another piece of paranoid gun legislation out of the heartland.
This from the “Oh my God, they might take our guns file”-
I give you from Senators Schaefer, Munzlinger and Kehoe from our great state of Missouri:
Here ye, here ye…SJR 14
Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense
2 of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of
3 the civil power, shall not be questioned[; but this shall not justify the wearing of
4 concealed weapons]. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be
5 inalienable. The state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these
6 rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their
Some say inalienable, some say unalienable. Some say tomato and some say tomato…I guess in print that doesn’t come out right, but you get my point. For the sake of this blog piece, I’ll say inalienable like my political friends in MO.
Somebody give the Founding Fathers a quick ring, we are changing the Declaration of Independence and those three inalienable rights – from the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness to now add -the right to have lots and lots of guns. I’m sure the NRA will provide more appropriate language when necessary. Making the right to bear arms inalienable means that any regulation to the 2nd amendment by the Federal Government won’t apply to Missouri. So if semi-automatic weapons are outlawed, Missouri is exempt (unless this ends up in court for years and years costing taxpayers tons of money while Constitutional lawyers try to figure this whole thing out.)
Anyway, yes I was a history major, but that was many years ago, some may say it was ancient history (insert laugh) so I went back and reread the Declaration of Independence.
Since the GOP is always rallying their troops with what “the founding fathers intended”, I thought it would be useful if I pointed out a few things to our Missouri Senators who want to add a new inalienable right.
1. We already have three – the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. One could argue that we shouldn’t add another unless we have perfected the first three. I wonder how the victims of senseless gun violence and gun accidents would feel about adding another inalienable right when their inalienable right – the right to LIFE wasn’t upheld?
2. If we are going to secure a right to be inalienable - how about if we go for a right that wasn’t that should have always been. Example – slavery. Until the Civil War, African-Americans were not free in this country. It took a constitutional amendment to guarantee their freedom. If there is going to be another inalienable right – how about if we go for a biggie like that one instead of declaring a right that we’ve always had suddenly “inalienable”. How about the right to life, liberty pursuit of happiness and never to hold another person as a slave. Quick history 101 – Slavery was legal at one time in the great state of Missouri.
3. This goes along with number 2. While re-reading the Declaration of Independence, there is a whole lotta talk about men. Not much talk about women’s rights. If we are going to make a right inalienable, how about if we make equal rights an inalienable right? Again, it is something that wasn’t at the founding of this great nation, so how about if we are sure we can never go back to that way again and make a women’s right to vote an “inalienable” right? The right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and equal representation in a democracy. I think we have a winner!
Just a quick reminder, it wasn’t all that long ago that women and minorities couldn’t vote, hold property or even hold certain types of jobs. White men have always been allowed to “bear arms”. It has not been suggested that guns been outlawed, only that certain types be regulated. I haven’t heard of amendments that affect slavery or women’s right to vote also be included in “inalienable” rights. It is curious that only a right that hasn’t ever been at risk of being taken away is the one suddenly that needs to be voted on to become “inalienable”. The rights that have only really come to be in the last 150 years involving people being viewed as property and women not having a say in government are the ones not being introduced as “inalienable”.
The one thing that the three Missouri State Senators and the Founding Fathers all have in common is not that they want to make certain rights “inalienable” it’s that they are all…
It all makes sense now…