Recently the President labeled the NRA and gun owners at large, absolutists. The President may have meant this as a derogatory term so as to portray said groups as closed minded and “out of the mainstream” but that is not the meaning of the word. Let me define it for you.

Absolutism: 1) the principle or the exercise of complete and unrestricted power in government 2) any theory hold that values, principles, etc., are absolute and not relative, dependent, or changeable. Syn: totalitarianism

After reading that definition, hopefully, one can see my confusion. The first definition more aptly applies to the President that it does to the group to which he was referring (also note synonym). The second isn’t by default a bad thing. We hold to many values and beliefs that we believe are unchangeable (the fact that murder, rape, lying, cheating, stealing, etc are all unacceptable in modern society for example). 

Instead a well-reasoned American can only assume that the President means to incite conflict where none should exist. The “right to keep and bear arms” is an absolute right. This fact is not up for negotiation or debate. The 2nd Amendment was ratified as part as the Bill of Rights on December 15th, 1791. Since that time we, as Americans, have considered it our absolute right to own the firearms we choose.  Of this we can be absolutely sure and of which there is no debate.

Instead the President is attempting to shift the debate away from where it should be, our mental healthcare crisis, to a place that’s absolutely nonsensical.  He is attempting to get rid of a symptom rather than a cause. Instead of trying to actually find a way to solve the real problem, he is twisting the facts to suit his own agenda. Never has it been proposed that the most effective way to end drunk driving is to make it harder to buy a car or limit how much gas you can buy at one time (the price of gas not withstanding).  Except the right to drive or own an automobile is not guaranteed in the constitution as is the right to bear arms. Staying on that same argument, I can buy virtually as much alcohol as I want in one trip as well; why not limit that? Remember we have tried to ban alcohol before and all that did was create a lucrative nationwide black market.

The moral of the story is that those who mean to do evil, will. Many people each day do much harm exercising their 1st Amendment rights. The government harms many more people each day by ignoring our 4th and 5th Amendment rights. In an age where everything is subject to the whims of the time, we cannot allow ourselves to ignore rights, freedoms, or duties because of fads or twisted facts. If our nation collectively decides that the 2nd Amendment no longer applies, then we need to amend the constitution to remove it. Otherwise, let us focus on things we can change like: better treatment and diagnosing of mental illness, research into the causes of mental illness, research into the drugs that we use for mental illness to determine if the side effects risks are greater than the condition that is being treated, stronger oversight, authority, and accountability of the FDA, just to name a few.

We always hear about the all-powerful gun lobby and the evil it promotes but let me put things in perspective as I close, allowing you to make your own judgement. Between 1998 and 2005 the Big Pharma lobby spent $900 million lobbying at the federal level (i.e. congress).  Between 2001 and 2010 (this includes the time in which the assault weapons ban was allowed to lapse) the NRA spent $2.7 million lobbying at the federal level. Now which lobby was supposed to be untouchable and  all-powerful again? Which lobby do you believe has more power over legislation? Why is it when someone dies due to drunk driving, that same reason is listed as the cause of death but when someone shoots up a school, who was also taking Xanax or Paxil, it is instead listed as a regular homicide? Now we know who is really buttering congress’ bread, don’t we?

In recent weeks the debate over the reach, definition and original intent of the 2nd Amendment has been re-ignited yet again. In the wake of the horrible events of Sandy Hook, our nation is soul searching in an attempt to balance rights against security. As much as I would love to dive into the absurdity that is the current proposal from the President and the overall 2nd Amendment discussion nationwide. I would only be mentioning part of the larger war on our rights as a people.

Over the past decade we have seen our personal liberties slowly taken away by an overreaching and dictatorial federal government with no respect for the rights and/or liberties of its citizens. In 2008 a President was elected who promised to right the system. Instead over the last 4 years we have seen an acceleration in the systematic destruction of our rights.

We have seen the 1st Amendment re-interpreted to protect a religious hate group masquerading as a church protesting the funerals of soldiers and children. Yet, that same 1st Amendment has been ignored as the definition of “hate speech” grows ever larger. Our judicial system continues to try to “level the playing field” by slowly but surely inching towards criminalizing offensive speech.

In regards to our 2nd Amendment rights, this can only be viewed as the next volley in the total assault on our constitution rights. All branches of our government have at every opportunity weakened our constitution; making it say what they want it to say. Whenever one attempts to defend this amendment it rarely ends with civility, usually devolving to a shouting match. Our “leaders” constantly discuss the 2nd Amendment through the lens of what is needed for hunting. Unfortunately, there is no mention of hunting in said amendment. Instead it says ”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.” This can rightly (and historically) be interpreted with a two fold meaning. 1) So that in times of national duress a militia can be raised instantaneously by the people of the people and 2) In the event our government becomes dictatorial and takes our rights away (sound familiar?) we can take our government and country back. This is yet another example of trying to change the meaning of a constitutional guarantee.

The 4th and 5th Amendments have also endured a relentless onslaught. The FBI is continuously trying to push the boundaries around the 4th Amendment and luckily the last attempt (which made it to SCOTUS) was struck down. In regards to the 5th Amendment, it received its last notable trampling when Anwar Al Alaki (an American citizen) was killed while riding in a convoy across the Yemeni desert. All because he was labeled a terrorist, our President was able to act as judge, jury and executioner. Now our government hid behind the small clause in the constitution that mentions “public danger”. Ill leave you to decide if a man riding in a convoy through the desert is a public danger. Regardless of what he may have said, he was protected under the 1st Amendment.

This current fight over the 2nd Amendment is but a canary in the mine. We the people are slowly losing our government to those who would twist it to do their bidding. We are losing the Union which has stood for over 200 years. It is enduring an attack against its very soul. The question is can we save it or does it have to be born anew to flourish?