A lot of hysteria surrounds the recent shooting in Parkland, Florida. Could more have been done to protect the students? Should more laws be passed to control or ban weapons? Why wasn’t this shooter questioned by the FBI after having been reported many times in the preceding months? Why did the armed resource officer refuse to enter the building and confront the active shooter? So many questions!
I really don’t want to dwell over all the ‘if’s, ands, or buts’. I would rather address the 2nd amendment as it relates to this story. People are calling for gun bans because of this shooting event. Most are quick to say it’s ‘for the children’. Really, now??? If they’re so concerned about the children, how come they’re not calling for a ban on abortions? Methinks it’s more about disarming law abiding citizens than about ‘saving the children’.
My personal opinion on this subject is simple… The 2nd amendment is absolute. It cannot be amended, ‘interpreted’, or otherwise watered down. This is because it contains the language ‘shall not be infringed’.
People will tend to argue that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has the ability to rule on the constitutionality of our laws. I disagree. Nowhere in the Constitution does it grant SCOTUS this right. The SCOTUS took this ability via Marbury v Madison (1803). In essence, the SCOTUS has been acting unconstitutionally since the time of this ruling. Here’s another point that should be mentioned… Congress may grant the SCOTUS additional powers, to include judicial review, but hasn’t up to this point. Why haven’t they done so? Hard to speculate, but it could it could be as simple as all the other SCOTUS rulings coming under review.
Here’s my line in the sand… the 2nd amendment is absolute, period. Is it a good idea to let mentally ill people etc., possess weapons? Absolutely not… but that isn’t up to me. The 2nd states ‘shall not be infringed’. That means we don’t have the ability to deny another citizen their constitutional right to bear arms.