Re(2): A Possible Alternative to the Australian Plan Posted on 3/13/2018 at 17:47:49 by Pete Schoeffel
Today I sent the following to our Jacksonville newspaper:
To the Editor:
Many recent writers to the Times Union have voiced sincere pleas that there be new laws reasonably restricting access to guns. Today's plea averred that there was no Constitutional barrier to restrictions on gun ownership, and many others cite the existing law forbidding ownership of fully automatic weapons as an example of a way to not violate the Constitution.
One is left to wonder whether these well-meaning people have ever read the second amendment. The second amendment states that the right to" "bear arms" "shall not be infringed." What that first phrase refers to is all weapons, large knives, machine guns, tanks, blowpipes, guided missiles,--anything that is an "arm." Second, the phrase, "shall not be infringed," forbids any encroachment on that right. Clearly all laws that reduce an American's right to arm himself are unconstitutional, including the one denying the right to a fully automatic arm.
We are in a hard place. We would like bad people not to have guns. Who can argue with that? The trouble is that like so many seemingly desirable changes in life, IT'S NOT EASY. People of the liberal bent think the Constitution should,"be a living document". They want the easy way out, forgetting that Americans made a contract with each other, the Constitution, but it can be altered. The way to do it is called amendment, and it's right there in the Constitution. If it is desirable to pass laws that infringe the right to bear arms, and I agree that we probably should, make the difficult effort to amend the Constitution. Stop whining.
Peter Schoeffel Replies: There have been no replies.