The cure for the evils of
democracy is more democracy!
H. L. Mencken, Notes on Democracy, 1926
As
noted in previous blog posts, there are a multitude of legislative and thus
political issues rising to the forefront of national discourse. The Madison
Conservative will approach all of them from the point of any given issue and
its ramifications and realities as they may relate to the United States
Constitution. There are many from the entire political and media spectrum that
have chosen, and will choose, to address these issues as they relate to the
’feelings’ involved. While a component for some, the Madison Conservative
considers such perspectives to be useless, pointless and cowardly. Government
is not based upon feelings, or any other emotional foundation.
Once
stripped of the emotional, all that remains are the harsh and complex realities
that these issues require substantive and thoughtful solutions and cannot be
addressed with simple catch-phrases and bumper sticker ideology.
This
particular post will consider the attempts made by the political class to
answer the concerns of the electorate in the aftermath of the horrific Newtown school shooting.
The
issue, once stripped of the emotional content, is not resolved by banning
weapons and stronger background checks, despite what the political class and
their media flacks would try to have the American people believe.
The
framers and founders had sufficient experience with tyranny and an unrestricted
government. They wrote their new Constitution with the deliberate intent of
limiting the scope and power of the government. While many point to the second amendment
as their sole defense and bulwark to spurn any further gun control, that is a
limited view and disregards the wider breadth of the peoples right to thwart
off an ever encroaching government.
This
is little doubt of the framers fears when the second, third and fourth amendments
are taken together to appreciate that they had no illusions of a utopian federal
government but rather had a clear and concise understanding of the need to
curtail an unchecked federal bureaucracy.
To
wit:
The
Second Amendment to the United
States Constitution:
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.
The
Third Amendment:
No Soldier shall, in time of
peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time
of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The
Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
One
hundred and thirteen words that limit the ability for the sweeping gun control
the Obama administration and liberals in Congress wish to impose upon the
people.
{It
should be noted before proceeding that Chicago,
Illinois has the strictest gun
laws in the nation. It is also currently the murder capital of the nation. The
founding fathers wisdom is still prescient today.}
The
three amendments, taken as a whole, expressly limit the ability of the
government to impose their will upon the people without cause, and provides for
their ability to fight back.
It
is that simple – the federal authorities cannot infringe upon the rights of the
people to bear arms, to allow the government to take control of a citizens
dwelling for any purpose, unless specifically providing due legal cause. It is
unconstitutional to take private information – their medical history, in this
case – and make it public, which is in effect what the political left is
advocating.
It
is impossible to square gun bans and limitless background checks with the
Constitution.
It
cannot constitutionally be done – it is that simple.
Of
course, those rights do not come completely unfettered of responsibility. One
may not use freedom of speech to shout ‘fire’, absent one, in a crowded
theater. One may have the right to bear arms – that does not extend to owning
tanks and nuclear missiles.
In
addition, despite what the left would attempt to have the electorate believe,
there are indeed background checks in place for weapons purchasers. There are a
multitude of laws that have been enacted to regulate gun purchases, but they
lay fallow and absent any manner of enforcement. Adding new layers of impotence
serves no point – the law abiding citizen is already predisposed to following the law; it is the criminal who will
find a way to circumvent any new legislation, especially attempts to add new
guidelines to background checks.
For
those who want background checks extended to include any history of mental
illness, there seems no ability to answer two fundamental questions inherent in
that choice:
1
– Define what mental illness is, and at what point does it remove a citizens
rights, and
2
– How will that information be provided and data-based? It would seem that many
would attempt to extend The Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) to allow the
personal medical information of a patient to be streamed into some national informational
registry.
That
is unacceptable, and no longer would allow a citizen to be secure in their
property or personal papers and would constitute an illegal search and seizure,
in this case a seizure of information.
These
are not easy issues to grapple with, and a national debate must be had.
It
cannot allow to be had by those offering quick salves to the problem. The
American people must remain vigilant against an ever expanding federal
government who is acting, the people are told, only in the nations best
interest – to ‘save the children’, a convenient ruse used by many authoritarian
regimes as a means to a tyrannical end.
We
owe ourselves and our posterity more than subservient acquiescence.
