Gun Control…Is it Constitutional?

Well, there  are two sides to this coin, as there is in any coin. The right to bare arms is stated in the Bill of Rights, that can be granted to any citizen. However, there is also something called the Necessary and Proper Clause and General Welfare clause. It can be argued by evoking those two Constitutional rights of Congress, gun control is legal. People are getting shot, and general welfare needs to be protected. This is necessary and proper, and basically, it needs to be used for the government to carry out their duties to protect the welfare of the people, in this case, having gun control. Now, here’s the thing. It’s actually a right. That makes this case slightly unique… the founding fathers meant for us to have this right, right?

Yeah, well the Founding Fathers also didn’t mean for our children and our people to get shot. And the founding fathers didn’t exactly mean for slavery to be abolished (3/5ths Compromise?) But it happened. That part of the Constitution was amended. The Bill of Rights is also a part of the Constitution. Technically, it should also be amendable.  Besides, the time of the Founding Fathers has passed. The world has changed, and so have the people of America. The world is getting dangerous everyday.

If not gun control, then maybe make it a privilege, like being able to drive. That shouldn’t be a problem, right? (Pun intended).

So, you know what, it’s Constitutional. There are more and more shootings as the years go by. (Don’t bring up knives, mate. Sure, they they kill people… but we kind of need them. To you know, cook. By that logic, anything can be a weapon…) General Welfare clause gives the government the power to do so.

But this is CONGRESS we’re taking about!

When was the last time they did something decent?

Agree with me? Disagree with me? Let me know below.


18 thoughts on “Gun Control…Is it Constitutional?

  1. Reblogged this on HarsH ReaLiTy and commented:
    I am strongly for gun rights, but I agree that there should be “regulation” of some sort. Where the lines need to be drawn is the issue. You also have veterans having their rights removed just because they were soldiers protecting this country. That isn’t right, to write off someone’s rights as a citizen because this nation views them as a potential threat? I hope that any laws made in the future are made by rational minds. That may be a lot to hope for. People need to realize that gun rights are important to many of us because we view the government as “suspect” and some feel the forefathers always wanted the possible spirit of revolution against oppression “available.” A good post and I hope you don’t mind the reblog. -OM
    Note: Comments disabled here, please comment on their post.


  2. great post . imho the question is not whether it is constitutional or not, it’s is the constitution fit for eternity logic suggests the answer is no and if we agree to that we should revise the amendments and Ratifications to see when was the last REAL rectification that was in the favor for the people and not the gov.


  3. A lot of scope here for rational debate. Well done for providing that. I see both sides of the argument so much, I’m not sure what side I’m on. As an ex marine, I learned to respect guns, I still do. But I see the other side. I have recently written a book where a 13 year old boy gets and uzi and a 9mm pistol and shoots up his school and the fact is that it has actually happened.


  4. Careful, for you are going down a slippery slope with your concept. If you can remove the 1st amendment right to bear arms, then you can remove any protected right. Slavery can be restored. Women’s right to vote can be repealed. Freedom of speech and assembly can be eliminated. The Bill of Rights was created for a purpose – to LIMIT the power of the government (Congress and the President) over the people.

    Then, again, abortion has removed the right to life, so maybe it has already begun.


    1. Actually, it’s the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms, keep being the part of it in question in this post. Also, it’s women’s privilege to vote, not right. Nobody has the right to vote and there is no part of the US Code that contradicts that. The closest we come are laws the forbid disenfranchisement based upon specific criteria. Finally, slavery was never actually outlawed; it was only limited to the State.


  5. Is not the proliferation of gun-crime in America proof that maybe the laws need changing somewhat, I’m English and yes we do have violent crime happening here on a daily basis, but I believe it would increase ten fold if firearms were made legal over here. Just a thought from an outsider.


      1. Here is a problem, not “the Problem” but a problem. With your gun control how do you intend to control the guns already in the hands of criminals and gang members? I live in a neighborhood that is seeing a rise in crime as well as acts of violence, should I not be allowed to protect my family and my home from intruders? What if I hunt to put food on my table? The time of the founding fathers has perhaps passed and what we Americans face now is in many ways a much harsher reality. (Not a plug for OM) I also live in a rural area and sometimes it takes a Sheriff close to and sometimes more than an hour depending on the season to reach my home, does this mean you are in favor of disarming me? Would that not actually place me and my family in more danger? I am for stricter background checks, no guns to those diagnosed with mental disorders, no guns to felons and no guns to chronic drug addicts or alcoholics. Gang Affiliation =no gun. You see I am somewhat flexible but only as far as common sense goes. What disturbs me is when somebody who does not know me, my situation, anything about me decides they should play a role in the erosion of my rights as a US Citizen. If someone is for gun control then perhaps it is their choice to own or not own a gun. But if you pay attention the big wigs wanting gun control often have armed body guards themselves. the whole gun control thing is somewhat if not completely hypocritical. You have a right not to own a gun and I have a right to own one. I am not trying to diminish your rights, please do not try to diminish mine.Guns are a tool nothing more in the hands of good people they have fed the hungry, liberated the oppressed, saved lives etc. Yes in the hands of the wrong people they have been party to senseless tragedy but the common denominator here is the hand that guides the tool. Human beings and gun control is not going to remove guns from those unwilling to surrender them. So what does that leave us with? Think about it.


      2. Quite good I have a friend in the UK and he recently moved a niece in with him as she was living in an area with a fair amount of gun activity. Banning guns is not an answer. where there is a will there is a way.


      3. I agree with you, we do need BG checks, but let’s be honest, unless you actually hunt, there’s no need for a hunting rifle. You’ll do fine with a handgun. Besides, it should really be a privilege to own a gun, not a right. Some people don’t deserve guns.


  6. I completely agree that there should be SOME regulation.. I agree with VIOLENT offenders losing their gun rights, but in some cases I don’t agree with felons automatically losing their privelages, I do have specifics in mind, but won’t clog up your comment area with them. I agree with the waiting period on buying guns of any kind and I agree somewhat with the idea of a “mental health screening” before the purchase of a firearm. I don’t know if that’s actually in place anywhere, but I’ve heard some talk of it. I can’t own a gun, therefor I can’t teach my children to shoot responsibly, just because my husband is a non-violent felon, his charge was actually something he didn’t even know was a felony and had nothing to do with weapons of any kind. I just think some of the control laws are ridiculous and obviously not doing anything to keep them out of the hands of the criminals who use them for harm.


      1. Ok, like in my husband’s case. He went to a friend’s house to recover a food dehydrator they had borrowed.. The police showed up, talk about bad timing. My husband and my brother were still in the car, he did have marijuana on him, small amount. He tried to eat the joint, thinking he really didn’t want to go to jail. That, my friend’s, is tampering with physical evidence, a felony! I know a lot of people will say he shouldn’t have been doing something wrong in the first place, ok.. I can see that point, but to lose all voting and firearm rights? Really? To be honest, he doesn’t even care about guns, I like them more than he does, it’s just the principle behind it. He is a very non-violent person and there are many non-violent offenses that I don’t believe warrant the loss of constitutional rights. I say if it’s not a violent crime, then put it under a review of some sort. I am not just saying I don’t care what a person does, don’t take their guns, but I think it should be part of their sentence, on an individual basis. I realize this opens things up for discrimination and I believe there should be certain rules in place that help determine this, but I’m not qualified to come up with the logistics of it, I just don’t think it’s right to take these rights in the blanket manner it’s done today..
        What do I consider a violent crime? Of course, crimes committed with weapons, rape and the obvious like that. I don’t automatically put drug crimes in that category, esp. drugs that are legal in some states..


Rant Out with anger, or give us praise

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