Aimee Patton

A pleasantly eccentric take on politics

Another day…

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
7 infringement

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…

white males.

It all makes sense now…


3 thoughts on “Oh MO! Gun Ownership an Inalienable Right?

  1. bobarmi says:

    You are a history major really, must not have been US history. You keep referring to the Declaration of Independence without any apparent knowledge as to why that document was penned. The US Constitution is the charter by which the US is governed. You know that scrap of paper some dead white guys wrote up so they could oppress women and non-white men. Before you fall off that high and mighty horse you like to ride, maybe a slice of humble pie. Who freed the slave, Republicans; most slave owners were southern democrats. Who enacted the first gun restrictions, namely the laws against Blacks owning guns? Southern Democrats. Why you ask? The former slave owners were racist and wanted to maintain “control” of Blacks. Oh by the way, the KKK, yep founded by southern democrats. Why are Democrats such a bunch of haters and racist?

    So here is a little question, now don’t hurt yourself thinking (I’m going to give you the answer). Slavery is the ownership of a person, and the Owner is responsible for the (key word coming up) welfare of his property. Is there slavery in the United? (ok I lied, I am not going to give you the answer). Maybe if you come up for air long enough you will form an independent thought.

    By the way its unalienable dear only Leftists say inalienable, might want to look up the difference, very important. Oh and that right to life, well sure hopes that health care rationing thing works out for you. Those expensive meds, well we just may not be able to provide them, you know cost and sacrifice for the greater good. Now go drink you Kool-Aid and say your Ave Obama’s.

    1. Hey Bob- I haven’t heard from you in a while. Thanks for taking the time to comment!

      So.. The Democrat vs Republican thing. Here’s something to think about. Past political party definitions don’t work in modern days. example- Lincoln was for preserving the union. I don’t think he would have loved MO trying to create a new inalienable right since so many died preserving the union.

      You are correct again abt the u agree with me that MO is in the wrong trying to add or alter a document that is the basis of our foundation.

      I’m not the one on the high horse here. I would say state senators attempting to add a new inalienable/unalienable-the founding fathers used unalienable I looked it up-right may feel a bit higher on that horse. That takes some chutzpah to ward off any potential legislation.

      If my history sucks, I suggest you take it up with my university. In true Democrat form-I blame them 😉

      Anyway-thanks again for reading and commenting! I do appreciate it.
      Have a great Tuesday.

      1. bobarmi says:

        You know I like to try and agitate you, wink. Tuesday has been a great day, I got to go out to the gun range. You should come out some time. MO is nucking futz we both know that, when the best you to find for Senator is McCaskill and Akins, ouch. (do you hear the Benny Hill music) Of course here in Kansas we have our own drunk driving, skinny dipper to contend with. Lincoln would be ashamed of what the Republicans have become, a whiny bunch of cephalopods. The Republican Party is a nothing more than a farce. John McCain is a maverick, really what hell was that?

        The fact is that many fear the balance of power between the federal government and the states has eroded to the point where states rights have been nullified. Feinstein & Co. are constantly introducing bills that are from the git-go are unconstitutional in a clear attempt to push the Overton Window. We have a President who is selectively enforcing laws that push his political agenda, and bragging about how he gets away with it. Are you to not tired of the constant political Chicken Little act, no the sky is not going to fall, there is no wolf, stop with the drama.

        We are moving into scary time, people’s hearts are turning cold and tempers are getting short. There are more self styled militias now than there were prior to the Oklahoma bombing. Why? Is the President trying to set up a Prague Spring, does he want a peoples revolt? From my prospective he is leading us down the socialist path. As a history major you know,(or maybe not) that socialism is the greatest destroyers of human life. Stalin, Moa, Hitler, Pol Pot, Che all socialist…will history repeat itself again?

        I didn’t say your history sucks just that whatever you did study it wasn’t US history. I am sure you as a Democrat must have studied Nietzsche and Voltaire. Are you sure you didn’t major in Philosophy? I will give your collage credit they did turn out a fine koristne budale.

        I contend that the discussion over gun control issue was settled in 1779, you know that Bill of Right thing.

        Yes, I have been vermiss, the world needed some saving, but I am back…for now. Have a great week,

        p.s. Do you really say Ave Obamas?, oh wait you said your Jewish …nevermind.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: