Which Parts of the Constitution Should Be Tossed?

Here's what I don't get… whenever someone steps in front of a camera and says that maybe guns are weapons and gun owners should be held accountable for that, every GOP member and their dog hops onto their soap-box and starts screaming about their Constitutional Rights… but whenever other aspects of the constitution are outright used as toilet paper then flushed… crickets.  Kinda makes me wonder about the validity of their arguments…

Let's take a look at a few parts of the constitution and examine how they apply to some of the more recent events.
The Second Amendment
Declares "a well regulated militia" as "necessary to the security of a free State", and as explanation for prohibiting infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

This is the GOP's favorite part of the Constitution, and the Democrat's least favorite, it's been the battle ground for many drawn-out fights, one of the more recent ones being in the Washington Supreme Court.  It was a move to control firearms in the state and it was overturned and the Republicans trumpeted it a victory for 2nd Amendment rights.   The constitution was upheld and America's rights and freedoms still stand strong.

The Fourth Amendment
Guards against searches, arrests and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed.

Specifically we'll look at this particular snippet of text:

"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."

The recent FISA amendments have shredded that particular part of the constitution.  It's not needed anymore, times are different, the fourth amendment is "soft on Terror" and therefore every GOP in the Senate voted to scrap it ensuring that any phone call or e-mail or piece of electronic data leaving the country will be monitored and turned over to the government without any need of a warrant or probable cause.  Sure it's a small infringement on American's rights and freedoms, but to stop terror… well worth the price.

The Fifth Amendment
Forbids trial for a major crime except after indictment by a grand jury; forbids punishment without due process of law; and provides that an accused person may not be compelled to testify against himself (this is also known as "Pleading the Fifth").

This Amendment has also been sacrificed on the alter of the War On Terror.  Recently Guantanamo Bay detainees were told that they got a right to a fair trial, so begrudgingly the Constitution is upheld, however the evidence they gave, possibly under torture, is being used against them.  So the fifth amendment really isn't needed anymore either. 

So my point here is that in the GOP's mind the War on Terror justifies the compromise of the Fourth and the Fifth Amendments, as well as taking a few stabs at the Fourteenth Amendment, and completely ignores the 8th Amendment's stance on "Cruel and Unusual Punishment".

But this is the War on Terror, sacrifices must be made to ensure the safety of American citizens after all.

So here's what I don't get:

This guy, Jim D. Adkisson just shot two people because of their political views.  He targeted them because the church they went to was according to him, "too liberal".    This is textbook terrorism right from the elephants mouth, if he were Arabic or had any shade of skin but pasty white he would already be on his way to Guantanamo.  

Herein lies my confusion, the War on Terror is a god that demands sacrifice, and sacrifice it has gotten in plenty.  The constitution is but a virgin vestibule to be penetrated by it's frothy member.  But the Second Amendment is still somehow sacred, despite the fact that guns are infinitely more accessible than explosives, that they're more cost effective, and that we all know that terrorists DO use guns, it is the one part of the Bill of Rights that cannot be touched.  

Why?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Advertisements

About Helmsman

Importing a Vox Blog.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Which Parts of the Constitution Should Be Tossed?

  1. Josh says:

    This 'merica is a gun culture and I cannot understand the reason why. Fear, as said before, is the best guess. The second amendment is the one that I have the most contention with. I guess I just don't get the gun culture in which I live.
    Terrorist DO use guns, TK. And you know what, here in our country they are pretty fucking easy to get. But, do we close the gun shops, pawn shops and outlaw firearms in this time of terroism fervor? No, we do not. Why? Because the gun lobby is large, powerful and loaded (money not ammo). It all boils down to money…it always does.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s