Gun Control Advocates Like to Contradict Themselves

I maintain a relatively positive outlook most of the time by finding the funny side of things. Because of this I can find the Star Tribune somewhat entertaining at times. If I were a more negative person the Star Tribune would be a constant source of anger. Both the articles written by the paper’s staff and the letter received from their readers are often headache inducing if you try to find any logic. Take the following letter sent to the Star Tribune:

In response to the Jan. 10 letter on gun violence that ended with “Never forget, the Constitution was created to protect us citizens from our government”: This libertarian myth is contrary to the full breadth of the document. According to constitutional scholar Garrett Epps (writing in the Nation, Feb. 7, 2011): “[The] document as a whole is much more concerned about what the government can do — not with what it can’t. From the beginning, it was empowered to levy taxes, to raise armies, to make war, to set the rules of commerce and to bind the nation through treaties and international agreements. … [It] was not written to weaken an overreaching Congress but to strengthen an enfeebled one.”

I actually agree with this paragraph. The Constitution was actually a federal power grab. Before it the federal government was ruled by the Articles of Confederation, which kept most power in the hands of the individual states. In fact the federal government was unable to collect taxes, instead relying on voluntary payments from the individual states, and didn’t have a Supreme Court, leaving it unable to make court rulings affecting people living in the individual states. This is why I’m not a fan of the Constitution, it centralized power and left the door open so the federal government could perpetually grab more power. Had the writer stopped there she may have been able to claim a point but she continued:

The Constitution continues to be a living, breathing document — the 27 Amendments are proof of this — and should not be considered a means to restrict our present laws based on an 18th-century, musket-toting populace.

LUANNE SPEETER, EDINA

She claims that the Constitution is a living document as attested by the 27 amendments that have been made to it. Notice that she specifically indicated the the document is living because of the amendment process, she didn’t claim that the Constitution was a living document because the interpretation of the statements found within can be change over time. She contradicted herself by saying the amendment process is how you make changes to the Constitution then claimed that the Constitution shouldn’t “be considered a means to restrict our present laws based on an 18th-century, musket-toting populace.” The second of those 27 mentioned amendments specifically protects the rights of gun owners from disarmament. On top of that the Supreme Court, which was granted the ultimate authority to interpret the Constitution, ruled in Heller v. District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment protected the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. You can’t claim that the amendment process is how you change the Constitution and then turn around and ignore one of those amendments.

Gun control advocates can’t help but get caught up in contradictions. Their entire philosophy is contradictory. They claim to oppose violence but demand the state use violence to disarm gun owners and they claim to oppose gun possession but demand that the state be allowed to keep guns.