In the wake of the overly publicized gathering last weekend in
Washington, D.C., by “mothers against gun violence,” in which
Million
Mom March participants called on Congress to pass “more responsible gun control legislation,” I hasten to discuss the obvious differences between “rights” and “privileges” in this great nation of ours.
In America, as most people ought to know (but don’t), there is a difference between “rights” and “privileges.” This whole gun “control” debate has been focusing on the latter, and that is a mistake — never once does our Constitution remotely refer to our “right to keep and bear arms” as a privilege to be doled out on whim by those elected few who lead us.
Truth be known, being able to own and, if one chooses, carry, any combination of firearms in this country is a right that long ago was guaranteed by the United States Constitution via the Second Amendment. Soccer moms and gun control marchers probably hate hearing that, but truth is truth regardless of where (or whom) it comes from.
If you soccer moms disagree with this truth, then you should
read
the text of the Second Amendment for a more thorough and complete understanding of what it means. If you don’t believe Americans have this right, then you’ve been listening to the wrong people educate you about this issue; if you believe this right should be taken away, then you’re a dangerous bunch that is unwittingly flirting with the same kind of tyranny that caused this country’s birth in the first place.
Perhaps what you advocate isn’t your fault. Perhaps you’ve been duped by too many people in government and the media who tell you that, no, this right was not given to ordinary Americans, it was granted only to those who form “a well-regulated militia.” Perhaps you also think that this right is only given to us (which would make it a privilege instead), when in fact the Founding Fathers wrote this amendment because they knew it was a God-given right for people to be able to defend themselves.
If this is what you truly believe, then perhaps you also believe that your right to “peaceably assemble” in Washington, D.C., as you did last weekend, is also just a privilege doled out to you by kind and gentle lawmakers whom we elect to sit in for the rest of us in the nation’s capitol.
Well, your action on Mother’s Day was not a privilege, ladies — it was a right
granted to you by the same smart fellows who gave us the “right to keep and bear arms.”
As in the Second Amendment, the First Amendment also does not contain any “qualifying” language. You were given the “right” to peacefully assemble to “redress” government issues as a matter of being a U.S. citizen, not because you were given permission to be there.
And so it is with the “issue” of guns in this country. Law-abiding people who want to own and carry guns have the right to do so if they choose to exercise it.
Mandating that Americans must have their guns locked up, must have trigger locks on each of them, must register them with federal officials, must only be allowed to buy one a month, must be subjected to background checks, and must do any number of other things to “qualify” for this right which has already been granted, amounts to an infringement, regardless of what Donna Dees-Thomases — anything but a constitutional expert — tells you.
The
Merriam-Webster Dictionary describes “infringement” as “an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege.” It describes a “right” as “something to which one has a just claim” and “something that one may properly claim as due.” Meanwhile, a “privilege” is described as “a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor.” The key word in that last definition, ladies, is granted — granted by whom? And under what conditions?
Is this starting to make sense? If those in power can “grant,” they can also “take away.” That’s why our Founding Fathers drew up a list of constitutional rights; they understood tyranny and didn’t want future leaders “granting” or “taking away” rights you have already been granted.
Someone should also explain the difference between rights and privileges to little Napoleons like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. She obviously needs a lesson.
Earlier this week a few
press sources reported on her new Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2000, which would — as its title suggests — infringe upon the right “to keep and bear arms” by requiring law-abiding gun owners to register their weapons with good ol’ Uncle Sam. Under this bill, if gun owners did not comply, then they would have their gun rights revoked — something that is only supposed to be permitted with a privilege (because it is “granted”), not a right.
Having said that, I implore soccer moms to go back and
read the text of the Second Amendment. If you do you’ll discover something: There is nothing there that requires Americans to have to register their guns, equip them with trigger locks, limit their purchase of them, or submit themselves to “qualifying” background checks. And there is nothing in the Second Amendment granting Congress the authority to “make any laws necessary for the enforcement” of this amendment.
Like the First Amendment soccer moms and gun control marchers used in D.C. last weekend, in short, there is no authority whatsoever granting lawmakers the ability to regulate and infringe upon the Second Amendment either, especially in the egregious manner proposed by Feinstein.
Can anyone imagine having to pass “background checks” and be “registered” and “licensed” just to be able to come to Washington, D.C. and speak out against some perceived government or social injustice? Can you imagine not being allowed to exercise your First Amendment right if, perchance, you were on the “wrong side” of any given issue?
Yet, these are precisely the kind of restrictions gun grabbers propose for gun owners, even though they ostensibly have already been granted as a birthright under the Constitution. What gives? Why the hypocrisy?
Never mind that observers have already predicted Feinstein’s new bill will be DOA in Congress. Never mind that she is likely only attempting to get some publicity for herself. Never mind that this bill is nothing short of hysteria gone mad. Never mind that it punishes the wrong people (as usual) and fails to recognize that laws alone are not enough to thwart aberrant human behavior.
What’s important here, soccer moms, is to recognize and understand that Feinstein’s mentality and reasoning for her bill borders on lunacy and reeks of contempt of the very law she has sworn to uphold. She is saying that since driving a car and being allowed to hunt require license, so too should gun ownership.
That’s apples and oranges because driving a car is a privilege, while firearms possession, carry and ownership in this country is a right.
Over the weekend Dees-Thomases said her Million Mom March organization was going to transform itself into a political entity aimed at endorsing candidates who promoted strict gun control measures. Like Handgun Control, Inc. and the plethora of left-wing socialists before them, I find it genuinely sanctimonious to use one constitutional right to attack another.
