light of circumstances and events that take place in an ever-changing world. So, for example, just like the twenty-first amendment overturned the eighteenth amendment (prohibition), the second amendment could be changed to reflect changes in the world in which we live.
  • In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that (and the emphasis here is my own), “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence” and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.
  • In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled (again, emphasis is mine) that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”

It has only been much more recent that the Supreme Court has broadened and radically expanded the applicability of the Second Amendment to permit such nonsensical bullshit as gun lobbyists and the sheep they groom in the form of NRA members, and their ilk, are promoting today.

The “strict constructionists” need only examine the real records of our democracy to discover that our forefathers were not the same sort of right-wing gun-nuts we have in Congress today.  If they want to, truly, live by the words and deeds of our founders, they would ignore the Bill of Rights altogether, wouldn’t they?  Or, at the very least, they would read history and would educate themselves about the principles enumerated at the outset. But of course they will not do that, because that does not serve their present purpose, i.e., the total consolidation of power by the monied class, who wish for nothing but absolute control.

Don’t these fanatics realize that it wasn’t until 2008 that a deeply politicized and conservative Supreme Court ruled expressly that the amendment protects an individual’s right to possess and carry firearms. That, my friends, was seven years ago.  Yet we’re told the Constitution has “always” guaranteed our rights to climax while holding assault weapons close to our bodies in public parks and churches and public schools. The imbeciles, and I use that term charitably, who claim the Second Amendment has “always” guaranteed individuals’ right to own and brandish dangerous and stupidly ugly weapons are stupid in the extreme, or they simply choose to rewrite history to suit their twisted political perspective.

Does this issue piss me off? Oh, $&##!#*@#$$$ yes!

The twenty-first amendment to the Constitution repealed the eighteenth amendment, thus ending prohibition. The second amendment is not sacred; it, too, can be repealed. Do I advocate that?  No. I do, though, advocate for a clarification of the second amendment, along with a variety of other clarifications and laws, if need be, to make and keep access to guns difficult.

I’d also be in favor of mandatory education for everyone, whether they want to learn or not. Make it a requirement until at least age…twenty-seven.

About John Swinburn


5 Responses to A Constitutional Rant

  1. Holly, there’s nothing magical about 27; just a random number! I prefer Dorothy Parker’s comment on knowledge: “You can lead a horticulture but you can’t make her think.”

  2. Johnny Don't-Get-Your-Gun says:


  3. Holly Forrest says:

    What’s magical about age 27? As for mandatory education, just remember you can bring a man to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.

    Misconceptions about constitutional rights abound. It’s particularly amusing when folks confuse them with the Ten Commandments, somehow believing them to be divinely inspired.

  4. dcrector says:

    I agree with everything you said!

Please tell me how this post strikes you.
